Monday, March 6, 2017

What Defenders of Tariffs Do Not Understand



Gary North is absolutely correct on this:
Defenders of tariffs basically do not understand economics. They really are economic ignoramuses. They do not understand economic cause-and-effect. They do not understand the fact that consumers are being hurt by the tariffs. They call for these discriminatory taxes, and they do it in the name of liberty. They do it in the name of fairness. Yet discriminatory taxation is inherently unfair...
Unless you want to stand strong alongside John Maynard Keynes, I suggest that you abandon the idea that tariffs are a benefit to the United States or any other country, and that they really do protect most Americans. Tariffs protect inefficient Americans who do not produce goods that meet the demands of American consumers. This is why these people call on the federal government to protect them -- not against foreign exporters, but rather against Americans who want to do business with foreign exporters. They find it politically advantageous to blame foreign exporters, and they find it advantageous to remain silent about stealing from their fellow Americans who would like to purchase goods from foreign exporters.
North's entire analysis is worth reading: here.

9 comments:

  1. Gary North is clearly a globalist in league with the other globalists who want to see our precious bodily culture contaminated with cheap Chinese electronics and greasy tacos. We need the wall!

    Or something or other. It's hard to keep up with Trumpista tropes these days.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not speaking for VFP but personally (and I personally am An-Cap), doesn't a tax at the borders slightly serve our interests better than internal ones? Essentially, Mr. Wenzel, as long as government exists, wouldn't you prefer to eliminate income taxes and the only tax to remain by Feds be tariffs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VFPI,

      Rothbard wrote a lot about this and I agree with him. It's better to focus on eliminating/rolling back existing tax schemes than it is to think up new "less bad" ones to implement/ratchet up. It stands to reason that the state can ultimately get away with more predation when it can spread it across a larger number of wealth-extraction points. And the promise that new taxes will replace old seems hollow. The American public has already demonstrated that it will psychologically tolerate the current level of income taxation, so why should I trust that future politicians won't capitalize on this and raise the it back to current levels?

      Delete
    2. Thank you, and I agree. I was suggesting eliminating income tax and Feds rely on existing tariffs, which I understand are very low--with hope they'd also go to zero. I'm sure civic-minded 'muricans would voluntarily send money to D.C. so it can continue benevolently showering the world with Pax Americana.

      Delete
    3. Re: Veterans for Peace Indianapolis,

      ─ Not speaking for VFP but personally (and I personally am An-Cap), doesn't a tax at the borders slightly serve our interests better than internal ones? ─

      Depends on your definition of "us". A border tax is very regressive, considering that poor people are more reliant on imports than rich people.

      Delete
    4. Ron Paul proposed eliminating all income tax because the other taxes would quickly make up for the shortfall with increased business activity and less bureaucracy.

      Delete
    5. Mr. Torres: "us" being liberty lovers, An-Caps, etc.

      Delete
  3. They want to vilify us ignoramuses but dont ever want to discuss the landscape of the world spanning monopolistic oligarchy where business employs slave labors where ever it can to make the products that are priced for high profit that can't be bought in the third world hells that make it.

    Does the US make it hard to run a business without excessive regulation ... yes
    but lets see what happens when the monopolies have to genuinely compete for consumer dollars as capitalism swears it does now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So your answer is to have the state (our local oligarchs) unilaterally decide which producers are ethically competing and which ones are not? Yeah...sure...and how good is our govt's track record on ethics? In reality that solution is just going to empower your local oligarchs more at everyone's expense.

      How about this: people need to pay the FULL price of their decisions and try to understand what they are buying. If you don't want to support "slaves" in "hell" then don't. What's the problem here?

      So many people are so squeezed economically here at home already that these cheap imports are their perceived best option. And you want to add MORE regulation and taxation to this mess?

      Delete