Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Can You Afford Tariffs on Tin Cans?
"There's nobody that says, wait, is this good for America? Is this good for the American consumer?"

You probably don't think much about tin cans, even when you're buying one. It's the product inside the can—soup, beans, maybe hairspray or sunscreen—that seems to matter.
But the humble tin can is both a crucial component of modern, globe-spanning supply chains and a product of them: About half of the metal used to make tin cans in the U.S. is imported from abroad. And that's why tin cans—more specifically, tinplate steel, the type of metal used to make those cans—are at the center of a behind-the-scenes fight over tariffs that illustrates so many of the problems with protectionist policies.
On one side of that fight is Cleveland-Cliffs, one of just two companies in the U.S. that produces tinplate steel. In a recent petition to the Commerce Department, Cleveland-Cliffs asked for tariffs of up to 300 percent against imported tinplate steel—the products that account for over half of the supply of tinplate in the American economy.
Those tariffs will translate into reduced supply and higher prices, says Tom Madrecki, vice president of supply chain and logistics for the Consumer Brands Association.
"When the tariffs go into effect, they raise the cost of steel, they raise the cost of the packaging," says Madrecki. The can itself is often the most expensive element of a canned food item, so those prices quickly cause the overall price tag to rise. "You [will] see food prices go up 19 to 30 percent. That translates to 36 to 58 cents per can," he says.
And while new tariffs might protect some tinplate-making jobs at Cleveland-Cliffs, research suggests the higher prices will cause far greater losses throughout the rest of the economy. The Trade Partnership, a think tank, estimates that the proposed tariffs could cause up to 40,000 jobs to be lost in downstream industries, including blue-collar jobs like can-making and food production. If the steel in their tin cans is suddenly more expensive, food production companies might simply purchase finished—and less-highly-tariffed—cans overseas.
"You're going to go to the grocery store one day…and you're going to look at the receipt in disbelief and say, 'How did this happen?'" says Gerard Scimeca, chairman of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, a free market group that opposes the tariff proposal. "Well, this is how that happened: You had a company trying to take advantage of our trade policy for personal gain."
And here's the real kicker: As a rule, the Department of Commerce doesn't even consider the potential (and often obvious) consequences of these decisions. The tariff petition process is one-sided and skewed heavily in favor of companies seeking protectionism at the expense of consumers and workers throughout the economy.
Government policy, no surprise, is one of the big reasons why we can't have nice things.
Further reading for this week's episode:
"Biden Administration Considering New Tariffs That Will Hike Prices for Canned Goods," by Eric Boehm, Reason.
"U.S. Plans New Tariffs on Food-Can Metal From China, Germany, and Canada," by Yuka Hayashi, The Wall Street Journal
"Tinplate Steel Tariffs Will Harm American Consumers and Manufacturing Jobs," by the Consumer Brands Association
"Four Areas for Congress To Exercise Trade Policy Oversight," by Tori Smith, American Action Forum
Written by Eric Boehm; produced and edited by Hunt Beaty; mixing by Ian Keyser; fact-checking by Katherine Sypher.
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
Donnie Loves Tariffs!
Trump picked my pockets last night pre-flight
Zero hour 9:00 a.m.
And I’m gonna be broke
As a bum by then
I miss liberty so much I miss my life
It’s lonely without Nancy Mace
On such a worthless flight
And I think it’s gonna be a long, long time
‘Til Tariff Man brings me ’round again to find
I’m not the rich man they think I am at home
Oh, no, no, no
I’m not a MAGA man
Tariff Man, burning up my cash up here alone
Sad!
Why do you like tariffs?
Well I don't know about him - but I don't like tariffs at all... I'm also not stupid enough to think the national government who's very job is National Defense should be 100% funded by domestic trade while giving importers a free-ride.
And frankly if it wasn't for all the gov-stealing-and-spending it wouldn't even be an issue. If you want free-trade why don't you start RIGHT THERE instead of whining about having to pay taxes/tarrifs?
The US was funded almost 100% by tariffs for most of existance. Going back to that model and getting rid of income, sales, property, capitol gains, payroll, estate, and corporate taxes would be a boon for the US and starve the federal government back to the size it should be.
Absolutely. Taxing productivity is silly.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
You’re not a MAGA man, you’re a PEDO man.
He's more of a FAGA.
His preference IS for little boy’s rectums.
I see I got SQRLSY’s attention. Time better spent killing itself.
