New higher Tariffs from trade talks - Page 73
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 73 of 95 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583 ... LastLast
Results 1,441 to 1,460 of 1896
  1. #1441
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1928
    Likes (Received)
    2130

  2. #1442
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    14,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Argentina - Import Tariffs | export.gov

    Argentina has high import tariffs.
    Maybe one of our members that has more extensive information on the day-to-day
    effects down there, can comment.

  3. #1443
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee,WI
    Posts
    1,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6885
    Likes (Received)
    996

    Default

    There is a lot of uncertainty between the effects of tariffs and the result of the 2020 election.

  4. #1444
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,091
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    Argentina - Import Tariffs | export.gov

    Argentina has high import tariffs.
    Maybe one of our members that has more extensive information on the day-to-day
    effects down there, can comment.
    How could one possibly tell the difference? How to explain if you've never been?

    I'll try. Buenos Aires has 8,000 four-way intersections with at least two-story buildings blocking view of oncoming traffic. Counting only the ones with neither traffic light nor stop sign.

    Right of way goes to whomever first enters the intersection.

    The populace are predominantly of Italian ethnicity, they only SPEAK Spanish, think they are Germans, militarily, and English governmentally. Wrong on all counts, of course. They REaLLY channel a former Argentine TAXI driver and consummate survivor. of a broken neck, even. One Juan Manuel Fangio. And badly. Very.

    If your overcrowded motorbus is sluggish because the motor was worn out 200,000 miles ago? A loud horn helps in the four-way race to each of those intersections.

    They run their economy much the same way.

  5. #1445
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,754
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3158
    Likes (Received)
    3581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    Argentina - Import Tariffs | export.gov

    Argentina has high import tariffs.
    Maybe one of our members that has more extensive information on the day-to-day
    effects down there, can comment.
    Being there doesn't help much as it doesn't tell you how it would be without the tariffs, but the effect is I think well understood. Argentina has a long history of economic messes and poor governments. I was there in 2004 and unemployment was in the high teens and people would use hammers on the steel shuttered windows of banks - created a hell of a racket. Foreign debt default, seized bank deposits and a currency devaluation - but hey, they had stopped throwing dissenters (or rather descenders) out of airplanes). Economic triage was required - with extremely high unemployment making foreign goods really expensive puts people back to work, but lowers the standard of living for the country (Everything people buy is now more expensive).

    Its not really comparable as in the US as you currently have virtually full employment. Tariffs just increase the tax burden, lower standards of living and enrich those owners in the protected industries.....all the costs of a tariff without any benefit (you don't need employment)
    Last edited by Mcgyver; 08-14-2019 at 03:24 PM.

  6. Likes digger doug liked this post
  7. #1446
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    14,547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    IIRC member "Ries" escapes from the snow there.....

  8. #1447
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,091
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    IIRC member "Ries" escapes from the snow there.....
    One can do. I like San Telmo, actually.

    Or not. ig country. More to it than BA:

    The 5 Best Ski Resorts in Argentina - UPDATED 2019/20 - SnowPak

    I recall asking a good friend and fellow Virginian - State Trooper at the time - why we saw so many wines from Chile, and did not Argentina make wine?

    Smirk ensued, but no answer.

    Next day, his Dad's limo from the Embassy arrived at the house, uniformed driver drops off half a case of wine. Not the Mendoza I have here so often now.

    His OWN vinyards. Orfila.

    Before Alejandro retired to California.... and did the vinyards thing all over again.

  9. #1448
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    51
    Likes (Received)
    48

    Default

    What's shocked me since 2016 is just how liberally slanted most of the media is. Look at the very first sentence in this article...

    "History hasn’t exactly put the “Laffer Curve” on a pedestal, but Donald Trump nonetheless bestowed the nation’s highest civilian honor on its namesake on Wednesday..."

    Bloomberg. Not CNN or MSNBC or Washington Post....Bloomberg. A financial industry news source. This isn't the first time I've seen it from them before, either. I trust the media now about as much as I trust gas station sushi.

