tariffs are what we need to get our industry restarted.
Tariffs are what we need to get our industry restarted.
Do you think that trading partner will sit idly by while all of a sudden they cannot sell steel in the U.S. anymore?
In other words,
Do you think that trading partner will sit idly by while they are forced to compete?
Its not they will not be able to sell steel or any other products for that matter, they will just have to compete in a balanced market.
Tariffs help drive competition, which in turn help drive the market.
Correction. Do you think that trading partner will sit idly by while they are forced to compete against an artificially and arbitrarily high standard?
Having to pay workers a liveable wage is an artificially and arbitrarily high standard?
I dont guess you are a manager at wal-mart are you?
I don't get your point.
Japan can make better cars for less money. Rather than buy their cheaper better product, we artificially raise their prices for consumers by taxing them so that domestic car manufacturers, who cannot make products that good for prices that good, can continue making poorer products for higher prices. Japan's car industry suffers. Our consumers suffer.
You are trying to compare a Japanese quality product, to a make in china junk.
If Japan can build a quality product, and not exploit cheap labor, then more power to them.
The problem is when companies close the factories, then ship those jobs overseas to exploit cheap labor. I see nothing wrong with a made in Japan product, as long as the workers are not being exploited, like what people are in china.
But on the other hand, I do see an issue with companies like foxconn that pay their workers sub-par wages, then the resellers want to charge an fortune for cheaply manufactured products.
If companies like apple can make hundreds of millions in profit, then some of that money should go to US workers.
When companies close a US factory, ship the manufacturing overseas, and then charge the same price for the product, I see a problem with that. If a company is going to charge the same price for a product, regardless of where its made, that product needs to be manufactured in the country where it is sold. Ipads made in china should be sold in china, ipads made in the USA should be sold in the USA,,, and so on.
We don't have completely free trade but neither do we have a good mechanism to keep jobs here. Short of dropping the wages of Americans to Asian standards what effective and politically viable alternatives do you suggest. Becoming King doesn't count.
Which do you buy?
Probably neither since I have no longer feel the need to purchase new. The value of the vehicle which would involve many factors would come in to play. If you insist on this specific scenario and I must buy one I'd probably choose the latter because if the $5k really makes that much difference I most likely haven't much choice.
Now you have two vehicles which are identical. One is $20,000 and the other almost the same price. Are any other factors up for consideration at that point? As far as Japanese cars go much of what is produced for our market is make here. The costs of similar vehicles isn't a large difference but at times there is a premium on the Japanese vehicle due to a real or perceived difference in dependability.
Now if I find a domestically made product that costs somewhat more than something made in China? I'm going with the former. I see no reason to support a hostile economy while further weakening ours.
Did I argue that everything that is produced overseas ought to be priced out of competition? No. Am I for some creative and considered means to bring back industry to the US without turning us into peasants? Yes.
If you have any I'll other solutions I'll consider any reasonable and workable alternatives.
Okay we'll make it simpler.
You need a saltshaker. One is $3 and the other $1.75. Which do you buy?
You have to distinguish between free trade with developed democracies and free trade with third world dictatorships. Trade with Canada or Germany doesn't hurt the US. Trade with countries with no labor standards, etc definitely hurts us.
Hard to compete with $0.31/hour wages.
If the Republicans could nix the minimum wage then we will get there soon.
Okay we'll make it simpler.
You need a saltshaker. One is $3 and the other $1.75. Which do you buy?
Dang it, it appears I lost my post.
The short answer is I would by the American one if I knew which that were. I have a fair amount of money tied up in tools and if I can find the quality I like in an item that's domestically produced I'll go with that. That does not mean that refuse to buy a product if it is has a quality I seek if it's made abroad. I have a "supersteel" knife made from ZDP-189 next to me. That is a proprietary metal for which there is (or was not at the time) no US equivalent. It's a Hitachi formulation.
Note that I am not supporting rising the cost of everything brought into this country in a shotgun manner. This requires the kind of thought Obamacare should have had. We ought to look into the situation and implement what is reasonable and proper with proper meaning Constitutional in an obvious sense.
You have not addressed my larger concern about the economy. Should we remain passive to economic predation because we feel we need to select ourselves out by a Darwinistic process because that's what we deserve? Even a sea star moves when threatened. Should we bow out of participation in our society because we aren't worthy?
If you have what you think you have practical, workable alternatives then I'm game to hear them. I'm not so enamored of letting things get worse if they can be helped.
To address your bolded question.
Of course we shouldn't remain passive. But is the answer to get government to impose restrictions on what we can and cannot buy in the interest of propping up domestic jobs in the face of inevitable long term collapse? The answer lies in accepting the fact that we can't compete in some areas, and focusing on areas where we can. That's the entire idea behind comparative advantage.
When people argue for protection, it reminds me of the outrage from the music companies about music downloads. Sure, they were free to fight, but how could they possibly miss the glaringly obvious fact that this battle was already lost? The only way to truly stop music downloads would've been to effectively set back the whole of the last 50 years of advancement in computing. Their best course of action was to cut their losses, and reallocate their business models. And every second spent doing anything but that was a second spent hastening their demise.
How many bank tellers lost their jobs because of the advent of ATMs? Should we have protected them at the expense of depriving the consumer of a vastly more efficient and convenient means of banking?
In principle I'd like us to simply outcompete, however how likely is that to happen? How many things can we do that no one cannot copy and do cheaper? Creation is always harder than imitation. Should we encourage innovation? Certainly, however no one strategy is the sole solution. I feel that some financial incentive for other industries should exist but how is that best executed? Indeed do we have a comprehensive idea of what our options are? Remember I'm hardly a supporter of ill considered legislation which as you know I believe such things as Obamacare to be. Solutions cannot simply be a handout nor should we create a situation where commerce abandons us because it's more profitable to do so unimpeded. There needs to be a balance between economic freedom and the long term sustainability of jobs.
Call me when that happens. No, get back to me when there's even a serious attempt.
I think that financial incentives for industries should be very limited, but they should exist; tax breaks comes to mind.
I don't profess to know all the answers to your questions. I simply know what isn't the answer.
Dude, you're a smart guy, at least as smart as me. Go watch Free to Choose on Youtube. You don't have to watch all 10 parts, just watch the first two. It makes too much sense to ignore.
Part 2 is the segment which most directly pertains to this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJWLt1TmAy4
Correction. Do you think that trading partner will sit idly by while they are forced to compete against an artificially and arbitrarily high standard? What do you suppose is easier: Cultivating your industries to compete against artificially high standards, or simply slapping your opponent with a tariff in response, which ends up damaging your opponent's industries?
What good does it do to raise domestic companies to compete against artificially low competition? When the time comes to remove the tariff, domestic industry will be shattered because they've been raised on crutches when in the real world the competition is doing sprints.
What tariffs do is drive up prices. The consumer loses, then the producer loses, and then the worker loses.
Lets just close off the world and make EVERYTHING in the US. It will supply much needed jobs and we can be self sustaining. Any extra we can export out to the rest of the world.
/sarcasm with a bit of truth sprinkled on top