Josh Hawley Wants the Debt Ceiling Deal To Include a Massive Tax Hike on Americans
Hawley might call them "tariffs on China," but that's obvious nonsense: Tariffs are paid by Americans.

As the deadline for reaching a deal to raise to debt limit nears, Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) says any agreement should include a massive tax hike on Americans.
Earlier this month, Hawley introduced a bill to impose an additional 25 percent tariff on all imports from China—above and beyond existing tariffs on many of those same products. Hawley's bill, the Raising Tariffs on Imports From China Act, would allow a future president to remove that 25 percent import tax on goods from China only after the United States records a bilateral trade surplus with China for a full year.
"Strong tariffs on China should be a major part of any debt ceiling agreement," the senator said in a statement announcing his bill earlier this month.
Tariffs, of course, are nothing more than taxes paid by importers and passed along to consumers. The past five years have provided a striking real-world experiment in that basic principle of economics, as study after study has found that former President Donald Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods (and other imports too) resulted in higher prices and contributed to overall inflation. Hawley might call them "tariffs on China," but that's obvious nonsense: Tariffs are paid by Americans.
But Hawley seems determined to make Americans pay higher taxes. Earlier this year, he introduced a different bill to prevent the United States from applying so-called "normal" tariff rates—that is, the rates charged on imports from all World Trade Organization (WTO) member countries—on imports from China.
Effectively, that change would hike average tariff rates on Chinese imports from 11.1 percent to 40.9 percent, according to an analysis from Bryan Riley, director of the free trade initiative at the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), a free market nonprofit. The rates for some common imports would jump far higher: Shoes and clothing from China would be marked up by 59 percent, while children's toys would see an extra 70 percent tax applied. Increased import taxes could add $86 to the price of smartphones from China, $111 to laptop computers, and $39 to video game consoles, according to NTU's analysis.
If passed into law, Riley says, Hawley's proposal would amount to the largest tariff increase on American consumers in nearly a century—since the passage of the "Smoot-Hawley" (no relation) tariffs in 1930, which economists now widely credit with extending and worsening the Great Depression.
Americans have struggled through two years of heightened inflation and rising interest rates. Hawley needs to explain why raising import taxes should be a priority right now.
When asked during a Friday appearance on Fox Business about the potential economic downsides to hiking tariffs right now, Hawley largely avoided the question. Instead, he insisted that "we need to bring back good-paying blue-collar jobs to this country" and blamed China's membership in the WTO for that decline.
That's a common refrain from the New Right, but it's both economically inaccurate and nonsensical as a justification for raising tariffs.
Indeed, tariffs won't create jobs in the United States—they will destroy them, as higher taxes always do.
For example, look at what happened when Trump imposed 25 percent tariffs on steel imports. The higher prices created by the tariffs benefited the domestic steel manufacturing industry but caused greater job losses in steel-consuming industries. "A small boost from the import protection effect of tariffs is more than offset by larger drags from the effects of rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs," a pair of economists from the Federal Reserve concluded in one study.
Industry representatives have said the same thing: "Any gains seen by the steel industry from the tariffs has been overshadowed by the losses in the companies downstream," Stuart Speyer, president of Tennsco LLC, a Tennessee-based metal fabrication firm, told the International Trade Commission at a hearing last year.
China's membership in the WTO hasn't been costly for the United States either. The availability of cheap imports from China has actually been a major boon for American manufacturing over the past few decades—no matter what Trump, Hawley, and others might claim. Between 2000 and 2021, manufacturing imports from China to the U.S. increased by $391 billion, but American manufacturing output increased by $947 billion during the same period.
The number of manufacturing jobs in the United States has declined largely due to automation and high labor costs, not because of competition with China. Tariffs won't change any of that. All they will do is make it more expensive for American manufacturers to do what they do best these days: use global supply chains to churn out high-end goods.
It's telling that Hawley isn't the only American senator pushing to revoke China's "normal trade relations" status. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) campaigned for president in 2020 on a promise to hike tariffs on Chinese imports and has frequently complained about China's membership in the WTO. (Sanders even introduced a bill in 2005 to do pretty much exactly what Hawley's bill aims to do now.)
As a general rule: If you're pushing an economic policy also endorsed by an avowed socialist, you might want to reconsider. Fittingly, when it comes to tariff policy, Hawley and the rest of the New Right are slipping into one of the same economic fallacies that has often bedeviled progressives like Sanders: judging policy by intention rather than outcomes.
You can say the words "tariffs," "China," and "good-paying blue-collar jobs" as many times as you'd like. It'll never add up the way Hawley keeps promising. Higher import taxes that will be paid by American businesses and consumers is a recipe for slowing the economy and punishing productive people. It won't accomplish anything else.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
bilateral trade surplus with China
I guess most people don't understand that reserve currency requires a trade deficit. It's math not policy.
I'm not sure that "requires" is right, but the general point, that a likely consequence of being a reserve currency is a trade deficit, remains, nor is the deficit proof that China is ripping us off and some form of renegotiation of trade deals is required.
Only way to get currency into the intl system (where it can be set aside as a reserve for third party trade) is to export it. Which equals the current account deficit.
Countries with permanent trade surpluses may want to be reserve currency - but trade surplus means they are exporting stuff and importing currency. Can't get from here to there.
I guess some people have never heard that lots of people, including an entire school of prominent economists, believe a/the federal reserve system leads to exactly where we are.
It not the federal reserve, it it the corrupt politicians who have been bribed (campaign contributions) to allow all of US industry to move to communist China. When goods were manufactured here, imports had tariffs simply to protect US owned industry. When the vultures on wall street decided to ship all jobs to China, to exploit the near slave labor wages, no such tariffs were enacted on imported goods, because the vultures who imported these cheep goods were the ones who made obscene fortunes from throwing the American worker down the sewer. The feds made up for it by printing more and more paper. The US has finally maxed out its credit card and the millionaires in congress who are out of touch with the regular working American, are to blame.
throwing the American worker down the sewer
Private companies are not jobs programs. Perhaps an economic system more like China's is more to your liking.
Josh Hawley (R) wants to raise taxes. But the taxes he wants to raise are tariffs, which for some reason is anathema to the “Libertarian” site Reason. Funny, when raising income taxes on the “rich” is discussed, (usually by D’s) the “Libertarian” site is OK with that. I suppose the “reasoning” that justifies this approach is too abstruse for a simple constitutional textualist to understand. Funny how “third party” efforts usually wind up benefiting the ideology they most fervently claim to oppose.
Josh Hawley is advocating one of three choices that Americans must make:
(1) Pay more taxes (but don’t tax you and don’t tax me – tax that feller behind the tree) to support the amount of government the people seem to demand, or at least the level of government that the people’s elected representatives are foisting off on them, or
(2) Reduce the amount of government the country is “buying” to match the income stream the government receives from current taxes, or
(3) Change nothing, replace E Pluribus Unum> with Après moi, le déluge as the country’s motto, continue doing what we are doing now, and wait for the inevitable arrival of that moment when that which cannot continue will, in fact, cease to continue, and then break out the popcorn and watch the drama! There is not, and never has been, a perpetual motion machine, and the money presses are not that miraculous device.
"Funny, when raising income taxes on the “rich” is discussed, (usually by D’s) the “Libertarian” site is OK with that."
I don't think I've ever seen Reason be OK with raising taxes. They've objected to ineffective tax cuts like the one the Rs passed under Trump.
Tax cuts aren't automatically good just because they're tax cuts. Doing it in a way that stimulates the economy and makes it easier for businesses to thrive is good. The Grover Norquist/Arthur Laffer way that Rs love is bad.
"Josh Hawley is advocating one of three choices that Americans must make:"
Josh Hawley isn't advocating any sound policy. He's playing to his autboritarian, populist base that doesn't understand how capitalism works. It's politics, jot economics.
And, (wheezing with an advanced case of the vapors) Hawley is a Republican, and therefore (at least according to Nelson), anything he proposes is iniquitous and everything he suggests is stupid and ill thought out. Which seems to be the default position of the editors at Reason. Can you certify for us that you're not on the payroll, Nelson?
