Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (236469)	3/11/2002 9:27:02 PM
From: George Coyne	Respond to of 769667

i'm sure it's more efficient and we could save money by outsourcing most of our national defense. ROTFL! No doubt, but would you be comfortable with that?

To: craig crawford who wrote (236469)	3/11/2002 9:37:17 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

What domestic supplier is going to fail to raise prices to nearly match the foreign prices? Sentence 3 contradicts 1 and 2. tariffs only raise prices if you buy foreign. it is a discretionary tax, which detractors often conveniently fail to point out. buy american and you don't have to pay the tax. also, tariffs help to raise wages.

To: craig crawford who wrote (236469)	3/11/2002 9:58:05 PM
From: Sedohr Nod	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

The tariffs on steel will cost every consumer in this country.....with the exception of those living in a cave somewhere clubbing their food. Another big problem with tariffs is that you are counting on politicians to take a hands on approach to managing the economy.....if that does not scare you......well ....that has to scare you.....grin.....most of those guys could not manage a one man circle jerk. And as for something to out source.....there are things we certainly should consider....prisons for one ....could be a growth industry for Mexico.....Let them be our jailers.....imagine the amount of money that would save.....and it might even cure the "urge" to be a repeat offender.

To: craig crawford who wrote (236469)	3/11/2002 10:09:36 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

you said, "tariffs only raise prices if you buy foreign." That is false. Tariffs raise all prices. The primary reason industries want tariffs is so they can charge more for their goods, and TAKE higher profits from all consumers. If my mother was against free trade, she would have been wrong. Free trade rewards efficiencies. Sometimes false efficiencies get rewarded (like Chinese prison labor slavery). Better information is required to correct for those anomalies. IMO it requires narrow mindedness to support general trade restrictions. Those who are able to look at the big picture cannot fail to support general free trade.

To: craig crawford who wrote (236469)	3/11/2002 10:46:11 PM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

This argument is so complicated...I belive that there are times to protect certain industires. Sometimes there are industries that are deemed necessary for the Security of the Nation. And therefore it may be in the Nation's best interest (at least in the short run) to protect them. But, there are problems with tariffs and protectionism. Steel is not a finished product, but a raw material for a host of manufactured goods. This means that every manufacturer that uses steel, has to pay more for steel than foreign competitors. It squeezes the margins of every domestic manufacturer upstream of the protected industry, and places American manufacturers at a disadvantage to foreign manufacturers in foreign markets (as well as domestic).

To: craig crawford who wrote (236469)	3/11/2002 11:27:58 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Sorry to be the fifth respondent here, I believe you are officially deluged- if still mistaken. Re: "Buy American and you don't have to pay the tax." Oh, hohoho, but buying American then means you have to pay every penny as much as if you DID buy elsewhere and paid the tax! This is something you conveniently fail to point out(save in the following quoted), but which is exceedingly significant. Re: "...alan keyes and pat buchanan are in favor of lowering or even eliminating income taxes. so not only do wages strengthen, but you can lower the tax burden on individuals and businesses, offsetting the higher prices." Offsetting higher prices? Yes...the higher prices caused by tariffs, of course(having higher prices does also mean we have less in our pockets to spend on some other item- American items perhaps, if you will- in any case). Here you suggest that offsetting the "higher prices" tariffs bring, by lowering taxes, brings us back where we started; I would ask, if so, what's the point? Of course, that we've displaced worldwide efficient production in the process, possibly destroying a business overseas altogether in favor of a higher cost producer at home, is another worthy bone for consideration, even if taxes are lowered to make-up for the higher costs. But you've written here in favor of abandoning efficiencies possible(conspicuous consumption?), in favor of, of what? Protecting American businesses/jobs, so, ahhh, so we can be better off? Thus, as you argue it, we gain prosperity by losing worldwide efficiencies. While this may well be the case in the specific tarriffed industry in the short run, your argument and you both acknowledge an efficiency loss here, which is correct. Repeat in industry after industry, keep import tariffs in country after country, pay more for product after product, lower taxes to make up the difference...phooey, you could lower taxes to nothing and never make up the efficiency lost when you totally alter who is producing what, and why, this way. No good can come of this tariff bit. Let's perhaps take the exception to the rule in a violent world, and keep some defense efforts at home as best as we can(and the pencil example is just the tip of an iceberg of international dependencies existing even in products needed for defense, today and always- like it or not). But you cannot take this perceived(if significantly incorrectly) necessity of an exception, and claim it proves anything significant here...as your own argument admits, if we choose not to outsource defense, even here the gist of my/our(!!!) argument holds true...YOU LOSE EFFICIENCY and raise costs. Here, we may believe the cost is worth the cost, as it were, but the harm done by tariffs/isolationism remains in the mix, as always. Now, if only you realized the extent to which virtually EVERYTHING, including defense products(even when produced "here"), have been and likely always will be thoroughly dependent upon the products of a zillion other countries. We can't even make an old fashioned pencil without the help of a surprising # of countries! That's the way this world works, and we'd better wise up to it, and start cooperating instead of imposing tariffs upon others economies. It only comes back to bite us all. Dan B