5 ms·

I believe nobody should have tariffs. Understanding that is never going to happen, it should at least be a starting ppoint

cdumler 8y ago
I'm glad that you believe it, but it's not a reasonable position. The primary reason for some U.S. tariffs is the legitimate reason of national security. We provide tariffs on certain foods, mineral resources, and military products because we want to guarantee that we do not loose production ability. Should we suddenly find ourselves in a world war, we would not be creating these production lines from scratch. Therefore, tariffs are always a balancing act between being nice to our friends and ensuring we keep some level of production available.
- fizgig 8y ago
  Wouldn't strategic reserves be a solution to this? Hoard enough to cover ramp-up time for domestic production.
  - benrbray 8y ago
    Food spoils and we can't predict how long a war will last.
- mikk14 8y ago
  Well, frankly I don't think it's a disadvantage. It's difficult to move out from the equilibrium of countries mistrusting each other, but I think what you describe is actually an utopia. If we manage to destroy all tariffs and make countries lose parts of their production abilities, we'd make war unthinkable, which is a net good. The US would never start an all-out war because it would starve, and whomever specialized in the agricultural products supplanting the US productive capability would never start a war because they cannot build weapons. Of course there are huge problems with this -- what happens if whomever makes your food goes tits up, involuntarily (natural disasters, coups, ...) or voluntarily (maliciously attacking)? Who guarantees the system? How? Etc... --, if there weren't I wouldn't call it utopia. But I think raising the costs of war beyond the unreasonable is a net gain. Note: I'm fully aware that this is an extremist and probably next to impossible position, no one has to remind me that. I just contest the fact that the objection "but then we could not go around and kill people" isn't a particularly good counter-argument for no trade barriers.
  - Symbiote 8y ago
    The European Union is an attempt at this utopia. There are no tariffs on food, steel or similar between the member states. All states subsidise food production, but not steel.
    - king_phil 8y ago
      You did not mention that since the founding of the EU, there has not been a single war between member states. Compare that to european history and you see the most important thing about the EU. I can live with all the things there are rightfully to be criticized about the EU, in exchange for peace in continental europe.
- gbacon 8y ago
  The only winning move is not to play.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ChuckMcM 8y ago
That will work as soon as we have a single currency. The EU is a really good example here of how a single currency puts everyone on the same economic accounting basis and so eliminates the ability of a country to 'fudge' the numbers through either internal subsidies or currency manipulation. The reason you need a single currency is that if you're going to sell barrels of wheat from country X to country Y, and country Y buys televisions from country X. How many units of currency is a television worth relative to a barrel of wheat? If those values are tied to the same currency, then the economic incentive to grow wheat or build televisions will be on the same footing.
- echotango 8y ago
  The inability to devalue currency is why greece cant recover. The Euro is idiotic.
  - king_phil 8y ago
    And at the same time, the Euro is fantastic. It is just a question of your viewpoint.
  - adventured 8y ago
    Even worse: Germany, an already very strong nation, gets to free ride the Euro for its export machine at the cost of its Eurozone rivals (and other competitors in Europe broadly). If Germany had its own currency, it would be considerably more expensive than the Euro is today, which would make German exports more expensive. As you note, countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal would do better because their exports would be cheaper under less expensive national currencies (unique to their individual economic circumstances), enabling them to compete better against Germany's exports. This artificial prop can be seen in the fact that Germany has the world's largest trade surplus as a percentage of its economic output.
  - ChuckMcM 8y ago
    But that is exactly the point right? If you devalue the common currency then the amount you pay Greek farmers goes "up" effectively, and the price you pay German farmers also goes "up" so the relative costs of things stay the same and nothing changes. Whereas with a translation layer (currency exchange) you can "adjust" what it costs Greece and what it costs Germany to the advantage of one or the other. A tariff is a way to adjust this economic cost externally which takes it out of the market's hands and put it into a political realm and one step removed from the actual economy that should be adjusting.
ska 8y ago
Wait, so your first step is for other countries to remove their subsidies/tariffs but the US doesn't do the same? How well do you think that will fly in those countries? If you mean you'd like to see the US and those countries both drop tariffs and protections, I can see you argument - but that's the opposite of the direction things are going today so I don't see the relevance. Even if it were not, it's hard to argue against a countries legitimate security concerns in some areas, although clearly that argument can be abused (again, cf current rhetoric).