Establishment Republican fiscal policy is better than establishment Democrat policy and both are DEFINITELY better than the ignorant idiocy that populists on the right like Hawley and left like Sanders (wealth tax, anyone?) spew.
Populism is basically the distillation of the dumbest things your least-educated friends say when they're three sheets to the wind. It's sophistry weaponized to win elections.
Apparently you don't understand that libertarians are, generally speaking, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Which is what I am. I am in favor of individual liberty in both personal and financial matters. I am fiercely pro-capitalism. I believe in government that is as small as possible without compromising effectiveness.
I am horrified by the authoritarian nature of cultural conservatism and regularly push back on the various conservative assertions that governmental power should be used to shape culture. Which is probably why you think I am anti-Republican.
I believe culture should be shaped by the consensus of citizens, constantly changing and improving. I place no inherent value in traditional culture, values, or morality. If they are convincing to people, they will survive.
But using legislation to keep moral or cultural values around that are past their expiration date is a terrible abuse of government power.
I'm not a Democrat because I find their policies, especially fiscal policies, awful. I'm not a Republican because for my entire adult life they have pretended they were morally superior and they are slightly less honest than Democrats. I have always been an independent because I knew I wasn't a D or an R. Then I found out about libertarianism and knew that I'd found people who shared my beliefs.
Fuck yeah!
R's slightly less honest then the D's? Maybe before 2000 but now. No way. Protests were 'peaceful'. Inflation doesn't exist. The border is secure. We aren't coming for your gas appliance. Global warming will even us in 4 or 10 years said...12 to 20 years ago, That's mostly just this year.
Yeah both parties stink. But if I had to chose the current R's that believe in at least a little responsibility compared to the Ds that transgender childen and don't know what a woman is, I'll take the Rs,
I know Shrike loves to abuse children but the rest of us. No
Jesus. How many strawmen can you fit into one post?
"to allow all of US industry to move to communist China"
You're in favor of the government dictating where companies can manufacture their goods? Or in favor of making things more expensive for the American consumer (aka inflation)? Or both?
"When goods were manufactured here, imports had tariffs simply to protect US owned industry."
Yes. It's called 'protectionism' for a reason. And it screws the people buying things in order to make American manufacturing artificially competitive with countries where $5 a day (or even a week) is a good income. It's a battle that cannot be won. It was bullshit when Democrats were doing it, it's bullshit now that populist Republicans are doing it, and it will continue to be bullshit until the sun consumes the Earth.
"the vultures who imported these cheep goods were the ones who made obscene fortunes from throwing the American worker down the sewer"
Capitalism, the free market, and the cost of living in the US vs. developing countries is what makes American manufacturing uncompetitive. It isn't personal and it isn't intentional. It's an unfortunate side effect of capitalism, it isn't vultures trying to screw American workers.
If you want to bring back American manufacturing, collapse the American economy and destroy our prosperity. Which seems to be the plan of the populists.
"The US has finally maxed out its credit card"
It's funny that you think that's true. Funny in a sad way.
And the consequences of NOT having a federal reserve system was financial panics and economic depressions about every twenty years, with the government not having any tools to address the massive human misery that resulted. For the last two, in 1893 and 1907, it was J. P. Morgan who literally saved the US economy. Today it would have to be Elon Musk. So for those who want a government of, by, and for the oligarchs, abolishing the federal reserve system makes sense.
This isn't to say that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has always made the right decisions. But the fact that there is one, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, gives us the tools to address economic catastrophes. And its record in recent decades has been pretty good.
The consequences of having the Federal Reserve system are inflation, system wide panics and depression every 15 or 20 years or so. Before the federal reserve there was not the exagerrated business cycle nor inflation. It would have been better to have let J.P. Morgan and his pals go under; but they didn’t go under even though there was no Federal Reserve to bail them out. So, the Fed was unnecessary. A better solution to bank panics would have been to require banks to publish accurate percentage of their cash reserves, under penalty of fraud, so the public would have an accurate idea of the risks of any particular bank and choose more secure institutions. Understand that the power to create money and credit invariably overstimulates the economy leading to unsustainable exaggerated booms and the inevitable crash that follows.
I commend you on your ability to read through and interpret, or ignore, the claims/facts asserted. AFAICT, his whole post was between disinformative mess and deliberate deception or lie.
?
Maybe you mean I didn't answer this:
Without the Fed, the "oligarchs" would have to bail themselves out, not have the country suffer continual inflation and recession to shield them.
By invariably inflating the money supply, the Fed creates those economic catastrophes, causes exaggerated economic cycles. Without government economic intervention, there would be no economic catastrophes.
Um... Nearly all financial crashes were caused by government prohibition laws and the asset-forfeiture looting eagerly pounced upon to "enFORCE" them. Distracting attention by accusing the Fed of witchcraft does not alter reality. It simply removes all doubt that the whiner is reciting nonsense. Crash? (https://bit.ly/3BXGagN)
See Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" - https://mises.org/library/americas-great-depression
Jesus Christ, did Reason tear a hole in the time-space continuum where any idiot from any parallel apes-evolved-from men timeline can post? What the fuck are you even talking about?
The last two panics/depressions in our history were 1893 and 1907? The last 10 yrs. have been panic/depression-free? Elon Musk is a reserve system? J.P. Morgan, a private financier, is a reserve system? No recent panics, depressions, or bailouts? WTF?
Yes the Federal Reserve created in 1913 saved us from a huge depression in the 1930s.
The Federal Reserve system, by inflating the supply of money and credit in the "roaring '20s", created an exaggerated boom leading inevitably to the exaggerated crash of the "Great Depression". Without the Fed, the Great Depression would have likely been a minor recession at worse. There was no exaggerated economic cycle before the Fed.
What’s more important is that a trade deficit is neither good nor bad.
It is to those whose jobs depend entirely on currency fluctuations and trade balances.
Add to that the fact that we are the world's premiere market. Everyone wants to sell into the US, including US manufacturers. Of course there are going to be more products coming in than going out.
The alternative is to have a weak economy that no one wants to sell into. That would solve the trade deficit "problem" that uninformed people keep whining about.
It would also mean we had fallen from the most economically powerful country on the world to Bangledesh or South Africa. And, as noted, would no longer be the world's reserve currency (Rs are working on destroying that as well with their debt ceiling bullshit).
People who love America and want it to succeed would call that a bad outcome. Republicans like Hawley (pro-tariff) and Trump (pro-tariff AND pro default) call it a good thing. That's why populists and empty bags of rhetoric, like those who control the Republican party right now, can't be allowed to be in charge of anything important until the grownups in the Republican party get back in charge.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......
SITE. ——>>> DOLLARPAY.COM
Finally something Biden and the Republicans can agree on.
"Finally something Biden and the Republicans can agree on."
I, too, sense a common theme. Unfortunately, it goes something like "Let's screw the American consumer a few more times!"
Ctrl+f Biden.
Nope. No mention. I guess Hawley by making a proposal, rather than being the guy actually putting them on, is the only real villain.
Never change, Reason.
Hawley and his cohorts aren’t the ones signing the checks to Reason.
You Trump-humpers are dumber than Bernie bros.
I know it's how you cope, but quit sockpuppeting, Shrike.
Awww, someone must have hurt the poor lambs fee fees.
Fuck off, slaver.
Biden supports raising tariffs on slave-made goods:?
But Biden using a veto to have federal spending not go to China is fine.
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18000 to $21000. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26000 in this month by just working online from home in my part time. every person easily do this job by.
.
Just Open This Website……………..>>> http://www.works75.com
I will also add another cost Reason will never admit to.
According to multiple sources, including the United States Trade Representative and the IP Commission, Chinese IP theft has cost the US economy between $225 billion and $600 billion annually.1
https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/23/technology/china-us-trump-tariffs-ip-theft/index.html
These costs also get passed onto consumers through increased security costs that also reduce internal IP.
