Whose in favor of high import taxes to bring globalists

[Cleita]

under control? The reason we buy foreign made goods is because they are cheap. The reason American companies outsource to foreign companies is because of cheap labor. If we put a 100% value tariff on imported goods, it would make these goods less attractive.

For instance if it costs a wholesaler $100 for goods and you added an import tax of $100, it may make that wholesaler start looking around for domestically produced goods that would be cheaper than the imported goods. It would also increase the snob value of imported goods that the rich could try to impress each other with.

The reason we haven't done this before is because free trade is a better way to do things. However, since our companies and government have abused the system, we have to start taking our economy back with some draconian measures to turn the tide. So if that imported Mercedes costs twice as much as it does now, wouldn't an American made Mercedes or even Lexus for half the price be more attractive?

Also, for Wal-Mart shoppers, American made goods might be the cheap goods of the future. They probably won't be as cheap, but then the workers will have those union wages in their pockets to spend. This is how things were done in the fifties. Then it was the cost of shipping that made imported goods more expensive, but now that the greedy corporations have figured out how to get things made and shipped cheaply a lot of times with non-union and slave labor. It's time to come up with another solution.

Other countries have used the high tariff laws to stimulate domestic economic growth. It has to be coupled with low interest loans to business operators to set up manufacturing and other type of operations here in the USA.

I know there are those who believe that to punish other nations that we import from would make them stop buying stuff from us. Do we really need them? Since our trade seems to be lumber and other extraction industry goods, it seems we should be keeping these commodities here for our use and enrichment, not that of the multi-billionaire stockholders.

Since I am not an economist and took only one introductory course in economics in college, I'm not an expert. I was wondering what DUers who do have an economic background thinks about this?

[queenbdem87]

1. Well.....

it is kind of unrealistic to think we could survive solely on domestic production means, but I'm not opposed to higher import tariffs. I don't know if excise tax is the best term because I think that it refers to a completely domestic transaction, whereas an import is a transaction among multiple countries....but I could be wrong.
Also, I don't think free trade is a better way to do things. Fair trade is clearly a better option. We can't just ignore the way governments treat their workers when negotiating trade agreements with them. We also cant, as members of a global market, let worker abuses by other countries go unpunished.

[Cleita]

Right, wrong word. Tariffs is right. Thanks for correcting me.n/t

Fixed the words. As far as our domestic exports, I didn't mean 100% not exporting, just would we really miss reduced exports that much if companies stop buying from us as much.

[Imperialism Inc.]

2. I am in favor if

it is tied to things such as labor rights and protection of the environment in the foreign nation we are importing from. After all, poor labor laws and weak environmental protections is why the foreign goods are often so much cheaper. But, you have to realize that under current trade agreements (NAFTA, membership in the WTO, etc) those foreign nations could take us to court for passing laws like that. The needs of the multi-nationals trump democratically enacted legislation. The 100% tarrif would be struck down as well for the same reason. That is just the way it works today. Decision making power about the really important things is more and more being moved in to the hands of unaccountable organizations that represent the interests of private power (corporations).

[Cleita]

4. Thanks. I didn't know NAFTA screwed us in this regard as well.

eom

[Imperialism Inc.]

8. Here is a quick reference.

http://www.solidarity-us.org/atc/90Greenfield.html

...

In 1997 the U.S. chemicals giant, Ethyl Corp, used NAFTA's Chapter 11 to sue the Canadian government for a ban imposed on MMT, a
gasoline additive produced by Ethyl which is toxic and hazardous to public health. Ethyl claimed that the ban "expropriated" its assets in Canada and that "legislative debate itself constituted an expropriation of its assets because public criticism of MMT damaged the company's reputation."

Ethyl sued the Canadian government for US$250 million. A year later, in June 1998, the Canadian government withdrew environmental legislation banning MMT, and paid Ethyl Corp US$13 million to settle the case.

Three more suits are outstanding against the Canadian government, three against the Mexican government and two against the U.S. government.

The case against the United States by a Canadian corporation, Mexthanex, also gained attention with a September 5 article in The National Post announcing that Methanex will seek US$970 million in compensation for environmental laws in California which are "tantamount to expropriation."

...

[Cleita]

10. Thanks for the link. It's very informative.

I have it bookmarked. I never really went into NAFTA in depth, but it looks like I need to.

[AndyA]

3. Our Government Looks Out for Everyone Else First

If we had a government that actually put America first, we would have an equalizing factor in place to make American made items more attractive than imported goods. Other countries do it to us, yet we don't return the favor. Meanwhile, we export our jobs to improve their economies, and we import so much from China the Chinese are all now doing quite well. So well, in fact, they can afford cars even in their crowded conditions. And those cars need gas. So much gas that they have contributed to the higher prices we pay here in America. More demand = higher cost.

So Americans really aren't saving all that much by shopping at Wal-Mart, because they will be paying for it in other ways. Either by losing their job, or paying higher costs for gas.

But Americans by and large are too stupid to see this. They are literally shopping themselves and everyone else out of a job, and they won't do anything about it until it falls at their doorstep.

Complacency has no place in society today. We must keep a vigilant watch on what is going on in the world around us, because everything has an effect on everything else.

[kenny blankenship]

13. We do have a gov't that puts America first, just not the America you know

We don't export jobs to be nice to foreign countries in their struggles to develop their economies.
We do it because that's what American banks and large investors demand as policy from the government they own.
Trade policy, the area of policy which has led to the situation you and others complain of, has been one of the outstanding examples of bipartisan consensus over the last 15 years or so.

[olaus]

5. There goes

the price of the televisions, radio's most anything electronic. Why is answer so often more tax, how about attacking the problem and let find a way to end "pork aka "earmarks" that both parties shove under the door.

[Cleita]

6. Why does that have to be so?

We all know that volume brings the price down. I really think we could manufacture TV's and electronics that would be affordable to most, not to mention the waste in our electronics now that we just throw away. Instead they might go through a second life being handed down to the less fortunate who couldn't afford the latest or to those who might want to have a computer in every room, but can't afford new ones.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. We'll live without cheap TVs and electronics.

There may even be a market for fixing broken ones rather than tossing them out because it's cheaper to replace them. More American jobs!
As for eliminating pork, you're right there. We have no business supporting pork in the governmental budgets. Getting rid of all of it will not correct the trade deficit however.

[Gormy Cuss]

7. Me. Tariffs are needed to restore a level playing field for Americans.

We have used tariffs on selected products or against selected countries in the past. It is so insanely out of sync now that the U.S. is set to become a net importer of food. FOOD! Surely it's in our best interests to protect that basic commodity.

your comment:
Also, for Wal-Mart shoppers, American made goods might be the cheap goods of the future. They probably won't be as cheap, but then the workers will have those union wages in their pockets to spend. This is how things were done in the fifties.

So true, and so quickly forgotten.

[Cleita]

9. I think we have to do something before we complete the

transformation into a banana republic that is happening to us.

[LuCifer]

11. Yes, cuz I have a pre-1980 mindset!

Meanwhile, the repukes have a pre-1776 mindset. Oh wait, that would imply that they have BRAINS!

[mdmc]

14. I oppose tarrifs

but I support buying American. America must market itsef and its produts. As long as consumers value profit over people, we will continue to import cheap shit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. This is a capitalist country run by capitalists.

The motivating factor is profits. The people who actually run this country aren't about to concern themselves with the plight of American workers any more than they concern themselves with the plight of Chinese, Guatamalan, or Vietnamese workers. As is obvious by they're seeking out of the cheapest labor available.

The idea of "leveling the playing field" by raising tariffs won't work simply because the playing field is being "levelled" in the countries that are out producing us. The living standards are being raised in China, India, etc, because of their ability to produce more for less. The old idea of "cheap goods" being necessarily sub-standard is gone, buried under Toyotas, Sony, Hyundai, etc.

You forget that we aren't the only market in the world. If we raise our tariffs, then the Europeans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians, will still buy each others lower priced goods.

Welcome to the "Free Market".

Or, as Lenin said, "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

[Cleita]

19. But would that be a bad thing?

Unlike many other countries who have an uneducated work force, we still do have a literate workforce that can produce the goods and jobs that are needed, if they are put to work. We can have a sustainable economy while the rest of the world works out its economical problems.

We can't be dragged down into third world country status to lift the rest of the world up. I mean it's fine to help out less fortunate countries, but not at the expense of ours. I think we could go a long way here by simply not exploiting them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I don't think theres a choice available.

There's a revolution going on in the 3rd world and we're busily ignoring it. We have (we being the west) exploited them for centuries. They aren't about to curtail their own development to give us a soft landing. We "gave" them capitalism and they've grown very good at it. Now, we're asking them to "understand" our plight after centuries of ignoring theirs (as we're still doing).

But, beyond that, the multi-nationals that control our government (and, I don't mean some evil cabal sitting around making plans) through the purchase of politicians amenable to their needs, aren't about to allow any kind of interference in their bottom lines.

The corporations MUST make a profit, or die. They CAN'T stand still by selling to just Americans, or using only American resources, including high-paid labor.

Plus the fact that we depend, not just on the goods in WalMart, but things like oil, tungston, copper, and a myriad of other resources that are available only elsewhere.

As I said, they are "leveling the playing field". We're just not happy about being levelled.

We are a part of the world whether we like it or not.

Like the freed slaves (talk about cheap labor) said after the civil-war, "Bottom rail on top now."

[Cleita]

27. You have the right points on this, however, do we really need

the megacorporations as much as they try to tell us we do? What if we were cut off of oil, copper and the other things we think we need? I mean I have always had a fantasy of mining landfills. I mean there is so much scrap everything that could be retrieved.

Also, have you ever been through Nevada? I'm not talking Las Vegas, but out in the unpopulated sticks. You can actually see the ore striations on the sides of the hills and mountains. I'm sure there is a mother lode of all kinds of ores there waiting to come out of the mountain. Much of this is occupied by Nellis Air Base so it's off limits to civilians but you can still see this on the outskirts. I grew up in a copper mine so I see ores where no one else is looking, and there is still a lot of it in America that hasn't been touched.

Also, I'm not against third world nations rising to first world, and we should help them, but not at the expense of our own economy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. The problem being "all politics is local".

As Tip O'neil once said.

As long as Americans have credit cards and can buy all the latest new goodies from anywhere, they'll do so. By the time, (rapidly approaching), that they discover that the bills are due in the form of the foreign governments cashing in their holdings and demanding payment, it will be too late.

Right now we're living in a borrow & spend fantasyland. Just like Reaganomics, the bosses are hoping that the folks enriching themselves with tax-cuts are going to benevolently churn it all back into the American economy through purchases and investments. Unfortunately, those folks didn't get rich by being stupid or benevolent. They're still going to buy their Mercedes and French wine and invest in enterprises that are on the way up rather than the likes of Ford, GM, and Magnavox.

There may be ore in Nevada (I used to live there) but it simply can't compete with Bolivian or Nigerian ore on the market. If I'm producing electric wire for construction in the USA, using USA produced copper, or aluminum, I'm going to have to compete with companies that can produce it for less. So, if I'm smart I'm going to get if from them. If you slap a tariff on it, I'll move overseas and sell it to the Brits or the Germans or the Chinese and still make a fat profit.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a way out of this. We're like some drunk who goes on "one last fling" before sobering up and discovering that his wife has left, his job is gone, and the police have a warrant out for his arrest.

[Cleita]

29. I'm thinking that the credit card companies are getting so greedy

and so out of control that many people, me included, are paying them off and not charging anymore. I have always carried balances and not worried about it too much but then I started paying attention to my bills and the rules have changed drastically from twenty years ago and they keep changing. There are no laws anymore to reign them in and keep them honest.

I think other people are coming to the same conclusion and those who can will pay off the balances and keep a card around like American Express for emergencies and not use them anymore. This may bring change.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Alas, the government has the power to raise their own "credit ceiling".

Unlike the average consumer who also continues to spend like there's no tomorrow.

