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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (65413)	6/23/2005 11:43:20 PM
From: shades	Respond to of 74559

I don't buy the idea of "protecting" local industry by tariffs, though to some extent, that's the outcome of tariffs. I don't see why I should fund fat, overpaid, lazy workers when people who badly need the income and will work for a lot less would love to have the business. Well those fat lazy slobs are putting the twinkie down just long enough to go raise some stink on the news or go to the voting machine - and that bothers the politicos - they hate having all their buds at the capitol get the monika interns and they are stuck back home with fat smelly wife until the next round of voting comes - hehe. Tariffs were bad for america in the depression - but if the short sighted people are going to vote you out what choice do you have? I hope and pray we don't enact a 25% tariff - I won't be able to afford all those goodies at walmart anymore. 90% of the products I use every day are made in asia I believe.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (65413)	6/24/2005 3:29:34 AM
From: Gib Bogle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

"...we went from about number 3 in GDP per capita to way down the list to the bottom..." How long is it since the tariffs were removed, and where are we in the list now?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (65413)	6/24/2005 12:05:08 PM
From: Slagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Maurice Re: "big smoke USA" LMAO Pretty good. I've never heard that one. Lots of cities are nice places, depending on the neighborhood. I lived in New Orleans years ago. LOVED the place. It is (or was truly the "big easy"). One the other hand, I lived in Manhattan (only about two months) and LOVED that place too. But some big towns, at least parts of them are just like scenes out of Thunder Dome. There are a couple of reasons: One, the interstate highway construction in the 1950's and 1960's chopped up and literally destroyed many a once grand midtown. Then, about that same time came along the federal Soviet style hi-rise welfare housing. In many cases, the local illuminati, who were opposed to the public housing concept on principle but who were instrumental in the planning of the federal housing projects in their city did everything possible to make the places a hell on earth while they managed to make a buck or two as contractors building the nightmare structures. Pretty smart, huh? A great many of these Dark Towers have been torn down. They should have never been built in the first place. One of these things could literally destroy the whole surrounding region. A person visiting the unbelievable barrios surrounding places like Mexico City or Jakarta for the first time comes expecting something like Boston's "Combat Zone" or similar areas of New York or Chicago but worse. But instead you find mostly happy, optimistic people going about their daily lives just like the folks in the rich neighborhoods, the only difference is that the folks in the barrios live in a do-it-yourself shanty town made of old car hoods and rusty tin. But these are folks on the move, upwardly mobile to the extent they can be. The difference? In the third world barrios there is no welfare. To some extent protective tariffs are a sort of progressive tax with a tendency to redistribute wealth in a progressive manner. To that extent the tariff is a sort of progressive income tax that is actually constitutional, unlike the Federal income tax. Not only is it constitutional but it was actually practiced by the founders back in the first generation when they themselves ran this country in the early years. I favor a high protective tariff for my country, other places can do as they will. There are many benefits. Behind tariff walls individual nations develop unique products. I DESPISE these cars and other products built to some dumbed down international standard. High tariff walls will slow down resource depletion and pollution. CO2 levels ARE rising and while I am unsure at what level danger arises, if we keep going as we are we will likely get there sooner or later, maybe sooner. Then there are the social costs of globalism and I can tell you from personal experience in several poor nations that IT IS NOT WORKING. If continued we are asking for a disaster. When tariffs are used to "protect" local industry it truly is a tax on consumers but serves the same sort of purpose as minimum wage codes and similar measures. It is a sort of sacrifice you have to put up with for the common good. And from my perspective, it is the ONLY measure of this type outlined in the Constitution and hence the only one that should be allowed. Slagle