And unlike most econ 101 activists i understand the full brunt of taxes does not get passed onto consumers as supplier shifts occur, such as conductors from Singapore and other countries. Why I'm not against responsive tariffs to bad market actors like China.
IP is like... a social construct man.
Development costs are not. If we want to encourage development we have to understand the associated costs.
My expensive IP protection enriches you, your cheap, porous GOF research standards enrich me.
Just an idea…….. like antifa!
"These costs also get passed onto consumers through increased security costs that also reduce internal IP."
At the same time, turning the stolen tech into products that compete for customers lowers the cost for consumers. There is a ceiling to how much cost you can pass on, which is dictated by your competitors and their pricing. If everyone is hit with the same cost (tariff) equally, the market can absorb almost the entire tariff without creating a disadvantage for anyone.
The most efficient approach to IP if you want to maximize consumer benefit is to have a limited period where the technology is protected so innovators can capitalize and profit from their discoveries, but a sunset period so the innovators can't create a monopoly.
"Why I’m not against responsive tariffs to bad market actors like China."
So you're pro-inflation. Got it.
In the absense of an increase in money supply, money spent on tarriffs will not be availble to be spent elsewhere, causing prices to go down or not increase so fast elsewhere.
LOL... Um.... NO....
Tarriff's are not paid for by "All-American" businesses and consumers.
They're paid by importers. Are we just lying in general now?
They’re paid by importers.
...who pass on the costs to consumers and industry.
An example of someone who doesn't know supplier shifts is a real thing.
Oh, they don't pass on the costs?
And yes, I do know that when tariffs are imposed people will switch - to suppliers who were previously more expensive - and there may not be the immediate availability in volume from these other sources, not to mention second-order effects like, in products with a limited number of suppliers, moving up their prices knowing that there won't be cheap competition. (This isn't the firs time you've claimed that I don't know some basic aspect of economics, rather than effectively responding to the point. I've taught economics at a higher level than you've demonstrated any knowledge or understanding of. You may well have done Econ 101 at college, I'll credit you with that.)
My fave classic example of the utter stupidity of protectionism and tariffs is shown below:
https://reason.com/2020/01/22/trump-campaigned-on-saving-factory-jobs-but-u-s-manufacturing-just-went-through-a-year-long-recession/
Clear-cut case below, showing the UTTER FAILURE of protectionism in general, and Trumpist protectionism specifically:
Meanwhile in the real world…
https://reason.com/2019/04/22/trumps-washing-machine-tariffs-cleaned-out-consumers/
Trump’s Washing Machine Tariffs Cleaned Out Consumers
A new report finds the tariffs raised $82 million for the U.S. Treasury but ended up increasing costs for consumers by about $1.2 billion.
PROTECTIONISM DOESN’T WORK!!! DUH!!!
Protect American washing-machine makers from Chinese competition? The FIRST thing that American washing-machine makers do, is jack UP their prices… AND the prices of dryers to boot, too! To SOAK the hell out of all of us consumers!!!
From the above-linked Reason article about washing machines…
“All told, those tariffs raised about $82 million for the U.S. Treasury but ended up increasing costs for consumers by about $1.2 billion during 2018 … (deleted). Although the trade policy did cause some manufacturers to shift production from overseas to the United States in an effort to avoid the new tariffs, the 1,800 jobs created by Trump’s washing machine tariffs cost consumers an estimated $820,000 per job.”
Summary: Nickels and dimes to the USA treasury; boatloads of pain for consumers. USA jobs created? Yes, at GREAT expense! Putting these 1.8 K workers on a super-generous welfare program would have been WAY better for all the rest of us! Plus, you know the WORKERS don’t make super-huge bucks (no $820,000 per job for THEM); the goodies flow to the EXECUTIVES at the top of the washing-machine companies! The same ones who play golf with The Donald, and join him for gang-banging Stormy Daniels! Essentially at our expense!
Thank you. There aren't a lot of things that pretty much all economists agree with, but the spectacular stupidity of tariffs is one of them.
The Republican Party was the party of high tariffs from 1854 to 1950, when Eisenhower finally force it to come to sanity. It was their favorite form of corporate welfare. From 1861 to 1913 and then again from 1921 to 1933, corporate welfare in the form of stupid high tariffs created a robber baron class and milked Americans dry. Woodrow Wilson was in many respects a spectacularly incompetent President, but one thing he did very right was to sign the law that created the income tax and at the same time dramatically reduce tariffs. Unfortunately Harding and then Hoover reversed that. Franklin Roosevelt then negotiated dozens of reciprocal trade agreements, reducing the misery of the Great Depression not just in the US but in our trading partners. Eisenhower, a true internationalist (the nutty far right would call him a "globalist") continued these policies and rammed them down the throat of a then reluctant Republican Party, which eventually realized his wisdom. By the time of Reagan's Presidency, there were actually more Democratic protectionists than Republican ones, although none of them ever managed to make it to the White House.
Unfortunately, Trump, Hawley, and other MAGA leaders want to return to Herbert Hoover policies -- on trade, immigration, and other areas. Eisenhower and Reagan are turning over in their graves.
Thanks charliehall for the historical view, some of which I wasn't aware of. Also thanks for the "balanced" view here with respect to political parties, even more so! THAT particular aspect of "discussions" here (in these comments) is quite sadly lacking, most especially from the way-too-many hyper-partisan MAGAts!
PS, I would dearly love to see the Jones Act torn asunder, for starters!
Trump used tariffs as leverage in trade negotiations. He doesn’t believe in employing them structurally. Biden does though. No mention of that?
"Trump used tariffs as leverage in trade negotiations."
Do you really believe that nonsense? There's never been a free trade bone in Trump's big fat body.
Sorry Charlie, but the income tax was a catastrophe. It sucked up far more of the economy than the tariffs did. When the Great War started, the tax went from 7% to 70% as Wilson went full-on fascist with what was called war socialism.
Wilson didn't give a damn about Europe, he knew a war would vastly increase his power which is why he did everything he could to get us into the war.
And again proof shrike doesn't understand supply shift exists.
Poor JesseAZ - isn't aware that there are two distinct meanings of supply shifts. One of them, the economic theory one, is nicely illustrated with pretty graphs and simple lines. The other, I concede less commonly used, deals with shifting patterns of trade. Clearly what we are dealing with here is the latter. See for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022199698000750
So your entire response was admitting youre a fucking idiot.
Glad we can agree on something for once.
I'd happily pay more to f the chinese over. Who wouldn't, comrade?
Not me! Cooperation kicks the ass of competition! THAT is what "civilization" is built upon! "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" just simply leaves us all nose-less, looking like Voldemort! I'd rather be Hairy Pothead! "Hairy Pothead and the Bowl of Smoke and Fire" for me, please!
That cooperation allows the Communist Party of China to stay in power, use western technology to surveil, control and subjugate the people, to increase its military manufacturing capability and update its military technology and increase its military capacity. It will enable Communist China to hegemonize and threaten its neighbors. The CPC is still in power due to “free” trade. The west had strict economic boycots against the Soviet bloc, and the Soviets collapsed. The west has “free” trade with Red China, and the CPC becomes even more entrenched and has become even more authoritarian under Xi. “Free” trade? I wonder if reason were to publish uncensored Chinese language versions of the print magazine and website whether reason could legally sell the uncensored print magazine in Red China and whether the uncensored website would be accessible from Red China.
"supplier shifts is a real thing"
Can you explain to the class how this prevents costs being transferred to consumers, decreasing price competition? Because I don't think you can. You just post random phrases that you don't understand if it supports your priors.
Since a tariff is a broad cost laid on all companies, virtually 100% can be passed along without creating a competitive disadvantage. That is why tariffs are a tax on consumers (or, if you prefer, inflation).
"who pass on the costs to consumers and industry"
Ya know; just like domestic tax only cheaper?
Cheaper even when/if it includes the Hawley "massive" hike..
I'm no fan of taxation but if it's going to exist I see no point in giving importers ZERO tax while taxing domestic at 50+%.