CONSUMER CREDIT OUTSTANDING 1
Seasonally adjusted
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006
_______ _______________________________________________ _______

2001 2002 2003 2004 r 2005 r Q4 r Q1 r Q2 r Q3 r Q4 r Nov r Dec r Jan p
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent change at annual rate 2,3
Total 7.7 4.7 4.6 4.3 2.9 4.3 3.4 3.7 5.3 -0.8 0.0 1.9 2.2
Revolving 5.6 2.7 2.7 3.8 2.7 1.9 -0.3 4.6 6.6 -0.1 1.6 -0.9 2.6
Nonrevolving 4 9.1 6.0 5.7 4.7 3.1 5.7 5.7 3.2 4.6 -1.2 -1.0 3.5 1.9

Amount: billions of dollars
Total 1835.6 1921.9 2009.9 2096.8 2158.5 2096.8 2114.8 2134.3 2162.6 2158.5 2155.1 2158.5 2162.4
Revolving 713.3 732.7 752.8 781.1 802.2 781.1 780.4 789.3 802.4 802.2 802.8 802.2 804.0
Nonrevolving 4 1122.2 1189.2 1257.1 1315.8 1356.3 1315.8 1334.4 1344.9 1360.3 1356.3 1352.3 1356.3 1358.5

However, I'm glad to see you've come to your senses in your personal situation. You're one of my favorite posters.

[sandnsea]

16. Implement trade regulations

Labor, environmental and human rights worldwide. Fix our health care system. Stop subsidizing corporations through the tax code. That would go a long way to leveling the playing field and would increase the standard of living of those in 3rd world countries, which in turn would go a long way in decreasing terrorist recruits. Tariffs are only needed in dumping situations.

[Cleita]

17. I agree with your fixes, however, you are suggesting three

things that need to be done and they really do need to be done down the road, however, my suggestion is to do one thing to shock the system into retrograde. If it isn't tariffs, what could it be?

[sandnsea]

20. No, they need to be done NOW

Today. Instantaneously. Possibly the most important thing on any agenda if we really want to fix our own economy and implement a new foreign policy that will bring people to our side. Tariffs just throws a monkey wrench in the works and brings the entire global economy to a halt, not good for anybody.

[DrGonzoLives]

18. Societal cost

Right now we are hooked on cheap foreign shit, and by suddenly imposing massive tariffs, you will put many things out of the reach of low-income people. There are entire industries overseas for which there is no longer an infrastructure here in the States, meaning prices would be high for a fairly long time while things rebuild.

What we need to do is to stop letting companies write off the costs of exporting jobs on their taxes, reward companies who bring jobs back into the states, and lower tariffs on those countries with equivalent labor, environmental, human rights standards.

[Cleita]

21. Those are good solutions, but again many that need to be

done down the road, but it won't happen until we take back our economy somehow.

Also, if everyone can't afford new goods, maybe recycling things and buying used would help low income people.

I mean I really get upset having to throw outdated electronics into the dumpster. I have a perfectly good printer that I have replaced with a better one, but now I have to throw it out because it's not the newest model.

I'm sure if things were a little more expensive this printer could have another life with a poor family.

[DrGonzoLives]

22. You don't "have" to throw anything out

My laptop is pushing three years old and has a broken screen swivel, is close to obsolete, yet works fine. There are plenty of ways to get older electronics sold to others, and there are recycling facilities for them if you can't go that route.

You can't start with jacking up tariffs first, that has to be down the road. You have to get American manufacturing up and running again, then turn the screws. Otherwise, all you do is widen the gap between rich and poor.

[Cleita]

23. I have tried every way to get rid of it.

No one wants it, not even the Goodwill, or Salvation Army. Every computer store I talk to tells me to throw it away.

If there is a recycling place for this, it's too far away for me to drive to, or mail too. I am keeping it in case someday I run across someone who wants it.

[TX-RAT]

24. Why punish the consumer?

OK so your answer is to make me pay 200 dollars for an item i used to pay a 100 dollars for?

[Cleita]

25. No the idea is for you to buy a hundred $100 item produced

here. It's to dissuade you from buying the $100 item from overseas. You see you are still being gouged by the wholesalers. All those saving to the corporations with the cheap labor and all are going into their pockets. It's not being passed on to the consumer.