    Whether Laffer's ideas have panned out or not is not reason to start off an article like that. The fact remains that everyone studies Laffer and knows who he is in economics. If we were to take every economist that gets things massively wrong (like Summers or Krugman), then everybody would need to be slandered like this. Yet they aren't. They take the anti-Trump thing wayyyy too far.

  10. #1449
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    51
    Likes (Received)
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    Tariffs just increase the tax burden, lower standards of living and enrich those owners in the protected industries.....all the costs of a tariff without any benefit (you don't need employment)
    If this is the case, then why does virtually no one have zero tariffs? Only Hong Kong and Singapore and maybe one or two others. The EU has tariffs, Japan, Korea, India, China, the US....all have tariffs. Have had them for centuries. If we were all simply for "free trade", then there wouldn't be any negotiations to begin with: everyone would simply drop all their barriers (many of which extend well beyond simply tariffs). It isn't simply about enriching owners as it is protecting industries vital for employment or other reasons. Textiles and agriculture have historically been the protected industries - Japan demanded a carve-out at the WTO to protect textiles back in I think it was the 70s, and we virtually all protect textiles even today to an extent. For agriculture, this stands as a massive example. That industry is highly protected. EU, Japan, and the US all protect that to a large extent.

    And why does no one ever mention the protections the UK, the US, Japan, and China used in their industrialization? We all didn't just become the best by being the best through the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's writing. We protected those industries strategic to development, then subsidized and promoted them. We all did that. Am I saying it was the reason we industrialized? No. But I am suggesting that it is highly unlikely we all would have absent of those protections.

    Say you want to have a globally competitive and strong automotive industry. How can you foster this? If you have no protection and just a little govt help here and there, domestic companies are still being displaced by imports. Companies need time to build up cashflow, invest in R/D, and further develop. Japan stands as as example to this. After WW2, we helped Japan with development in things like the Marshall Plan, and we also had trade negotiations with them to facilitate this. Taken from an article, "In 1955, when the U.S. and Japan were negotiating their first post-occupation trade agreement, the head of the American delegation, C. Thayer White, told the Japanese to cut their tariff on imported cars because, in his words:

    1. The United States industry is the largest and most efficient in the world.

    2. The industry is strongly in favor of expanding the opportunities for world trade.

    3. Its access to foreign markets in recent years has been limited by import controls.

    4. Although the United States Government appreciates that it is necessary for some countries to impose import restrictions for balance of payments reasons...it would be in Japan’s interest to import automobiles from the United States and ex-port items in which Japan could excel.

    Upon Ricardian comparative-advantage principles, White was, of course, 100 percent correct. But the Japanese trade negotiator, Kenichi Otabe, replied that:

    1. If the theory of international trade were pursued to its ultimate conclusion, the United States would specialize in the production of automobiles and Japan in the production of tuna.

    2. Such a division of labor does not take place...because each government encourages and protects those industries which it believes important for reasons of national policy.

    Needless to say, Japan did not choose to become a nation of fishing villages!


    Toyota was heavily subsidized and protected with tariffs and quotas for over a decade. There were also many, many regulations put in place to effectively prohibit imports altogether - this has been written about extensively. It was only once it could compete that they allowed it to compete freely with global industry. I'm not saying that high tariffs are the way to greatness. I'm simply stating that they are part of industrial policy, and the discourse on this now is driven largely by partisan biases rather than intelligent debate about the subject. I highly suggest anyone interested in this topic read this paper written by a Cambridge economist that wrote a book on this. This paper tries to summarize many of the points in the book. It shows how this same attitude played a role in pretty much all the developed nations of today and how they got to where they are.