Is the plan here to prop up foreign manufacturing and punish our own? Because it's working...
Thank you, that is precisely the plan. Globalists worldwide have invested billions in a China-originated supply chain, and god forbid any pissant populist yokels try to take their manufacturing base back. Right, Mr. Boehm?
It was only 4 years ago we saw the supply chain risk cost realized and they want to go back to it again.
"supply chain risk cost realized and they want to go back to it again."
There is always supply chain risk. It is impossible to eliminate unless you don't have a supply chain. Which exactly zero companies have figured out how to do.
There isn't any "going back to" risk. Risk is ubiquitous. Do you really not understand that?
A supply chain originating in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Japan, South Korea or Taiwan is overall less risky than one originating in Red China which could easily be cut off in time of conflict.
When you say "globalists", do you mean "Jews", or "capitalists"? It is as well to clarify.
Probably Jewish capitalists. After all, we Joos did develop those secret space lasers!
Much more than that……
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz7JGCj4Q5k
Don't know about him, but to me globalists means everyone regularly attending Davos and working for the WEF.
It also means the local business that doesn't produce their own raw materials or parts.
You do understand that it isn't just large companies benefitting from globalization, right? It's the one-person jewelry maker who sells their products at local stores and art festivals. Becuase they have to get their materials from somewhere.
Globalization =/= globalism.
OK. What's your point?
"have to get their materials from somewhere"
Foreign = ZERO tax.
Domestic = 50% tax.
Ya know a tax isn't a Embargo right?
He probably means international socialists.
"I’m no fan of taxation but...."
In that case, Hawley should be calling for policies that free American companies to be more competitive. But no, let's screw over Americans even more. I guess it's the MAGA version of equity.
The best counter-argument... Well made +100000...
With a proposal to STOP spending so much....
That would be a much better path for Hawley.
Or start importing from countries that do not use slave labor.
It is a sloppy comparison, to be sure. It is less a tax, and more of a direct subsidy.
Americans are forced to pay more for domestic manufacturing. It is not substantially different than forcing us to pay more for our gasoline by forcing us to pay for corn growers to provide a component of it.
After all, the United States of America is really just an economic zone.
Americans are inconvenient. They have no right to expect anything more than the 3rd world migrants we import to replace them.
Screw your posterity, let them be serfs.
The question for me is whether Hawley actually believes his own argument, or just thinks that there's political mileage in making it. Declaration season is upon us, after all.
I don't care for Hawley. But, I don't think he is this stupid, so I vote for "political mileage."
It’s what all of them only care about.
I believe he a Harvard man so "political mileage" is the best guess. Kind of like the power sign of January 6th, followed by the scamping through the halls ahead of the mob.
Led in by the police.
I largely agree with everything except for this:
“The number of manufacturing jobs in the United States has declined largely due to automation and high labor costs, not because of competition with China. ”
The number of manufacturing jobs in the US, to my knowledge, hasn’t decreased substantially*. Nevertheless, a major contributor to the “offshoring” of hard goods and manufacturing is not automation, but inflationary monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. Inflation doesn’t occur everywhere at once. It spreads through economies from the banking sector out to corporations, to businesses and workers. When a worker receives money whose purchasing power is wasting away due to inflation, they will naturally send dollars to areas where inflation hasn’t reached. This is the benefit and the curse of having the world’s major currency: our workers have higher purchasing power as they receive and spend inflato-bucks before much of the world. But that comes at the cost of domestic jobs as those workers (and companies) spend their money overseas.
*: I should note that this is based on the last decade or so. If you look further back, yes, we have less manufacturing jobs than (say) the 90s.
Regulation differences in China and the US is a large subset of the labor costs here. Slave labor will always be cheaper. Not sure that is a libertarian talking point though.
Just like nickel mining in Africa is cheap, but not sure a lot of libertarians will openly advocate for child mining exploitation.
"Slave labor will always be cheaper. Not sure that is a libertarian talking point though."
It's OK with libertarians as long as the slaveholder is one of muh private companies and not the government.
Remember, kids, "The real minimum wage is zero"
Negotiations for pay is not equal to slavery.
China uses slave labor of Uighurs for cotton production.
What's "muh"? What's the difference between a private company vs. a "muh" private company?
Not just slave labour. Even you might agree with me when I note that environmental and worker safety regs in China are more lenient, hence impose fewer costs on operations there.
Yes. I agree with less US restrictions. But not to the point of forced prison labor. Thought that was pretty clear here.
I am also against ignoring anti free market actions such as theft. I also don't advocate for the mob to be able to resale goods they've stolen for others. I would advocate for police actions on their markets. Yet many of you ignore the theft from China without any action.
I can separate out retaliatory tariffs vs protectionary tariffs as two different discussions. This has been well discussed since the addition of game theory to economics in the 50s.
Ignoring anti free market actions is not actually adding to a free market.
Pig anything, we should be uncoupling our market with China’s. It’s very clear that they intend for things to get ugly. Since they see America as the chief obstacle to ChiCom global dominance.
…ChiCom global dominance.
Trade with Red China is anti-libertarian. It aids and abets the imposition and enforcement of tyranny. A portion of every penny paid for Communist China goods is taxed at some level by the Communist government and used to subjugate the Chinese people and pose a military threat to its neighbors. The technology transferred to anti-libertarian Communists will be used to surveil, track and subjugate the people, upgrade Communist military capabilties and pose a threat to its neighbors and possibly the U.S. Economic ties between Red China and the U.S. will make the Commies even more aggressive figuring that the U.S. would be reluctant to risk economic consequences opposing Communist aggression.
There were strict boycotts against the Soviet bloc, and the Soviets collapsed. There is “free” trade with Communist China, and the Communists are stronger and more entrenched than ever and getting more oppressive and aggressive under Xi. Most libertarians hold the mistaken notion that free trade brings freedom, when in fact, it bails out and entrenches established oppressors like the Communists. Unless that “free” trade includes free trade in intellectual, informational and political products like uncensored newspapers, magazines and websites, uncensored unimpeded international internet access, then it’s not truely free trade and will not result in any increase in freedom.
Despite all the economic consequences of high tariffs, or even a complete embargo, they are well worth it considering that trade with the Communists aids and abets them enforcing tyranny upon the people and threatening their neighbors and the U.S. The Communist Party of China has never renounced the Marxian notion of worldwide communist (counter)revolution. Unless it includes free trade in ideological products, trade with the Communists is anti-libertarian and is a threat to peace and freedom. High tariffs help cover the true strategic costs not othewise included in the price of Communist goods.
"But not to the point of forced prison labor."
Forced labor isn't what makes overseas labor cheaper than US labor. There is a minimum salary that a worker will accept and it is directly connected to the cost of living.
When labor costs 25x more in the US, there is no way to counterbalance that cost. The quality isn't any different, since the company sets the standard and gets the same product quality no matter where manufacturing occurs.
The landed cost of goods, produced by legal labor, from dozens of other countries are impossible for the US to match.
"I would advocate for police actions on their markets"
How exactly would that be accomplished? Do you just put random words together that make you feel happy?
"Yet many of you ignore the theft from China without any action."
No one ignores it. We just don't think that the solution to IP theft is to make Americans pay more for stuff that wasn't stolen from companies that haven't stolen anything, just because they all come from the same country. It's like makong bars pay more for booze because the Mob runs illegal liquor.
"I can separate out retaliatory tariffs vs protectionary tariffs as two different discussions."
But the market can't. Tariffs make things cost more for consumers. There's no way to separate them out based on how righteous you think the tariff is. Tariffs don't work in any way but raising the cost of goods for consumers. The companies being targeted feel nothing because tariffs can't hurt them.
"This has been well discussed since the addition of game theory to economics in the 50s."
And like every other way used to analyze them, they reach the same conclusion: tariffs don't work.
"Ignoring anti free market actions is not actually adding to a free market."
Are you really that ignorant? Tariffs are anti-free-market actions.
"Just like nickel mining in Africa is cheap, but not sure a lot of libertarians will openly advocate for child mining exploitation."
I see great differences between forced labor camps, immoral working arrangements, merely "unfair" working arrangements, and basic labor. But as a libertarian, I don't think the appropriate remedy for those is forcing americans to pay someone else more for their labor.
If the US is really concerned about "slave labor", then ban import of any good created with slave labor. Use the right tool for the job. At least then the market impact is limited directly to the harm that is justifying your intervention.
But let's be honest: we know that isn't the only reason these tariffs are being imposed. Even if you eliminated slave labor all together, Hawley, et al would still be pushing for them, because there are more than just immoral and coercive practices giving countries like China a comparative advantage in manufacturing. One of those is the difference in purchasing power caused by our inflationary monetary policy above. Another is terrible labor and EPA laws that we should rightfully hate and eliminate in the United States.
But let’s be honest: we know that isn’t the only reason these tariffs are being imposed.
There is only one reason why tariffs on Chinese imports are popular with politicians. It's because they work. They stir up all kinds of emotions. You got hatred for commies, hatred for Asians, fear of their military, but mostly economic ignorance in the form of "there steeling jerbs." Invoke the Chinese boogieman and conservatives will submit to, I mean demand, all kinds of indignities from their own government.
And another idiotic discussion of ideas centered around projections more than anything being discussed.
Good work dumdum. Once again adding nothing to a conversation.
Of your advocating is for a disparate set of labor regulations you are inherently biasing rules to those who have less morals regarding labor, or child or slave labor. Youre actually helping to push an industry to those types of regulations.
If libertarians are for those things, they should advocate for the same regulations here. I just don't see many doing that.
If the US is really concerned about “slave labor”, then ban import of any good created with slave labor.
We do-ish. You should see what those of us in manufacturing have to deal with in the realm of "conflict minerals" laws and regs.
Which is bad policy. If you want to get rid of slave labor and child labor, the best way is to make their society wealthy enough that they don't need those things anymore. I firmly believe that had the Civil War never been fought, slavery would have ended in the South anyway just as it did throughout the world. It worked for millennia before the industrial revolution, but after that the economics changed. Same with child labor. As far as the latter goes, this country could use more of it.
This worked the last 50 years it has been tried.
Good work dumdum.
The problem is that it is very hard to identify if Chinese goods include slave labor. They lack transparency.
I understand and agree that free trade is a good thing. A general increase in tariffs is bad. Reducing funding to a nation with whom we may well be at war in a few years is a good idea.
"If the US is really concerned about “slave labor”, then ban import of any good created with slave labor."
Everyone who loves their iPhones just lost their minds. People are against slave labor unless it makes the cool things they love cheaper. Then they just shrug and go back to Instagram.
Yeah, China's standard of living has risen due to slave labor. Are they throwing babies out of incubators too?
We have to pay for all the spending at some point. Why is doing it in a way that discourages trade with the Chicoms a bad start?
So, nothing anybody actually needs.
I'm far less horrified by tariffs than I am by income tax.
Tariffs bad, income tax 1000x worse.
You get less of what you tax. Tax imports and you get less imports. Tax work and you get less goods and services. I'd rather have fewer imports than fewer people working.
You get less of what you tax.
That may not necessarily be true for modest increases in tax, for the same reason that the demand for staple goods like, say, potatoes or rice, can rise when prices rise.
Economists call that elasticity.
Elasticity doesn't negate the basic rule that making something more expensive (with, say, taxes for example) makes people buy less of it. Just means there's a different tolerance and breaking point before people change their behavior. Often because it means a big change.
Take the tax on income for example. I wouldn't mind getting a second job. Problem is taxes. It will be taxed like a raise, which means I see 65 cents of every dollar. Do the math. $15/hr becomes $9. $20/hr becomes $13. Just isn't worth the effort.
It won't be taxed like that at the time. If I did something like DoorDash I don't think anything would be withheld. It's at the end of the year you get fucked.
Income taxes can be fair in that they apply to everyone who earns money. It is the loopholes that lobbyists create that are the problem.
Tariffs are inherently unfair because corporate special interests single out their own industries that need "protection". Well, an uncompetitive industry that needs to be protected by the government is an industry that shouldn't be in business. The truth is that capitalists claim to love free markets but almost all of them prefer government largesse. They are a much more powerful enemy of sane economic policies than the nutty leftists.
Income taxes can be fair in that they apply to everyone who earns money. It is the loopholes that lobbyists create that are the problem.
Income taxes can be fair until we have to define income which gets more and more fraught as we go down the rabbit hole, then they get real unfair, real fast.
This income is taxed this way and that income is taxed that way.
This import is taxed this way and that import is taxed that way.
Loopholes don't exist. It's all by design.
“It is the loopholes that lobbyists create that are the problem.”
The fuck it is.
Put simply, it is beyond immoral to tax someone for working hard to put food on their table and a roof over their families head.
"Tariffs bad, income tax 1000x worse."
Sure, having funded state and federal government is so awful. Anarchy would be much better.
No third option, like much smaller, more efficient government that doesn’t waste staggering amounts of money on nonsense? (Did you hear about the $8 million that New York will spend on bike lanes - for racial equity?)
It’s always “pay up and shut up”, or anarchy with you clowns. Nothing in between.
And this is why you suck.
"No third option, like much smaller, more efficient government that doesn’t waste staggering amounts of money on nonsense?"
That isn't a third option. That's the government that libertarians would like to see. A small, efficient government that infringes the minimum amount necessary on personal liberty and free markets. It's exactly what I would like to see.
But it isn't an alternative funding mechanism for federal and state governments. If you don't fund it with income taxes, what other means would you advocate?
"It’s always “pay up and shut up”, or anarchy with you clowns. Nothing in between."
No, it's "governments that aren't funded, don't exist". If you agree that income taxes are awful and should be eliminated, what alternative would you suggest?
Government can't exist without funds. So yes, the alternative is anarchy. That's what 'no government' means.
"And this is why you suck."
And yet, I'm awesome.
Tarriffs are not invasive of personal financial privacy as are income taxes. Abolish the income tax and go back to the original means of raising federal revenue - duties, imposts and excises.
Why is doing it in a way that discourages trade with the Chicoms a bad start?
Same thought. Exactly how atrocious do things have to get before Reason realizes the world doesn't run strictly on comparative advantage free trade and/or China doesn't necessarily believe in it (like many other things)? If China enslaved all of its people and killed off 330M of them symbolically and literally said, "US, you're next. Then Europe.", *then* is it OK to *think* about curtailing *some* trade with them?
Because the way Reason was all on the School Choice! bandwagon right up until it meant we wouldn't be teaching transgender mathematics to third graders, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't give a shit.
China does not participate in a free market. Recognition of that is a primary requirement when discussing a free market.
They participate in our free market.
We aren't free either with the current regulatory state and funded subsidies.
It isn’t binary. The two choices aren’t “completely unregulated” or “not free”.
The US market is, by the actual definition, a free market.
“China does not participate in a free market.”
As Diane pointed out, they do business in the US. So yes, they absolutely participate in a free market.
“Recognition of that is a primary requirement when discussing a free market.”
Recognizing another completely wrong and stupid thing you believe is a primary requirement when discussing a free market? The entire study of economics says, “You are an ignorant dumbass.”.
When uncensored Chinese-language translations of reason and other western publications are available, either in print or electronically, in Communist China, then there will be free trade with Communist China.
> Reason was all on the School Choice! bandwagon right up until it meant we wouldn’t be teaching transgender mathematics to third graders
I laughed, but it was a sad chuckle because it's true... :'(
Hawley is a douche and not very smart, but he's still no commie. get back to me when Elizabeth Warren and Raphael Warnock are no longer senators and I might start worrying about guys like Hawley who arent super smart with economics.
I doubt that there are too many senators and reps who are super smart with economics. Far more are lawyers, who have been trained to make an, if not effective, at least plausible case for a position they're defending, regardless of its validity.
