/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

For a number of reasons including

>muh freedoms

>dat ain't rite

>but isn't that unamerican

>oy vey!

>>4889954

How is it unamerican? Wasn't hardcore protectionism a major part of american history?

Though wow tariffs we are able to move the production of goods to third world shitholes.

The (((((WTO))))) says that it is good for global commerce.

However if there where high tariffs in play you could stimulate the internal market without having the trouble of competing with third world shitholes and you would have the cash to build a fricking wall.

>>4889993

>How is it unamerican?

Like stopping muslisms from entering the country or deporting beaners and not letting more walk across the border it is unamerican because… wait for it.

The jewish media told people it was

For multinational companies, it means that they can jack up the prices in a country with tariffs while selling their goods cheaply abroad.

Apparently (no sources though) Standard Oil took good advantage of this. Although the oil was produced in the US, they could charge consumers much much higher prices in the US, because foreign oil on the market was so expensive due to tariffs. But when they sold the oil in for example Russia, they sold it at cheap prices to Russian consumers due to lack of tariffs. So Americans got screwed on the market and helped Standard Oil continue to line their pockets. In that way, tariffs are just another means for big companies to screw consumers and form monopolies with the government's help.

I still don't understand the whole concept completely but it seems to me that there's a decent middle ground as far as tariffs go, having none or having too strict ones both have negative consequences. Maybe some other anons can help me understand it better.

>>4889945

There was a time when countries used to, very successfully, wage economic war on each other through tariffs. The doctrine is called mercantilism.

Greedy kikes want salve-labour sweatshops making gee-gaws for pennies that they can merchant for $100 - so it had to go.

prioritizing self sufficiency and realistic lifestyles in conjunction with wanting your own nation to be the benefactor of economic trade deals is racist goy we're all one human race and shouldn't have borders so I can buy a HQ in every country and run it from tel aviv

>How come tariffs on imports are often looked at unfavorably?

MUH (((FREE MARKET)))

>>4889945

Because companies like Ford who are trying to escape union (leftist) costs to generate increased profits say so.

IMO I say fuck'em and let the tariffs fly. I don't knock these companies for wanting to produce cheaper, it makes economic sense to do so, but to turn around and fuck over their own countries for profit makes them traitors in my opinion.

Patriotism > Profit

Tariffs would also be a great way to pay down the debt. You want a videogame made by a goddamn nip? That'll be $200.

>>4889945

Because it's a tax which is socialism and fascism like hitler.

Don't you like freedom?

What are the best books to read about mercantilism?

Tariffs and other trade limitations hurt rather than help national economy by reducing the size and scope of the market. Their alleged advantages are fake. The net effect is to raise the national salaries, but also the national cost of life, thus making quality of life no better and making the country less competitive, which leads to more tariffs and trade limitations and so on, in a silly vicious circle.

>>4889993

Tariffs are anti-free market. Why is 922r (a tariff by another name) still a thing today? Because the biggest supporters of the gun lobby are firearms manufacturers, and repealing 922r would mean they have to directly compete with foreign manufacturers. So instead of being forced to justify their artificially high prices with quality manufacturing, they're both expensive and low quality.

>but muh protectionism

Removing the freedom of choice from consumers doesn't protect anything but the shekels of corporate kikes.

>>4897802

Tariffs are good whne you have the interests of your specific nation in mind over the modest efficiency boost from global free markets. Some tariffs are good and others are bad.

Individual consumers can make rational purchases that are beneficial for that specific person but leak resources from their nation's economy that don't necessarily end up coming back.

>>4897858

If you understood how corrupt and rotten to the core our current system is in every sector, you would recognize that any theoretical fractional economic gain from tariffs is absolutely crushed by regulations in every other sector by the state.

A true free market would fix nearly everything wrong with our economy, which is why the state will never, ever let that happen.

>>4890122

Economic war is effective as quasi-military weapon (for instance, an embargo) against a small nation with few natural resources. It's not an economic boost for the "aggressor". In fact, it hurts both nations, it just hurts the small nation more than the big one.

>>4890041

Please, let's keep trade and immigration separate. They are really different issues.

My god the shilling in this thread is off the charts.

China refuses to let the US sell goods in their country, but they are happy to sell us a ton of shit and get rich.