    http://www.personal.ceu.hu/corliss/C...ee%20Trade.pdf

    The same can be said of immigration - all developed countries protect their labor markets from foreign imports. Ricardo and others specified labor as one of the "factors of production" that they believed should move freely. Yet obviously, no one practices this. Doing so would clearly have many negative effects. We are all being "taxed" through visa quotas and various requirements like wage floors for those being sponsored. We would otherwise have cheaper services/goods. And yet again, many countries impose capital controls - they do not allow money to just move in and out. Many countries also do not allow their currencies to freely float, partly because letting a currency get too strong would impact their ability to export. All consumers in those countries are being effectively taxed for that. Even further still, if the WTO itself and many of the "free traders" actually believed in comparative advantage and all that, there would be no such thing as Special and Differential Treatment or the General System of Preferences at the WTO. They allow weaker countries to protect their markets more heavily than developed countries - put another way, they believe development of these countries will be better with higher protections than lower. My point is, pretty much none of how this is talked about is anywhere near reality. As I've tried to make clear repeatedly before now, I'm not a fan of Trump's so much, nor do I really believe his trade policy is a great thing. However, it is not nearly as cut and dry as it is being said by the overwhelming majority of "experts" or media. Simply calling tariffs bad or taxes fails a common sense test: the majority of the world still operates on protectionism and even in some respects vehemently promotes it.

  11. Likes Trueturning liked this post
  12. #1450
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    2,957
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    212
    Likes (Received)
    2055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    What's shocked me since 2016 is just how liberally slanted most of the media is. Look at the very first sentence in this article...

    "History hasn’t exactly put the “Laffer Curve” on a pedestal, but Donald Trump nonetheless bestowed the nation’s highest civilian honor on its namesake on Wednesday..."

    Bloomberg. Not CNN or MSNBC or Washington Post....Bloomberg. A financial industry news source. This isn't the first time I've seen it from them before, either. I trust the media now about as much as I trust gas station sushi.

    Whether Laffer's ideas have panned out or not is not reason to start off an article like that. The fact remains that everyone studies Laffer and knows who he is in economics. If we were to take every economist that gets things massively wrong (like Summers or Krugman), then everybody would need to be slandered like this. Yet they aren't. They take the anti-Trump thing wayyyy too far.
    The fact that other economists are wrong is irrelevant

    They didn't get the nations highest civilian honor

    The article started out this way because trump is an idiot, and bestows honors on the unworthy


    so it is precisely that a financial industry source should tell you that the president is a fool

    he proves it every single day, and it is not liberal bias to report his repeated stupidity

  13. Likes PeteM, Greg White liked this post
  14. #1451
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1928
    Likes (Received)
    2130

    Default

    Here’s the thing.
    Laffer is not an exception due to getting it wrong on occasion.
    He stands out because his ideal is applied when it is KNOWN to be in error by those using it.
    He must know he’s wrong as well by now.
    He got a medal for courage under fire of plain facts.
    He has carried on in spite of horrendous rain of hard evidence.
    Good lad-!
    I would say he’s more mascot than en economist..
    Last edited by Trboatworks; 08-14-2019 at 06:48 PM.

  15. Likes Mark Rand liked this post
  16. #1452
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,754
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3158
    Likes (Received)
    3581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    If this is the case, then why does virtually no one have zero tariffs? Only Hong Kong and Singapore and maybe one or two others. The EU has tariffs, Japan, Korea, India, China, the US....all have tariffs. Have had them for centuries. If we were all simply for "free trade", then there wouldn't be any negotiations to begin with: everyone would simply drop all their barriers (many of which extend well beyond simply tariffs). It isn't simply about enriching owners as it is protecting industries vital for employment or other reasons. Textiles and agriculture have historically been the protected industries - Japan demanded a carve-out at the WTO to protect textiles back in I think it was the 70s, and we virtually all protect textiles to an extent. For agriculture, this stands as a massive example. That industry is highly protected. EU, Japan, and the US all protect that to a large extent.

    And why does no one ever mention the protections the UK, the US, Japan, and China used in their industrialization? We all didn't just become the best by being the best through the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's writing. We protected those industries strategic to development, then subsidized and promoted them. We all did that. Am I saying it was the reason we industrialized? No. But I am suggesting that it is highly unlikely we all would have absent of those protections.