Let’s just purge the communists first, then go from there.
No. A tariff on China is a tax paid by China. Just ask Trump and his followers.
Cite?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-tariffs-explainer/who-pays-trumps-tariffs-china-or-u-s-customers-and-companies-idUSKCN1SR1UI
On May 5, he tweeted: “For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-trump-says-china-paying-his-tariffs-he-s-n1038751
"Because of that, you’re not paying for those tariffs. China’s paying for those tariffs,”
Like Mexico was going to pay for the Wall.
You missed "and his followers."
Look at anything Peter Navarro said.
You should see the taxes the Chinese pay on tariffed American goods.
Is that how they pay for their subsidized exports? They make their imports more expensive so that our imports are less expensive? Sounds like a crappy deal for them but a good deal for us. Why would you want to screw it up by demanding to pay more taxes on stuff that their taxes subsidize? That's stupid.
/sarc off
We have the government we want. Politicians do things because we the dipshits ask them to. If we demand that they spend more than we can afford, they're going to oblige. This debt is our own fucking creation because as a people we keep saying "More please." Spending cuts go nowhere because they all require someone losing a check, be it from a job or a wealth transfer. So everyone's like "Sure cut whatever you want, just not anything that has an effect on me or someone I care about."
We can't tax our way out of this mess, and defined spending cuts are a non-starter.
What can be done? Freeze the budget until inflation balances it out. No specific cuts, so no one can complain. Just freeze it.
/sarc on
You can leave me out of your we. I didn't ask them to do any of this.
Me neither. But the ones who did outnumber us.
That's why I quit voting. Got tired of the results being the inverse of my ballot.
I consider voting an act of self defense, even if the candidates I vote for never win. And there are always initiatives on the ballot. Taxes, fees, property taxes, regulations, voting rules, gerrymandering, etc.
I do me, you do you.
Agreed. I'll remain not being a homeless drunk.
You wanted to come and kick my ass. What happened to that? Just apologize and admit you’re a big drunken pussy.
And the trolls do each other.
And you give hand jobs to random hobos by the underpass.
"the Raising Tariffs on Imports From China Act"
At least they named it honestly for a change.
But seriously, "RTIFCA"? He wasn't even trying.
The "Tariffs Against eXternalized Costs Heinously Imposed on North America" Act.
You're welcome, Sen Hawley.
Well played, sir!
Tax cuts are un libertarian and so are tax increases.
-Reason
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18000 to $21000. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26000 in this month by just working online from home in my part time. every person easily do this job by.
.
Just Open This Website……………..>>> http://www.works75.com
The author is an idiot.
The market is what it is. If costs go up for one producer, then customers may switch to other producers. Yes, this is an opportunity for competitors to raise prices, but that will only encourage new producers and or capacity to enter the market.
The author’s static Luddite like analysis is the problem. We need creativity and understanding of markets and economics, not idiots.
This is why the best option is to pass a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling. Let tag-a-long on the bill and fuse is lite for subsequent times. The debt ceiling will end up like the omnibus bills, and regular order will continue to break down.
Nope. Democrats deal in bad faith. They have for at least 40 years now. This is the only way to get anything accomplished.
Republicans want to use the threat of a default to force the Ds to implement R policies even though the Republicans lost the in the last election. And it's the Ds who are dealing in bad faith?
Threatening a catastrophic default if they don't get to implemennt the policies that the voters rejected is the definition of bad faith.
Claiming that the debt limit is about future spending is the definition of bad faith.
Pretending that reaching the debt limit isn't directly and specifically attributable to the Rs refusal to cut spending in 2017-2019 when they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress is the definition of bad faith.
Pretending that the out-of-control spending is the Ds fault when the Rs have had unified government three times since the turn of the century and the Ds only twice is the definition of bad faith.
Rs threatening to cause a default on the debt THAT THEY HELPED CREATE unless the Ds implement policies that lost at the ballot box less than a year ago is disgusting.
Especially since the Trump tax cut blew a $2+ trillion hole in the budget with no benefit realized bybthe economy.
I hope Biden tells the dishonest, lying, deficit-spending douchebags to go fuck themselves and invokes the 14th Amendment.
I'm not a fan of Biden, but this is bullshit and the cost of the Republicans following through on their threats is catastrophic.
“Threatening a catastrophic default….” Lol.
Let’s find out. Or just keep spending trillions more than they take from us.
We can keep this up forever! Haha.
Republicans have done their job: they passed the necessary legislation.
If Republicans had lost the last election, they wouldn't have been able to pass the debt ceiling increase the way they did.
Yeah, that's bullshit too. The Federal Government has plenty of money; they will simply have to cut programs and spending. We can go on for a long time like that, with more and more of the gov shutting down. I consider that a good thing.
Even if the US defaulted on its debt, that would simply mean no more low cost borrowing. That's a win too.
"Republicans have done their job: they passed the necessary legislation."
A poison pill bill isn't "their job". We already spent the money. Passing anything other than a bill that says, "Yes, we will pay our debts" is failing to do their job.
"If Republicans had lost the last election, they wouldn’t have been able to pass the debt ceiling increase the way they did."
If Republicans had taken the Senate in 2022 (or won the White House in 2020), they could pass anything they wanted to. You know, like 2017-2019, when they controlled both houses and the White House. When they could have done all this stuff, but didn't.
If they want R priorities, they have to win.
"The Federal Government has plenty of money"
Agreed
"they will simply have to cut programs and spending."
Agreed.
What programs and spending will be cut is part of the budget process, not the debt ceiling.
The budget is where future spending is determined. The debt ceiling is where we agree to pay our bills for past spending.
"We can go on for a long time like that, with more and more of the gov shutting down. I consider that a good thing."
Oh, I would love to see Biden grow a spine and start cutting Republican budget priorities until the jnflow and outflow balance. Start by suspending all funding for background checks on gun purchases. Two weeks without any guns being sold will get them to do what they should have in the first place: pass a clean debt ceiling bill.
I'd actually prefer that to the easier route, invoking the 14th Amendment. That clause was literally created to prevent this exact situation, when our creditors would worry that we might not pay our past bills. But making the budget balance by defunding the things that the Republicans love? That would be sustainable indefinitely.
I am a deficit hawk, but this isn't trying to reign in the deficit. This is using the debt limit as a means to implement unrelated policy preferences that failed atbthe ballot box.
"Even if the US defaulted on its debt, that would simply mean no more low cost borrowing. That’s a win too."
You can't possibly be that ignorant.
The first (and not even the worst) result would be: the cost of servicing our $31 trillion debt would instantly become much more expensive. How much more would it cost us if we had to pay an extra point or two on that $31 trillion for a decade or so?
Unless you love billions of dollars of extra debt with no benefit, default is not an option. It certainly would be catastrophic.
There is no "poison pill". They passed a reasonable bill: debt limit increase and 2022 budget plus modest growth.
They didn't ask for R priorities, they passed a reasonable, modest bill.
No, you misunderstand: if the debt ceiling isn't increased, the executive branch will have to cut spending without a budget process, in order to avoid default. They can do that for a long, long time.
If the federal government doesn't respond in time, the purchase is automatically approved.
Since there is almost no federal spending Republicans love, that is perfect. I'm glad we reached such an easy agreement.
A default means "we aren't paying all of this back, maybe you'll get $0.50 on the dollar". It means a lot of pension plans have to be cut, China, Europe, and Japan lose money, mostly obligations based on corrupt arrangement and false promises. Beyond that, it means that we won't easily get future loans, but that's a good thing.
Republicans pass whatever they want. If the Senate and Biden want to default on our debt because they don't like it, that's their choice.
Biden is weak.
He caved to the idiot Wokers in May 21, 2021 and blamed GOP, who were unmasked, for Covid. Until that date, his poll numbers were great. I should say "weak, stupid and incompetent." Back then I was a DEM. Now, I'm Independent.