Threatening a tariff opens the door for negotiation that will allow us proper trade instead of one-way trade.

If they don't strike that deal, then implementing the tariff lets us get a chunk of their profits so that we're not suffering under a huge trade imbalance.

>>4889945

China doesn't tariff

they write a check for 7% of your gross profit if you export your goods

it's sort of like the opposite of a tariff

>>4897953

That's a popular and populist smokescreen to cover the real reason why jobs are going to China: China buys massive US debt. As soon as the Fed stops issuing debt, the trade imbalance will cease, but then America will face deflation. Which is a good thing, but the elites don't want you to believe that.

>>4897984

>the elites

>not the jews

Nice fucking try

>>4898003

The Jewish elites if you prefer.

>>4897905

I understand

I'm much closer to being a extreme proponent of free markets than whatever the mainstream ideology is but that still doesn't mean strategic tariffs can't be beneficial. Opposing tariffs because of the benefits of free markets is misguided, assuming you care more about your countrymen than sudanese and indian factory workers.

Current regulations are overwhelmingly bad because they serve corporate/banking interests rather than the people's interest. That isn't the necessary case. The bigger issue is the ZOG antagonizing the quality of life for goyim rather than arguing free market vs protectionism ( which isn't as black and white as you think ).

>>4898021

I can agree with that. Very well-written viewpoint, thank you.

>>4898021

But remember that your countrimen are not just producers, they are consumers too. Some tariffs will help some countrymen qua producers, but will hurt other countrymen qua consumers.

Tariff hate is due to a generation of Keynesian brainwashed economists replacing a slightly less brainwashed generation of economists. What's taught in universities today say that if every country in the world got rid of tariffs, then the entire world would be better off. Obviously some moreso than others, but everyone would benefit in some way.

In theory it makes perfect sense, sort of like communism, in practice it's just a way of globalist power consolidation. I had a professor shill the TPP because it was fighting to lower tariffs, despite the fact that the TPP purposely leaves out China whom should be the primary concern for tariff reduction negotiations. Additionally the TPP acts as an international policing vector for intellectual property violations, something that happens often in Asia and something that goes unpunished naturally.

When I brought this up, I was told "but muh greater good". Seriously, don't listen to most economists as much as you would listen to a horse whisperer, they're either terribly brainwashed which is why they're in academia or they're lying about how they really feel. It's all fucking bullshit.

>>4890122

>There was a time when countries used to, very successfully, wage economic war on each other through tariffs. The doctrine is called mercantilism.

Now they do the same thing with their currencies, if not their trade. Mercantilism is a fancy way of saying self interest, plenty of countries still practice it.

Tariffs at one time funded the government instead of the income tax.

Those saying Tariffs had to be abolished due to kikes is a joke. Tariffs protect domestic labor, and pay for the government in place of an income tax. They're inherently anti-globalist, and therefore anti-jew.

>>4897984

>That's a popular and populist smokescreen to cover the real reason why jobs are going to China: China buys massive US debt. As soon as the Fed stops issuing debt, the trade imbalance will cease, but then America will face deflation. Which is a good thing, but the elites don't want you to believe that.

Bullshit, jobs go to China (and overseas) due to lax labor and environmental laws, and cheap labor. Capital seeks out the cheapest competent labor it can find.

>>4889945

Tariffs are rejected by pro-globalist Keynes worshippers that value cheap prices over happiness and sovereignty.

They actually argue that without unmitigated multinational trade, you'll be like North Korea or some shit, even though they are better off in many ways.

Pure autarky is no bargain either. A successful nation should always be seeking opportunities. If you make lots of something that someone else doesn't and he has something that you want, then it's in both of your interests to trade.

Likewise, a successful state should have tariffs in place that protect vital industries, such as agriculture, energy and weapons and self defense, the US is the number 1 exporter of that. Otherwise you become dependent on someone else which means you aren't a successful country anymore. The best way is somewhere in the middle between Best Korea mode and globalist mode.

>>4898836

meant for

>>4898747

>>4898467

>When I brought this up, I was told "but muh greater good". Seriously, don't listen to most economists as much as you would listen to a horse whisperer, they're either terribly brainwashed which is why they're in academia or they're lying about how they really feel. It's all fucking bullshit.