    Say you want to have a globally competitive and strong automotive industry. How can you foster this? If you have no protection and just a little govt help here and there, domestic companies are still being displaced by imports. Companies need time to build up cashflow, invest in R/D, and further develop. Japan stands as as example to this. After WW2, we helped Japan with development in things like the Marshall Plan, and we also had trade negotiations with them to facilitate this. Taken from an article, "In 1955, when the U.S. and Japan were negotiating their first post-occupation trade agreement, the head of the American delegation, C. Thayer White, told the Japanese to cut their tariff on imported cars because, in his words:

    1. The United States industry is the largest and most efficient in the world.

    2. The industry is strongly in favor of expanding the opportunities for world trade.

    3. Its access to foreign markets in recent years has been limited by import controls.

    4. Although the United States Government appreciates that it is necessary for some countries to impose import restrictions for balance of payments reasons...it would be in Japan’s interest to import automobiles from the United States and ex-port items in which Japan could excel.

    Upon Ricardian comparative-advantage principles, White was, of course, 100 percent correct. But the Japanese trade negotiator, Kenichi Otabe, replied that:

    1. If the theory of international trade were pursued to its ultimate conclusion, the United States would specialize in the production of automobiles and Japan in the production of tuna.

    2. Such a division of labor does not take place...because each government encourages and protects those industries which it believes important for reasons of national policy.

    Needless to say, Japan did not choose to become a nation of fishing villages!


    Toyota was heavily subsidized and protected with tariffs and quotas for over a decade. It was only once it could compete that they allowed it to compete freely with global industry. I'm not saying that high tariffs are the way to greatness. I'm simply stating that they are part of industrial policy, and the discourse on this now is driven largely by partisan biases rather than intelligent debate about the subject. I highly suggest anyone interested in this topic read this paper written by a Cambridge economist that wrote a book on this. This paper tries to summarize many of the points in the book. It shows how this same attitude played a role in pretty much all the developed nations of today and how they got to where they are.

    http://www.personal.ceu.hu/corliss/C...ee%20Trade.pdf

    The same can be said of immigration - all developed countries protect their labor markets from foreign imports. Ricardo and others specified labor as one of the "factors of production" that they believed should move freely. Yet obviously, no one practices this. Doing so would clearly have many negative effects. And yet again, many countries impose capital controls - they do not allow money to just move in and out. Even further still, if the WTO itself and many of the "free traders" actually believed in comparative advantage and all that, there would be no such thing as Special and Differential Treatment or the General System of Preferences at the WTO. They allow weaker countries to protect their markets more heavily than developed countries - put another way, they believe development of these countries will be better with higher protections than lower. My point is, pretty much none of how this is talked about is anywhere near reality. As I've tried to make clear repeatedly before now, I'm not a fan of Trump's so much, nor do I really believe his trade policy is a great thing. However, it is not nearly as cut and dry as it is being said by the overwhelming majority of "experts" or media. Simply calling tariffs bad or taxes fails a common sense test: the majority of the world still operates on protectionism and even in some respects vehemently promotes it.

    are you eschewing trade, or do you think we're better off with more tax?

  17. #1453
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    51
    Likes (Received)
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    The fact that other economists are wrong is irrelevant

    They didn't get the nations highest civilian honor
    False. Your bias is showing. How many economists were awarded the nobel prize that didn't see financial crises coming in the past, like the last recession, or made other statements that turned out to be wrong? Many. Yet I see no mention of this from Bloomberg. Face it, there is a clear bias here.

