Of the methods of raising funding for governments, between taxes, tariffs, and currency debasement, tariffs seem to be the least disruptive so long as you have some level of domestic production of that product. Free trade advocates claim that free trade reduce the cost of goods by importing from places with cheaper labor costs, but it also puts downward pressure on wages as local workers are now competing against foreign workers. You might think that this balances out, but there is one thing that cannot under any circumstance be imported... land and real estate. This creates a situation like we are currently in where wages are to low for home ownership. Additionally - I am not so convinced that free trade always results in cheaper prices for the consumer. From my own anecdotal experience it seems that the prices on goods once moved abroad to be manufactured stay the same. Companies will continue to charge whatever the consumer is willing to pay for their product regardless of the underlying cost to produce that product. My own company I work for has a plant in MX, and a plant in US. Both charge about the same amount for the same products, but MX workers are paid 1/3rd the amount of our U.S. employees. The trade deficits are just as inflationary as government deficits. If you have more money leaving the country than is coming in, the only way to make that sustainable is to debase the currency. That robs everyone in the country of their wealth and savings.
This talk ignores what I see as the two best argument in favor of Tariffs. First: given that the state exists Tariffs and Georgian taxes are the least disruptive to the general well-being. Second: Internal regulatory barriers and foreign subsidies the US is engaged in like the Navy surprising piracy or Foreign aid as well as the enforcement overreach and spying by things like the IRS and the like. So in practice the real question is would shifting towards Tariffs either reduce economic disruption per unit government revenue & inflation or will it reduce government spending As an incremental move Tariffs seem to me to be better than what we have.
In the hypocritical you are responding to that would mean you just killed everyone. You also ignore where it is revealed this is a joke used to demonstrate the problem with absolutist arguments and next 20 minutes where the speakers argues why we should be skeptical of trariffs.
@@magnos1560history shows every rich country developed using protectionism, tariffs and industrial policy. Japan and South Korea both developed under heavy government control (Industrial Policy) , or state led capitalism, not the “invisible hand“. The government actually built steel mills, chemical plants , armaments factories and heavy manufacturing businesses like shipyards and auto plants. These businesses were subsidized, funded, and sheltered by government action, NOT the free market. They were only exposed to foreign competition slowly as they matured. This destroys the free trade/free market, libertarian argument that only the private sector can grow the economy and not the government. USA, England, Germany and china today are using the time tested model of state led capitalism
Thank God the Founding Fathers rejected Adam smith’s free trade ideology and embraced protectionism and industrial policy. South Korea, Japan, Germany and England all developed using tariffs/protectionism.
He fails to explain that consumers can afford to pay a bit more for steel if we have jobs. If there’s no jobs left in manufacturing then there’s too many unemployed Americans who have no money to spend at all.
people are not born into a cast system, like "this baby is a steel worker" and "this baby is a teacher" and what not. if one loses a job, one gets a different one. this might not be enjoyable for the person involved, maybe even his family finds it difficult, but would that excuse hurting every other family in the country, just so this guy can keep his inefficient job? what about technology, should we not modernize because some jobs will be lost to machines? although that creates new jobs taking care of the machines and training in using ect- the economy is not static. there will be changes, this is not a bad thing. back in the day, people who had good penmanship had jobs that they no longer have because we got machines that we could typ on ect. should we have keep those jobs? or do we assume that they would go on to get different jobs, because that job was no longer needed. this is how it is. we dont scrafice the nations use of typing devises to save the penmanship jobs
So clear and concise. Thank you!
Of the methods of raising funding for governments, between taxes, tariffs, and currency debasement, tariffs seem to be the least disruptive so long as you have some level of domestic production of that product. Free trade advocates claim that free trade reduce the cost of goods by importing from places with cheaper labor costs, but it also puts downward pressure on wages as local workers are now competing against foreign workers.
You might think that this balances out, but there is one thing that cannot under any circumstance be imported... land and real estate. This creates a situation like we are currently in where wages are to low for home ownership.
Additionally - I am not so convinced that free trade always results in cheaper prices for the consumer. From my own anecdotal experience it seems that the prices on goods once moved abroad to be manufactured stay the same. Companies will continue to charge whatever the consumer is willing to pay for their product regardless of the underlying cost to produce that product. My own company I work for has a plant in MX, and a plant in US. Both charge about the same amount for the same products, but MX workers are paid 1/3rd the amount of our U.S. employees.
The trade deficits are just as inflationary as government deficits. If you have more money leaving the country than is coming in, the only way to make that sustainable is to debase the currency. That robs everyone in the country of their wealth and savings.
This talk ignores what I see as the two best argument in favor of Tariffs.
First: given that the state exists Tariffs and Georgian taxes are the least disruptive to the general well-being.
Second: Internal regulatory barriers and foreign subsidies the US is engaged in like the Navy surprising piracy or Foreign aid as well as the enforcement overreach and spying by things like the IRS and the like.
So in practice the real question is would shifting towards Tariffs either reduce economic disruption per unit government revenue & inflation or will it reduce government spending
As an incremental move Tariffs seem to me to be better than what we have.
I disagree with that statement. Tariffs and import quotas are ALWAYS harmful.
In the hypocritical you are responding to that would mean you just killed everyone.
You also ignore where it is revealed this is a joke used to demonstrate the problem with absolutist arguments and next 20 minutes where the speakers argues why we should be skeptical of trariffs.
@@woodchuck003in the hypothetical, they'd just be less harmful than the alternative.
Do u know History sir? Evidently u dont.
@@magnos1560history shows every rich country developed using protectionism, tariffs and industrial policy.
Japan and South Korea
both developed under heavy government control (Industrial Policy) , or state led capitalism, not the “invisible hand“.
The government actually built steel mills, chemical plants , armaments factories and heavy manufacturing businesses like shipyards and auto plants. These businesses were subsidized, funded, and sheltered by government action, NOT the free market. They were only exposed to foreign competition slowly as they matured. This destroys the free trade/free market, libertarian argument that only the private sector can grow the economy and not the government.
USA, England, Germany and china today are using the time tested model of state led capitalism
Thank God the Founding Fathers rejected Adam smith’s
free trade ideology and embraced protectionism and industrial policy. South Korea, Japan, Germany and England all developed using tariffs/protectionism.
He fails to explain that consumers can afford to pay a bit more for steel if we have jobs. If there’s no jobs left in manufacturing then there’s too many unemployed Americans who have no money to spend at all.
people are not born into a cast system, like "this baby is a steel worker" and "this baby is a teacher" and what not. if one loses a job, one gets a different one. this might not be enjoyable for the person involved, maybe even his family finds it difficult, but would that excuse hurting every other family in the country, just so this guy can keep his inefficient job? what about technology, should we not modernize because some jobs will be lost to machines? although that creates new jobs taking care of the machines and training in using ect- the economy is not static. there will be changes, this is not a bad thing. back in the day, people who had good penmanship had jobs that they no longer have because we got machines that we could typ on ect. should we have keep those jobs? or do we assume that they would go on to get different jobs, because that job was no longer needed. this is how it is. we dont scrafice the nations use of typing devises to save the penmanship jobs
First!
Free trade is the best way forward. Protectionism is for slimy gangsters.