WEAK for caving into Wokers who were afraid that if Mask Up Until July 4 was a success, too many moderate GOP would side with Biden and he would not need the woker vote. In those days, there were not many Wokers. As expected, the GOP went berserk with being blamed and off came the masks, and Covid restrictions forever became a sign of the worse political oppression known to mankind, per the Alt Right. We have not recovered from that polarization and probably never will.
STUPID because he knew Delta Variant was just around the corner and masking and social distancing were crucial to avoid a huge surge. As science predicted, we had a huge surge because a substantial portion of the population refused the protocols.
INCOMPETENT since the wokers are a tiny fraction of society just like White Supremacists area tiny fraction. Either party can govern far better with the assistance of the centrist of the other party since the centrists policies will be far better.
Good government is not the objective of either party. Both suffer from the psychotic delusion that they can gain enough votes to vanquish the other. There are, however, a few times when the President has to hold the line, e.g. President Eisenhower sending the troops to Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 to enforce integration of a high school there.
Another time is never negotiate on raising the debt limit. Of course, 95% of the public has no idea why not to negotiate on the debt limit, and of those who do know, 99% are too cravenly political to tell the public the truth.
Thus, having put another dagger into the heart of the Republic, both side will lie thru their teeth about how great they are and how bad the other is.
The more worrisome issue is: What are the chances that AI will decide that humans are too stupid to merit further existence?
AI isn’t hooked up to our nuclear arsenal, nor is it running a killbot factory. So AI can decide whatever the fuck it wants to. It has no real power.
AI is hooked up to finance.
"Biden is weak."
Yeah, but he'd still beat the Orange Protectionist in 2024.
Hawley is an idiot so getting a stupid proposal from him is to be expected. Odd, that Reason attacks Hawley for placing taxes on Americans but ignores Biden's new insistence that any Debt Ceiling deal include increased corporate income taxes. One of the few things that Trump got right was cutting the corporate tax which allowed corporations to hire low skilled workers who were unprofitable with a 35% corporate tax rate but were profitable with a 21% rate.
The 35% rate was the thing most responsible for American companies going overseas, not the cheap labor. If some politician had the balls to demand a 0% corporate tax rate he would not only bring a huge amount of investment in the US but would eliminate special interest tax breaks for stupid things like solar and wind. The K Street parasites would be out of business and forced to do something productive.
'...One of the MANY things that Trump got right was cutting the corporate tax..."
Fixed that for you; you seem to be old enough to be easily confused.
"Tariffs are paid by Americans."
But only by the Americans who choose to purchase from (in this case) Communist China.
You might hope that those in the US or other countries might have an option of making such a choice. Or even knowing they do. You would be an idiot for presuming so, as much as a consumer buying wine with a high-priced cork from France instead of Portugal.
Yes, the CCP is horrible, but by comparison to that under Mao, it is wonderful. For the Han Chinese, STFU if, from your keyboard in the US, you presume to speak for them.
As is obvious to anyone who has visited, most of what comes from Mainland China is not the product of 'slave labor', it is the product of those who now have a plate of rice in front of them after working unlike what they had under Mao.
Having spent some time in Jinjiang, I'd support any effort to reduce the military occupation of that territory, but that does not include taking rice off the plate of Han Chinese as a result of their current governance.
If not, then it's just a consumption tax for the time being, which may encourage supply chains to shift later. That's also fine.
I couldn't care less about the Han Chinese. Many of them despise the US and love their totalitarian government, which they see as a restoration of the great Han empire.
We will continue to sell them food if they need it, that's all. When they are ready to get rid of their totalitarian government, give up on their racist delusions of being the masters of the world, and are willing to join the world as a free nation, we welcome then. Until then, they are our sworn enemy, by their own conception.
^This
And ^this.
The higher prices are paid by all.
“choose to purchase from (in this case) Communist China”
No, Shortbus. The componenets that China makes and are put into things manufactured here will cost more. The products that most major companies produce are manufactured in China. The parts for hobbyists and DIYers are made in China.
It is impossible to “choose to purchase from … Communist China”. Because even stuff not marked “made in China” have pieces that are made in China. Stuff produced by American, European, and Canadian companies and manufactured here have pieces thag are made in China.
Nobody “choos[es] to purchase from … China”. It is virtually impossible avoid buying something that was, in part, made in China.
It's not a hard thing to understand.
Yes. Tariffs are a tax on consumption. Good.
And in addition to being a consumption tax (which is good), tariffs will encourage supply chains to shift to other countries over the next years and decades. That is also good.
It is particularly good since China is in for rough times and our supply chains from China will eventually collapse no matter what.
No, it really isn't.
"Yes. Tariffs are a tax on consumption. Good."
You think unnecessary consumption taxes that raise prices for Americans are good? You're surprisingly comfortable spending everyone else's money for them in pursuit of an end goal that will never happen. Manufacturing isn't coming back to the US. It's too expensive because the alternative jobs that factory workers can do set a wage floor and the cost of living in the US is too much higher than in developing countries.
"tariffs will encourage supply chains to shift to other countries over the next years and decades."
The free market would allow for the same thing without driving up the cost of products for American consumers. Manufacturing will flow to the countries that have lower labor costs, sufficient infrastructure, and political stability. You don't have to screw over Americans to get that result.
"It is particularly good since China is in for rough times and our supply chains from China will eventually collapse no matter what."
How's that, Nostradamus?
"No, it really isn’t."
And yet you chose to chose to prove, in detail, how much you don't understand. Maurice Switzer has some advice for you.
Someone needs to pay for the massive debt we have, and the deficits we keep adding. That means someone is getting taxed. Consumption taxes are the best way of doing it.
The money has already been spent; that's where the debt comes from. It needs to be repaid, that means taxes.
The point is not to bring manufacturing back to the US, it is to get it out of China.
Trade with China is not trade in a free market system.
It's too late for that advice for you: we know you are a full blown idiot. You have proven it for years. But thanks for repeating progressive talking points.
To some people it is a massive tax hike.
To other people it is making American industry more competitive and protecting essential industries and American jobs.
I guess your political persuasion is the difference. And we can see here Reason goes hard left on this issue.
Defame a Republican article of the day. I am waiting for a defame a Democrat article of the day, and waiting and waiting and waiting. Maybe no Democrat has any bad policy? (sarc)
"To other people it is making American industry more competitive and protecting essential industries and American jobs."
By making everything more expensive for American consumers.
So let's screw everyone over to "protect" jobs that cannot be protected because American workers cost multiples more than those in developing nations. You can't fight math with political rhetoric, although it doesn't stop idiots from doing it.
Call me old fashioned if you like, but as a general rule, I think that if you're going to claim somebody said something, they should have actually have said it. And it's quite clear that Hawley never said that "any agreement should include a massive tax hike on Americans."
"Reason said that immigration policy should aim to reduce wages for unskilled workers."; See how that works? Nobody likes having statements they didn't actually make attributed to them on the basis of disputed reasoning.
Really? He said any agreement should include tariffs, which are indistinguishable from taxes to the consumer.
Or would you prefer "pro-inflation"? That's another way of looking at it. You can do.some simple math and figure out how much of the 25% would go directly into the price.
Since it's a broad tariff tjat hits everyone equally, passing almost all of it on won't create a competitive disadvantage. At a minimum it would be 80% of the 25% tariff added to the price.
“Reason said that immigration policy should aim to reduce wages for unskilled workers.”.
That would only be true if all available unskilled jobs were already filled. They aren't, not by a long shot. Until they are, additional unskilled labor added to the job market won't reduce wages because employers still don't have the workers they need.
Your understanding of wages and tariffs seems ... insufficient.
Tariffs quite distinguishable to the consumer: they are country specific, and they only tax consumption. That is different from sales taxes (tax everything) and income taxes (tax productive activity). That's why we have a separate name for them.
Since tariffs reduce demand for goods, they are deflationary. That, in fact, is the main point of tariffs: to reduce demand for certain goods.