This. You should listen to case studies where economic policy was demonstrably successful and not take a jews word for it.

>>4898747

>They actually argue that without unmitigated multinational trade, you'll be like North Korea or some shit, even though they are better off in many ways.

The sad part is the US has the natural resources to be 100% self sufficient (even in energy). Not many countries do.

Anyone who thinks Tariffs are bad should have to answer the question of why the US grew so well when we had Tariffs and no income tax (ie, 1776-1913).

>>4890097

A middle ground is the right answer, yes.

The benefits to high tariffs are security (having your manufacturing base in your own country means nobody can deprive you of it), local economies (workers spend their money where they live).

Lower tariffs can mean better competitiveness sometimes. A low tariff on steel would be good for industries who use a lot of steel.

There's no simple answer for every industry since industry dependence on other industries is complicated (like cars and electronics).

Because of the " Muh free trade" meme

To;dr globalist faggots can't enslave everybody if the world is segregated into tightly knit communities..

Protectionism is what made the USA the powerhouse it used to be.

Reducing tariffs leads to greater global trade and presumably greater global wealth.

TBH though, should our goal be to help the world? Or help ourselves? I think we should help ourselves, and that means as much trade treaty fuckery as possible.

>>4889945

>How come tariffs on imports are often looked at unfavorably? Wouldn't a steep tariff reduce the incentive to hire foreign labor?

Yes it would. But since the government is controlled by international corporate interests and not by Americans (largely because Americans are too stupid to realize when they're getting fucked)…

free trade was a good idea when america was going to be a high tech nation with 100 million high tech jobs and 200 million service industry jobs and we'd all be rich and have huge walmarts full of cheap chinese shit

but then we didn't turn out to be a high tech utopian nation, the bubble popped, and its about to pop again, and the price of living keeps going up up up up while we manufacture nothing, invent nothing, our main golden egg layers go international and skip out on us, we import lots of low skill and high skill h1b labor, our colleges aren't nearly attractive internationally anymore, we bring nothing to the table, except our dying and overleveraged wealth and in shambles tranny military

trumps not against free trade but he does want to use tariffs strategically where appropriate

>>4899584

*where appropriate, both to stimulate industry at home and to get what he wants wrt other policy

>>4898657

Even assuming the Chinese workforce is generally "more efficient", that would never cause a general loss of jobs in America. This is because of Ricardo's law of comparative advantage. The American workforce would simply be steered towards the areas where the efficiency difference is lowest.

No, the real cause is that the Chinese can afford lower wages because the cost of life in China is lower than in the US. This is caused by the currency peg, which Mitt Romney, Trump and others complain about, and rightly so, but the currency peg involves the Chinese govt buying massive amounts of US debt. If the Fed stopped issuing debt, the only way for the Chinese govt to keep the currency peg would be to buy actual dollars, but this would reduce the monetary mass in the US (ie deflation), which would drive American wages and prices down, making America competitive again, but also making the US treasury (a big debtor) closer to hard bankruptcy. So, the US govt would have to actually cut down spending. Good for the ordinary American citizen, bad for the American ruling class.

>>4901488

>>4901488

>No, the real cause is that the Chinese can afford lower wages because the cost of life in China is lower than in the US. This is caused by the currency peg

This is simplistic libertarian thinking. While the peg helps keep Chinese currency low, it is not the only motivating factor.

Look at the label on your shirt and pants today. Odds are they were made somewhere other than China. Why did the US lose in textile manufacturing? Other countries have cheap labor, and light labor/environmental laws. The solutions are to join to the race to the bottom, support deindustrialization, or a tariff.

I'd rather have US citizens working than collecting welfare checks (I'm going to pay either way) so I'd support tariffs like our founding fathers did.

>>4901976

> Odds are they were made somewhere other than China.

Yes, but the reasons are similar. For instance, if those countries have free trade with China, their prices and wages will be similar. Generally speaking, when there's a substantial difference in prices and wages between two countries, there's a profit opportunity for arbitrage, which tend to erase this difference. If the difference persists, that can only mean that arbitrage is limited by some kind of trade restriction.

> Other countries have cheap labor, and light labor/environmental laws.

But that can't cause a general loss of American jobs. That's why I mentioned Ricardo's law.