cdumler 8y ago

I'm glad that you believe it, but it's not a reasonable position. The primary reason for some U.S. tariffs is the legitimate reason of national security. We provide tariffs on certain foods, mineral resources, and military products because we want to guarantee that we do not loose production ability. Should we suddenly find ourselves in a world war, we would not be creating these production lines from scratch. Therefore, tariffs are always a balancing act between being nice to our friends and ensuring we keep some level of production available.

fizgig 8y ago
Wouldn't strategic reserves be a solution to this? Hoard enough to cover ramp-up time for domestic production.
- benrbray 8y ago
  Food spoils and we can't predict how long a war will last.
mikk14 8y ago
Well, frankly I don't think it's a disadvantage. It's difficult to move out from the equilibrium of countries mistrusting each other, but I think what you describe is actually an utopia. If we manage to destroy all tariffs and make countries lose parts of their production abilities, we'd make war unthinkable, which is a net good. The US would never start an all-out war because it would starve, and whomever specialized in the agricultural products supplanting the US productive capability would never start a war because they cannot build weapons. Of course there are huge problems with this -- what happens if whomever makes your food goes tits up, involuntarily (natural disasters, coups, ...) or voluntarily (maliciously attacking)? Who guarantees the system? How? Etc... --, if there weren't I wouldn't call it utopia. But I think raising the costs of war beyond the unreasonable is a net gain. Note: I'm fully aware that this is an extremist and probably next to impossible position, no one has to remind me that. I just contest the fact that the objection "but then we could not go around and kill people" isn't a particularly good counter-argument for no trade barriers.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  The European Union is an attempt at this utopia. There are no tariffs on food, steel or similar between the member states. All states subsidise food production, but not steel.
  - king_phil 8y ago
    You did not mention that since the founding of the EU, there has not been a single war between member states. Compare that to european history and you see the most important thing about the EU. I can live with all the things there are rightfully to be criticized about the EU, in exchange for peace in continental europe.
gbacon 8y ago
The only winning move is not to play.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ChuckMcM 8y ago

That will work as soon as we have a single currency. The EU is a really good example here of how a single currency puts everyone on the same economic accounting basis and so eliminates the ability of a country to 'fudge' the numbers through either internal subsidies or currency manipulation. The reason you need a single currency is that if you're going to sell barrels of wheat from country X to country Y, and country Y buys televisions from country X. How many units of currency is a television worth relative to a barrel of wheat? If those values are tied to the same currency, then the economic incentive to grow wheat or build televisions will be on the same footing.

echotango 8y ago
The inability to devalue currency is why greece cant recover. The Euro is idiotic.
- king_phil 8y ago
  And at the same time, the Euro is fantastic. It is just a question of your viewpoint.
- adventured 8y ago
  Even worse: Germany, an already very strong nation, gets to free ride the Euro for its export machine at the cost of its Eurozone rivals (and other competitors in Europe broadly). If Germany had its own currency, it would be considerably more expensive than the Euro is today, which would make German exports more expensive. As you note, countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal would do better because their exports would be cheaper under less expensive national currencies (unique to their individual economic circumstances), enabling them to compete better against Germany's exports. This artificial prop can be seen in the fact that Germany has the world's largest trade surplus as a percentage of its economic output.
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  But that is exactly the point right? If you devalue the common currency then the amount you pay Greek farmers goes "up" effectively, and the price you pay German farmers also goes "up" so the relative costs of things stay the same and nothing changes. Whereas with a translation layer (currency exchange) you can "adjust" what it costs Greece and what it costs Germany to the advantage of one or the other. A tariff is a way to adjust this economic cost externally which takes it out of the market's hands and put it into a political realm and one step removed from the actual economy that should be adjusting.

ska 8y ago

Wait, so your first step is for other countries to remove their subsidies/tariffs but the US doesn't do the same? How well do you think that will fly in those countries? If you mean you'd like to see the US and those countries both drop tariffs and protections, I can see you argument - but that's the opposite of the direction things are going today so I don't see the relevance. Even if it were not, it's hard to argue against a countries legitimate security concerns in some areas, although clearly that argument can be abused (again, cf current rhetoric).