>> I said he believed in the sort of tariffs that our founding fathers in fact instituted from our beginnings. <<
hey, it's amazing that i can get anyone on this thread to even admit that they are in favor of limited tariffs. at least that's a start.
>> If you didn't know it, those were very limited(well, because free trade was a conservative principle, even back then <<
i think i have already debunked the claim that free trade was a conservative principle. the reasons tariffs were limited at the founding was because:
1) they were an effective source of revenue
2) government was small (which i also advocate)
3) there were excise taxes which also brought in revenues
if the only argument you have with me is that we should return to the original founding with very limited government and judicious use of limited tariffs--show me where to sign up. anything is better than the slave tax we are subject to today where government picks our pockets.
>>Re: "there is a slight problem. we conduct trade with countries where the people are not free. now do you see why it might not be so fair?"
That was once a wonderment to me too, until I understood the complexity of what actually occurs. So in short, No. Having looked into this matter in detail, I am convinced that even if we are the only country not employing tariffs, we- and to a lesser extent even the countries with the tariffs- will be better off. <<
this is what was argued in the article in my previous post. did that policy work well for britain? unilateral free trade?
>> Essentially, I believe if one country institutes a tariff against another, both countries are harmed <<
but countries use protectionist measures against the unites states all the time. why do they do it if it is so harmful to everyone involved? we are just supposed to sit there while countries engage in predatory business practices against our industry?
>> I believe too, and consistently, mind you, that if the the other country responds with a retaliatory tariff in an attempt to level the playing field again, then that retaliatory tariff only adds to the harm. Hence, the best response to a tariff being leveled against us, is in fact NO response save a request, for everyone's sake, that the initial tariff be ended immediately. To attempt to retaliate only harms us more in the long run. <<
my aren't we naive. we'll play fair while everyone takes advantage of us. this is the same line of reasoning that believes we shouldn't defend our citizens after terrorists murder thousands of our countrymen. we wouldn't want to escalate matters and actually piss off the terrorists. better to sit there and take it.
>> Now, say what you will, but if you haven't looked at the quite serious arguments long coming from with-in conservative thought, in particular, that explain why the above happens, you haven't lived and certainly won't be able to refute them to anyone who knows them. <<
geez! liberalism--not conservatism, has done a real good job brainwashing people. let's not retaliate, let's try appeasement. well history is replete with examples where appeasement only results in further incentive for aggression. this is no different in economics any more than it is in war. |
