If you against Unions. . . .How do you feel about Tariffs on Imported goods, etc? These inhibit 'free trade' and capitalism Rocket RIver
I am for a level playing field, if a country has import tarrifs on our products, we should have the same tarriffs on the importation of theirs. DD
sorry to have to say it, but it's kind of case by case basis we have some interests to protect, and others not so much depends on where we are in on technology, too I generally think it's stupid to send jobs outside the country because it undercuts the tax revenue base and adds to the burden ultimately carried by taxpayers. and it hurts our balance of trades.
Less stale than most of the hangout forum threads . I don't think you can have a "for or against" position on tariffs, unless you're either a total free market geek or the president of a labor union. The most notable "necessary" tariff has to be on steel. Yes, it causes inefficiency. Yes, it raises the price and hurts productivity. But we can't allow the American steel industry to die, because it's necessary for national security to have a vibrant (or at least decent) domestic steel industry. Too many tariffs are the result of special interest funding campaigns, though. And they actually hurt us long terms. Sure, the garment industry workers might be worse off short-term, but in the long-term... it's better to have cheaper products and free up the labor for better wealth creation.
You can make that argument for every single commodity though, it's vital to have a vibrant domestic cotton industry so that our soldiers will have stuff to wear, it's vital to have a vibrant domestc grain industrty so they will have stuff to eat, etc etc etc. It leads you down a slippery slope where anybody can get in using that excuse.
Slippery slope fallacy... The problem with the argument, is that it can be made against any discretionary policy choice. It's not an argument against selected security tariffs - it's an argument against discretionary policy. And obviously, discretionary policy is always necessary. You can't merely have absolute values-based policy (well, you could, but it would be ineffective). Obviously, you have to make choices and set lines. I'm in favor of free trade, in general. However, I also think that the steel industry is essential. I wouldn't put much else (like cotton) in that category. If you want to make individual policy arguments about specific products... cool. But the slippery slope argument just isn't legitimate.
If it's not then neither is the steel/national security argument. I bet the military uses far more plastic, aluminum, etc than steel.
Perhaps not . You're perfectly welcome to make arguments about the advisability of placing tariffs on individual industries. Given the widespread use of steel in producing armaments, I'd wager that steel is a product that necesitates government interference to preserve the industry. Just from a prima facie look... I'm sure there are other materials that qualify as well. My real objection was to your slippery slope argument. It's one of the most overly-used objections, given the fact that it's patently impossible to implement as a consistent standard... people tend to use it against discretionary policies they dislike... but I've yet to see anybody actually apply it across the board. As I've said before, it's impossible to resolve (or even make really good cases for) tough policy decisions on a bulletin board. One can, however, object to illegitimate forms of argument.
But we might have to worry about our own citizens being stuck in low-paying jobs while the purchasing power parity of the dollar slipped...
Maybe in the days where it took massive army divisions of tanks and artillery barrages to fight over pastures in Normandy, steel was of primary importantance. But today, I think our armaments rely more on semiconductors and silicon than steel. Example: Helmets used to be made of steel but are now kevlar, I believe. It's not the inconsistency I'm attacking, it's the fact that the argument is usable in any context whatsoever, which makes it of limited value.
Against. If something can be made cheaper elsewhere and shipped here, they should be able to undercut out domestic producers. Anybody that doesn't like it should worry less about tariffs and more about becoming more efficient to compete with foreign suppliers, or change industries to an area where they can compete.
Bush increased tariffs on Japanese steel to get the union steel worker vote in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. How ironic given the two current threads on unions and tariffs. http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2003/08/11/daily32.html
In principle, I am against tariffs of any kind. The issue is quite complex, though, and there are so many other considerations involved all the time.
I see where you're coming from. But our country protects its workers, environment and communities. Our standards are among the highest in the world, and that's what makes America so wonderful. But we trade with countries who have few labor, environmental and trading laws, so they're able to do our work cheaper. It punishes America for protecting its workers, the environment and local communities, and rewards countries for having no standards. If we raised tariffs, other countries could do whatever they wanted, but they'd still have to pay what they *would have* paid if they maintained our standards. This protects American jobs, gives the country more stability from outside influences and keeps *our money* in the country.
With the same reasoning, any country could impose tariffs anytime. If you study GATT and WTO rules and their application and interpretation by the USA, you will unfortunately realize that the USA are one of the forerunners in interpreting the rules any way they want any time they want. They will scream murder if another country imposes tariffs, but will be the first to do it if it serves their interests. To be honest, most other countries act in a similar way, but the USA has the muscle to impose its will even against the rules and they do use that muscle.
That is basically the essence of what I think. It's just that sometimes governments will use tariffs to protect not only interests of a specific domestic industry, but also to "punish" other countries, etc. etc. - also, some have already mentioned that strategic considerations play a role (not giving up an industry completely since complete reliance on imports could become a huge problem in the future, etc.). Very complex issue, but in principle, I agree with StupidMoniker. Anything else tends to be protectionism.
