(07-09-2018 02:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  The markets are not as free as possible. We are being taken advantage of. I am fine with 0 tariffs across the board with similarly situated countries like England, France, and Germany if they are willing to go that route. I am not fine with low skilled Americans on the unemployment line and welfare roles so that China can engage in human trafficking and near slave labor so your swim trunks at Walmart cost you $15 instead of $20.

If you want to punish China, punish them. I don't favor tariffs but for a focused purpose I wouldn't hate it. Why are we punishing Canada?

Re unemployment - tariffs on steel protect an industry that employs roughly 150K people, while there are more than an order of magnitude more employed in industries that use steel. This is a wrong-sided argument.

Thats my take, too. The US and China are not equally yoked in terms of wages, benefits and regulation. The US and the EU and Canada are.

I can see playing hardball with China. I don’t see it with Canada or Europe.

[/quote]

How does New Balance do it? They are made here, cost competitive, and of higher quality than Nikes. The difference is that New Balance doesn't have $100M to give LeBron James to wear their shoes. Let's call a spade a spade. Companies like Nike are literally skirting our labor laws and most of our regulations. I don't blame them for legally taking advantage of this paradigm, I am arguing that the paradigm needs to change.
[/quote]

Wow I had no idea, interesting.

If this is a trade war, give me more trade war.

THE BULLS ARE BACK IN TOWN

(07-09-2018 03:20 PM)Kronke Wrote:  If this is a trade war, give me more trade war.

THE BULLS ARE BACK IN TOWN

Dammit, I thought I heard Thin Lizzy....

(07-09-2018 03:07 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Thats my take, too. The US and China are not equally yoked in terms of wages, benefits and regulation. The US and the EU and Canada are.
I can see playing hardball with China. I don’t see it with Canada or Europe.

On the flip side, we can't compete with China for what China does--cheap products with cheap labor. We can, and should, be competing with Canada and Europe.

I'd still go with a consumption tax rather than tariffs. If we have reciprocal zero tariffs with Europe, they still get to hit everything we send over with a 20%+ tax upon landing, and everything they send here has a 10-12%, or maybe up to 15%, rebate on shipment. Basically, a consumption tax shifts the burden of taxes from income to spending. So the income taxes that are embedded in the cost to produce goods here are instead loaded onto the sales price. So that 20% we pay when we land goods there goes to offset their domestic income taxes--corporate and individual. Based on current numbers, a 20% VAT would generate about a net $100-150 billion in revenues from stuff we currently don't tax. That's a pretty big number.

It's kind of like the practice of hotel taxes to pay for stadium construction. We get a nice new play palace, and people from out of town get to pay for it. Why not get as much tax revenue as we can from other countries?

(07-09-2018 02:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 01:43 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 10:46 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 10:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Consider it chimed in.... Sorry but it is basic econ 101 that tariffs (and other externalities) blow rocks for efficiencies.

In the long run it is far better to have a 12 dollar a day person make steel than a 20 dollar an hour person. The growth that is fueled by that delta is enormous.

For once I agree with Mensa-man. Amazingly.

You are correct with Basic Econ 101. The problem is Basic Econ 101 assumes a perfect market. The world does not operate in a perfect market. For example:

1. Everyone else is imposing tariffs on us, both directly and indirectly (VATs).
2. Labor laws are extremely variable. Other countries are allowed to operate paying employees a dollar a day to crank out products in horrendous work conditions.
3. Regulations are extremely variable. US companies have to go through simultaneous anal probe of reporting, pushing paper, audit, and bureaucratic "mother may I" while conducting business.
4. Taxes are variable.
5. Subsidies are variable.
6. Enforcement is variable.

All of the above from the top of my head, plus more, would have to be equal to operate in a perfect market. It is called "Basic Econ 101" for a reason. The real world ain't that simple.

And yet you absolutely overlook the issue of local or comparative advantage (which is arguably the biggest driver by far, especially for fungible low skill manufactured and assembled goods).

The 'local advantage' of the Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. is providing a relatively low-skill, low wage workforce. That by far is the biggest dog in the room, yet you seemingly overlook it.

Your point #2 alludes to it, but in highly charged terms, mind you -- lolz.

