>> Craig, don't be blind to the fact that your own posted sources tell us that prior to the removal of tariffs, the British people often suffered greatly to afford food <<
i don't recall posting any sources that make that claim. my sources indicate that britain was almost entirely self-sufficient when it came to feeding itself. in the ensuing decades after the corn laws were repealed britain became heavily dependant on imports of grain.
>> whereas after the lifting of the tariffs- with a 50% greater population to feed in place by 1871 to boot and farmers(as expected) moving to the cities for lack of farming profit- approximately noone suffered for food as often happened in the past. <<
In 1800, agriculture still seemed to dominate the British economy, employing about a third of the workforce and accounting for the same proportion of the national income. It had been able to respond to a doubling of the population, largely through the application of better methods of cultivation (crop rotation, changes in patterns of animal husbandry to allow more to be kept over the winter etc). In 1830 90% of the food consumed was still produced in Britain. This had been achieved by a complete transformation of agriculture.
internationalism.org
>> You'll clearly have to back off of responding to my contentions with indications that repeal of tariffs almost starved Britian to death <<
my contention is that the repeal of the tariffs and the move to free trade made britain reliant on foreign imports-- not that it made them starve.
>> I repeat, farm output declined while population rose by 50%, yet Britian, I can fairly say, fed its people better, by all your accounts, than it had with tariffs. <<
like i said, my contention was not that britain starved, my contention was that they were at the mercy of imports.
>> Look honestly too, at the job loss resulting FROM tariffs <<
i don't believe that the steel tariffs will result in net job losses.
>> Steel will now cost more, and will thus be used less than otherwise desired <<
i've been through this argument several times. tariffs have been around for centuries, and so have the arguments that barriers to imports often cause rising prices. people that are in favor of protective tariffs do not dispute this.
>> Steel using industries aren't just whistling dixie when they decry the job loss the Bush tariffs will bring Who will suffer? Who will get the steel they need at any price, yet have less funds left to spend elsewhere in an otherwise more diverse job-creating fashion. There, I've outlined loss of jobs on two fronts, resulting FROM tariffs. Factor it in. <<
i have already answered all these arguments. when you raise tariffs (taxes), you lower other taxes, on corporations and individuals. therefore they can afford to pay the slightly higher costs on steel because they have a lower tax burden and more money in their pocket to spend.
>> It's also good, I might point out, that the world allows us some titanium. We don't have any. May you come to understand the fire you play with, when you play with tariffs <<
1) that is not true
2) i don't see how it is relevant to the discussion |