"All unskilled jobs" are never filled, in the sense that you can run any economy on cheap unskilled labor. Of course, you end up with very high inequality, social problems, and lack of technological progress, like the American South and ancient Rome and Greece. That is why wealthy nations do not, and should not, import cheap labor from abroad. A "shortage of unskilled labor" is exactly what makes a nation developed and wealthy.
Yours certainly does.
If you don't like my explanations, you can choose any one of the many other posters that have made their own observations about the ineffectiveness and inflationary impact of tariffs.
I find it strange that tariffs imposed by any country, anywhere in the world always seem to hurt Americans.
China imposes tariffs, it hurts Americans. Canada imposes tariffs, it hurts Americans, America imposes tariffs, it hurts Americans.
It's like tariffs are magical things that help everyone else, and only hurt Americans when they are imposed.
At least, that's what the 'economists' at reason seem to think.
Tariffs are generally bad. They discourage highly efficient workers from working. Imagine if North Dakota had a 20% tariff on oranges.
China is a rather special case. Along with slave labor, they have a history of IP theft and often of military technology that will be used against us in our next war.
They have also manipulated the value of the yuan, to the detriment of Chinese corporations and workers. Keep the yuan cheap, and those shirts that might cost $30 now bring in $20.
There are for most products, other suppliers. I try not to buy Chinese when I can. For optics, they are usually Japanese or German. For telescopes, American (Televue). For shop tools, often Taiwan (a cross-slide drill press vise), sometimes Poland (a metric die) and India (an oversized die wrench for that metric die). In every cases the non-Chinese product was equivalent or far superior in quality. With high tariffs on Chinese goods, I expect there would be rapid creation of non-Chinese products.
^^^ THIS ^^^. I don't think the Anti-Tarriff crowd has come to grips with the fact that international economics has severe local effects (cause and effect). When China manipulates the value of the yuan that has effects on the USD in a globalist "free trade" system which requires either the US worker to work for less (dictated by a foreign socialist dictator) or find themselves incompetent in the "global" trade system. It puts the US to a degree vulnerable to foreign dictation.
Perhaps there was a reason the founding fathers saw a need to list imposts and duties as a National government function. And I can't think of a more 'fair' taxing for a government setup to deal with international affairs.
657
Earning money online is very easy nowdays. Eanrs every month online more than$17k by doing very easy home based job in part time. Last month i have made$19754 from this job just in my spare time which is only 2 hrs a day. Very easywork to do and earning from this are awesome. Everybody can get this right nowand start earning cash online by follow instructions on thiswebpage………….
SITE. ——>>> newdollar.com
That is absurd. Tariffs on China discourage consumption of imports from China. That's it.
You know what discourages workers from working? Income taxes. The more productive the workers are, the more income taxes discourage them.
So, between income taxes and tariffs on China, we should lower income taxes and increase tariffs on China.
You mean if ND had 20% tariffs on imports of oranges from anywhere? Then the people of ND would consume fewer oranges and substitute apples, tangerines, lemons, or whatever. The "productivity" of their "highly skilled workers" would not be affected.
"That is absurd. Tariffs on China discourage consumption of imports from China. That’s it."
Tell me you don't understand the impact of tariffs without saying it.
"I find it strange that tariffs imposed by any country, anywhere in the world always seem to hurt Americans."
Probably because you don't understand the basics. Tariffs on goods coming into America hurt American consumers. Tariffs on American goods going into other countries hurts American businesses.
American consumers and American businesses aren't the same thing.
"It’s like tariffs are magical things that help everyone else, and only hurt Americans when they are imposed."
Only of you are completely ignorant of the basics of tariffs (or trade, writ large). Which you seem to be.
"At least, that’s what the ‘economists’ at reason seem to think."
The 'economists' at Reason understand completely. You are the one that doesn't.
Correction – hurt American consumers who are trying to get the ZERO tax path by buying from foreign nations. Which not so long ago and probably still is a taxpayer funded path. How else does one explain how a product being shipped half way around the world costs 1/2 what it does in the backyard? Magically fairy dust?
A tariff on goods from a hostile regime like China is the best way of financing our government. Next best is sales/VAT taxes. These taxes tax consumptive activity, i.e., wealth destruction. If you're going to tax, that's the best thing to tax.
The worst are income taxes and capital gains taxes, since they discourage productive activity.
If you want to learn, here is a good article with both theory and real-world examples.
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-economic-effect-of-tariffs-1146368
My money is on you wanting to remain ignorant. It helps you preserve your worldview.
You know you’re in late stage capitalism when you have to tax your imports from communist countries.
The US Government has done everything possible to gut/regulate/ban/tax-to-death our markets while they subsidize the ‘poor’ foreign ones. Sounds pretty Anti-USA to me. And the enemy of the USA is? Our own government ????.
China is a hostile nation. Economically, we don't "need to" tax imports, we could simply blockade them and destroy their economy, problem solved. Gradually changing our relationship with them is simply less disruptive to everybody.
How did cartel christian national socialism get to be capitalism?
A temporary solution to the debt crisis: 40% tariff on all Chinese goods. That’ll empty out the pockets of the working class without touching the donor class. A conservative triumph!
Biden loves this idea.
I mean, you know he agrees with Hawley on tariffs right?
Not if they're working in US manufacturing it won't.
What's the big idea on believing everything has to come from China?
A high tariff on Chinese biological warfare viruses is NOT a bad idea.
I don’t want to lose my investments in solar panels and components for wind mills from China. Especially because the U.S. is spending billions on Ukraine- who cares if Xi wil not denounce Putin. I figure, when all of these green products are mandated, I’ll be fabulously wealthy. Until then, private industry should demand that the Federal Government start seizing private property.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/04/05/jpmorgan-ceo-jamie-dimon-eminent-domain-green-energy/
Tariffs are a correctly targeted tax hike on people who undermine our national security by buying cheap Chinese crap.
Either we stand up for America, or we roll over and let the 21st century be the Chinese century, as they're so intent upon making it. China is not a respected trading partner, but a crybully with global authoritarian aspirations.
Protective Tariffs protect cartels from the greed of American consumers.
^This.
Biden HHS Offers $1.7 Million To Groups Promoting Family ‘Acceptance’ Of LGBT Youth
Those types of programs are costing American taxpayers too.
I quit working at shop and now I make 65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new after 4 years it was so hard. Here’s what I do.... http://www.topearn7.com
Good. A consumption tax on Americans is the least harmful of the different tax options, and we need to raise taxes to balance current spending. The fact that it encourages supply chains to move away from China makes it even better.
I'm glad to see Republicans have their heads screwed on straight.
Now, what was it you were trying to say, Boehm?
The Trump administration responded not by changing its trade policies but by shoring up the president’s political
support from farmers. To accomplish this, Donald Trump approved large amounts of government aid to farmers
through the Commodity Credit Corporation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Statements by Trump have
made it clear the purpose of the payments was political, saying, “Well, they can’t be too upset, because I gave them
$12 billion and I gave them $16 billion this year. . . . I hope you like me even better than you did in ’16.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/01/21/trump-tariff-aid-to-farmers-cost-more-than-us-nuclear-forces/?sh=3f8827786c50
"I got rid of Roe v Wade." --Trump
The USA USED to produce computers. But God's Own Prohibitionists decided that invading South America, shooting people over plant leaves and indoctrinating the Reaganjugend (now the Commentariat) were the important things. Free trade, to a republican, is shooting people over the wrong kind of trade and production, right?
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
I essentially make about $7,000-$8,000 every month on the web. It’s sufficient to serenely supplant my old employments pay, particularly considering I just work around 10-13 hours every week from home. I was stunned how simple it was after I attempted it duplicate underneath web………..:) AND GOOD LUCK.:)
>
>
>
Apply Now Here————->> http://Salarycash710.blogspot.Com
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
I essentially make about $7,000-$8,000 every month on the web. It’s sufficient to serenely supplant my old employments pay, particularly considering I just work around 10-13 hours every week from home. I was stunned how simple it was after I attempted it duplicate underneath web………..:) AND GOOD LUCK.:)
.
.
.
Apply Now Here————————————->>> https://Www.Coins71.Com