Man, I will take as much 8 dollar a day workforce steel as I can choke on -- and thank China for the massive boost and subsidy in our ability to expand.

The problem is that some think that the US can be competitive in fungible, low skill products. We cant. We still have wet dreams about the equivalent of the 27 dollar an hour steel mill worker, but the long and short is that our comparative advantage is in no way, shape, or form doing that mid-century thing.

I agree with you on being equal in terms of actual import tariffs. Not so much on VAT. Fundamentally disagree with you on shortchanging the concept of comparative advantage, tbh.

Funny thing is that your point #2 is couched in terms and sounds a lot like most liberals/progressives on the issue; which I know for a fact that you are not. A comparative advantage in low skill manufacturing and assembly is -- simply that. China, Mexico, Philipines, Malaysia, and Vietnam have that in droves --- and to be honest I thank them immensely for their subsidy to the United States for that.

We cannot compete in wage rates alone, but we can compete in wage rates plus a wage equalizing tariff to account for the cost of regulation plus cost to ship raw materials to China plus cost to ship the end product back. Yeah, $27/hour isn't realistic (and ridiculous union demands were a big part of the problem as well), but maybe we could compete at $15/hour instead of forcing McDonalds to pay people $15/hour slinging burgers so they can get back to hiring teenagers at $7/hour.

Quote:Why do we need a 'wage equalizing tariff' in the first place?

To account for compliance costs.

Quote:Again, you completely either overlook the concept of comparative advantage or simply wish to legislate it away.

No, I am not overlooking comparative advantage. If it costs 25% of an hourly rate to comply with our laws and regulations and China still comes in able to hire lower once that tariff is enacted, they still have the comparative advantage. I am only suggesting leveling the playing field.

Quote:Perhaps, since we are all onboard (that is you, of course) with 'wage equalizing tariffs', lets just slap all sorts of internal tariffs on all the harbors to make sure the fishermen in El Paso can compete on an equal footing. This is literally what you are arguing for, so why not just go all in here?

I'm not familiar with that industry.

Quote:No offense, but let the markets be as free as possible. Otherwise you are no better than the statist progressives I see here chastized so much.

The markets are not as free as possible. We are being taken advantage of. I am fine with 0 tariffs across the board with similarly situated countries like England, France, and Germany if they are willing to go that route. I am not fine with low skilled Americans on the unemployment line and welfare roles so that China can engage in human trafficking and near slave labor so your swim trunks at Walmart cost you $15 instead of $20. I really don't care if you think I am a liberal for that.

Quote:Again, no problems with an equal footing 'tariff-wise'. But no offense, you are spitting in the wind when are trying to 'tariff' your way out of a natural comparative disadvantage. And that is precisely what you are seemingly advocating.

You should look up the word "natural". A natural comparative advantage... Alaska and the Pacific Northwest has salmon, octopus, and king crabs that cannot be produced in China. That is a natural comparative advantage. The Chinese government allowing industry employeed to work for nothing while living in a rundown 10x10 room onsite is not a natural comparative advantage.

You should understand the economic implications of 'comparative advantage'. It is *not* limited to natural resource extraction etc.

Having a fing huge population with a huge impetus to move forward tends to drive down costs in a massively dramatic fashion; especially when you take into account COL issues.

In every economic sense, El Paso county has a massive comparative advantage for garment manufacturing; large, poor, unskilled population base. No one disputes that 'comparative advantage' nor gets pissed off about it.

Toss that same climate and ascribe it to the Chinese, Vietnamese examples and watch all the pin heads explode about it.

China's population and relative poverty are a massive comparative advantage. I guess we should also ignore econ 101 about supply and demand in the labor markets as well for you to make your case.

Again, the term 'comparative advantage' means a local skewing of *any* supply demand curve that yields local efficiencies -- whether that supply/demand curve be anchovies, cactus, iron ore deposits, or labor. But I guess for your analysis labor should be excluded from such basic econ 101 priciples and definitions of comparative advantage.

Funny how most of arguments start off 'yes econ 101 tells us that -- but its wrong....'

So in EverRespect-world, what other basic economic principles should we ignore or redefine?