  18. #1454
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    51
    Likes (Received)
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    Here’s the thing.
    Laffer is not an exception due to getting it wrong on occasion.
    He stands out because his ideal is applied when it is KNOWN to be in error by those using it.
    He must know he’s wrong as well by now.
    He got a metal for courage under fire of plain facts.
    He has carried on in spite of horrendous rain of hard evidence.
    Good lad-!
    I would say he’s more mascot than en economist..
    Also false. Same as above. Krugman said the internet would be as much of a bang as the fax machine. Others never saw the financial crisis coming. And they still carry on with the same modeling and assumptions that led to them being wrong. We still carry on with praising people who get it wrong over and over again. Laffer is no different.

  19. #1455
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    51
    Likes (Received)
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    are you eschewing trade, or do you think we're better off with more tax?
    Obviously everyone still thinks we are better off using taxes, like I explained there. I personally believe raising tariffs in the US have a proper use when put together with a full-on industrial policy. That is not what is currently being done.

  20. #1456
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    moscow,ohio
    Posts
    5,905
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    579
    Likes (Received)
    1889

    Default

    could it be that virtually no country has zero tariffs because virtually every government corrupts/distorts the free market to some degree?

    and in a monkey-see-monkey-do fashion things snowball from there?

    that ones for you, Mac.

  21. #1457
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    2,957
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    212
    Likes (Received)
    2055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    False. Your bias is showing. How many economists were awarded the nobel prize that didn't see financial crises coming in the past, like the last recession, or made other statements that turned out to be wrong? Many. Yet I see no mention of this from Bloomberg. Face it, there is a clear bias here.
    False your lack of intellectual honesty is showing

    Laffer was wrong

    wildly laughably[hah] wrong

    His thesis does not hold up


    then, after he was widely discredited

    trump, the moron, gave him an award


    because he is too stupid to know better



    what was printed was the truth


    if you don't like the truth, stop reading

    Oh, wait, nevermind

  22. #1458
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    51
    Likes (Received)
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    False your lack of intellectual honesty is showing

    Laffer was wrong

    wildly laughably[hah] wrong

    His thesis does not hold up


    then, after he was widely discredited

    trump, the moron, gave him an award


    because he is too stupid to know better



    what was printed was the truth


    if you don't like the truth, stop reading

    Oh, wait, nevermind
    Krugman was wrong. He was given the Nobel. Stiglitz was wrong about NAFTA and even now admits it, he was given the Nobel. Merton and Scholes were wrong and almost caused a financial crisis. They were given the Nobel. I can keep going if you want to look dumber. Many other economists were wrong, yet they were given awards, or are continually still held up as if they are oracles. It's over - there is no debate to be had here anymore. If you apply your logic to everyone, then you will be ridiculing them all. Just own it.

  23. Likes CalG liked this post
  24. #1459
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1928
    Likes (Received)
    2130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    Also false. Same as above. Krugman said the internet would be as much of a bang as the fax machine. Others never saw the financial crisis coming. And they still carry on with the same modeling and assumptions that led to them being wrong. We still carry on with praising people who get it wrong over and over again. Laffer is no different.
    False equivalence and tiresome.

    Krugman’s quip about the internet was a joke the went over a lot of people’s heads.
    He didn’t “model” his prediction and it stands as a weak bludgeon to call it such.
    Krugman went on to earn a Noble Prize for those things he does model and is highly respected for that work.

    You are as much as saying that Krugman is still going around predicting that fax machine is more important than the internet and has a cadre of advocates basing national tax policy on his work.

    Laffer is doing just that- he is carrying on with a theory proven wrong long before his curve was scratched on a napkin.

    Economists have a lot in common with geologists.
    They both are specialists with high training in their fields.
    Even when in error with a major body of work they are still more qualified than the rest of us to hold discourse in their respective fields.

    Krugman was not in error in his main body of work- it was a quip.
    Laffer- judge for yourself.

    But please spare us the fax machine take down- it’s not what you think it is.
    My laffer ‘takedown’ was equally weak so perhaps I have no room..
    Well we all have our opinions.

  25. #1460
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    207
    Likes (Received)
    65

    Default

    Economists if you found a good one today they would be keeping a low profile and use their skill to make money. Poor fellows.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •