Skip to main content

View Diary: After getting '98 percent' of what they wanted in debt deal, GOP blames Democrats for downgrade (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  NAFTA is a small part of the problem (0+ / 0-)

    China and India are not part of NAFTA, yet we have lost far more jobs to those countries, as opposed to Mexico and Canada. Virtually every country in the world has much higher tariffs than does the US. Yet, people say that we can't raise ours because of the WTO, or that it will hurt trade. Damn right it will hurt trade. It will hurt the trade of other countries who have been dumping in this country for decades. Then, we would have to start making our own stuff again.

    "If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of Congress?" — Will Rogers

    by shoeless on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:18:55 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Boys and girls, (0+ / 0-)

      can you say, "Smoot-Hawley?"

      "Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover's administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.[8]
      In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada.[14] Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.
      Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      •  You miss the point. (0+ / 0-)

        I am not calling for the US to raise tariffs higher than those imposed upon us by other countires. I am just asking to level the playing field.

        Get it? Or, is that too complicated for you?

        "If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of Congress?" — Will Rogers

        by shoeless on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:18:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gee, economics is hard! (0+ / 0-)

          So, we raise tariffs against China, and China does nothing, except to continue to buy up our debt, of course. What could go wrong?

          •  I see (0+ / 0-)

            You think we should keep going with the strategy of keeping our tariffs at 1.5%, while China charges us 30%. Good plan. It's worked so well, so far.

            Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.- Albert Einstein

            "If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of Congress?" — Will Rogers

            by shoeless on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:36:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  WTF (0+ / 0-)

              Sorry: I meant, "WTO." We signed an agreement. Take the issue to the WTO. But unilaterally levying retaliatory tariffs is a crappy idea, IMO.

              BTW,  the Obama administration recently put in place something like 35% tariffs on Chinese auto tires, which join with other high tariffs on various agricultural products from China, among other goods. It's a real boost to our economy, don't you think?

              Long live protectionism.

              •  Wow! What a hard head. (0+ / 0-)

                I am not talking about unilateterally levying tariffs. Other countries already to that to the US. I am talking about leveling the playing field. How can I pound that into your thick skull?

                You can't be this dense. I'm thinking you are a troll for the Chamber of Commerce.

                "If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of Congress?" — Will Rogers

                by shoeless on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 11:05:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Expiring Tariffs (0+ / 0-)

                BTW, the tariff on tires was temporay, and have been decreasing every yea. They were only imposing to temporarily stop dumpng by the Chinese. US manufacturers will not relocate back in the US when they know that the tariffs will be gone by the time they set up shop in the US. the US needs permanent tariffs, like we had for the first 200 year of exisitence.

                "If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of Congress?" — Will Rogers

                by shoeless on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 11:24:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Every time there are economic down times (0+ / 0-)

                  voices are raised in favor of tariffs, and every time it's supposedly to insure a level playing field—although it never seems to.

                  But every time it also insures retaliatory action by trading partners, and it's rarely apples for apples. So, Japan taxes U.S. apples, and we slap duties on silk. Among other things, this means that the Japanese consumer pays more for their domestic apples, now that the competition is eliminated, and the U.S. consumer pays more for ties and scarves—leaving each consumer with less money to spend for either apples or silk.

                  I worked in an export industry for 35 years. We wanted to sell talc in France, but they slapped on a tariff. So when they wanted to sell wine and cheese in the States, we slapped on a tariff. We wanted to sell glazing colors in Italy, but they slapped on a tariff. They wanted to sell cheese in the U.S., but we slapped on a tariff. End result: we sold very little in Italy or France—no business for us, no tariffs going into the Treasury, no business taxes either.

                  The best tariffs, of course, were the ones that the car manufacturers got enacted. That bought them a decade of time-wasting failure to modernize in their nice, competition-reduced cocoon. And eventually that helped Toyota and Honda eat GM and Chrysler's lunch—of which there is never a free one.

                  Protectionism helps, at best, a favored few with the political pull to get tariffs enacted. It screws over almost everyone else.

                  •  Go report to your bosses at the CoC (0+ / 0-)

                    That you did your best spreading their propaganda, but you failed to convince anyone that one way free trade works for America.

                    "If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of Congress?" — Will Rogers

                    by shoeless on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 12:34:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

                      And I thought you were incapable of a cogent response. Silly me. Give my regards to your superiors at the Comintern.

                      •  Funny (0+ / 0-)

                        how you trolls only show up when someone points out the disaster of our trade policy. The cat is out of the bag. It is public knowledge that the Chamber of Commerce has been paying trolls to infest sites like this to spread their propaganda.

                        Kiss my ass corporatist troll.

                        "If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of Congress?" — Will Rogers

                        by shoeless on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:08:05 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  You did notice.... (0+ / 0-)
      and other "trade agreements"

      Thanks.

      -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

      by r2did2 on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:33:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site