Conservaturds making friends, gathering votes, and influencing people by... PEDDLING KOOL-AID AND SUICIDE!!! How's it workin' for ya, servant and serpent of the Evil One?
EvilBahnFuhrer, drinking EvilBahnFuhrer Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…
He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
His Hero is Jimmy Jones,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jones
Loves death and the dying moans,
Then he likes to munch their bones!
He’s truly, completely a necrophiliac,
His brain, squirming toad-like, is REALY,really whack!
Has no thoughts that help the people,
He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
Kool-Aid man, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!
A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/
Hey EvilBahnFuhrer …
If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!
Right-wing wrong-nuts, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’!
Soaking in your Trump-delusions land,
Playing with your Trump-delusions gland,
Did yer Mamma ever tell you,
Smarter people can smell you,
And your lies, which betray you,
You reveal all to those who know,
Self-deluded ones, themselves, they blow!
Left-wing wrong-nuts, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’!
Soaking in your collectivist land,
Playing with your collectivist gland,
Did yer Mamma ever tell you,
Smarter people can smell you,
And your lies, which betray you,
You reveal all to those who know,
Self-deluded ones, themselves, they blow!
Freedom-loving man, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’!
Soaking in your common-sense land,
Playing with your common-sense gland,
Did yer Mamma ever tell you,
Foolish people can smell you,
And your truths, which betray you,
You reveal all to those who THINK that they know,
Self-deluded ones, though, themselves, they blow!
Beware of evil ones, with hearts and minds gone mad,
See http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ !
Who's the "Tariff Man".
Looks to be more-so Biden you partisan hack.
Lets think about the fact that these days cans aren't tin.
Let’s think about Boehm thinking sunscreen comes in tin cans
Who could've imagined that Reason/Cato's "We need to repeal protectionist tariffs and cabotage regulations to support buggywhip makers and immigrant farm and railroad laborers." is both nuanced, selectively anachronistic, *and* stupid?
Said no one ever outside of your bouncing dendrites and neurons.
""You're going to go to the grocery store one day…and you're going to look at the receipt in disbelief and say, 'How did this happen?'" says Gerard Scimeca"
This has been my life since all the covid shenanigans.
Unless you were a prepper or homeless, finding your shopping cart full of tin cans before you even got to the register was becoming unusual... prior to COVID.
Biden's already raised the price on everything, no tariffs involved. Chew on that reluctantly but strategically.
Boehm knows; he doesn't care.
How did Biden raise the price on everything? And how did he get other countries to do the same?
Strangling energy production through his executive orders and federal regulations, massive currency inflation, causing the war in Ukraine, etc.
Do you really need all of this explained to you?
The leftists here, especially shrike, don't seem to understand energy costs go into the end cost of a product. It is quite amazing to see day in and day out. Let alone point out the regulations Biden has implemented under the Executive.
The Trumpistas here, especially you, don’t seem to understand that taxes (yes, tariffs are a tax ultimately paid by consumers) go into the end cost of a product. It is quite amazing to see day in and day out. Let alone point out the anti-trade and protectionist policies both Trump and Biden have implemented under the Executive.
peek a boo!
Hey sarc buddy. Read those books on economics I gave you yet? It doesn’t seem like it. You know what else goes into an end users cost? Theft and increased security costs. You know the costs from the countries you love that are imposed on domestic industries.
Look, I can lead you to water, but you refuse to drink it. Should I lead you to plastic bottle vodka instead?
Ending tariffs won’t stop theft or anti free market actions from other countries. If you got past a Middle School level economics book you’d understand that fact.
But please continue to recite bumper sticker slogans as solutions to economic theory.
I can point to decades of economic game theory competitions showing ignoring bad actors in a market actually harms consumers more once again. But we know you will never educate yourself lol.
The best way to know if you understand something is to explain it to someone else.
Do you understand what you're talking about? If so sum it up. Otherwise fuck off because I'm not reading books to shut you up.
I've examined it to you multiple times already buddy. Even giving you books. It is explained with examples below.
Tomorrow you'll retreat back to bumper stickers.
You treat economics like every variable is independent and not a correlated dependent variables that effect each other. Actual economies operate more under chaotic style systems than controlled factored systems. You change one variable others react and not at constant scale factors.
The fact is you want to ignore reality to treat your argument as a static non correlated factor.
If you want it in very simple terms educate yourself on simple game theory starting with the prisoners dilemma. The balanced solution is for both prisoners to refuse to talk to police. But if prisoner B knows Prisoner A he gains an advantage from that knowledge and squeals to gain the advantage.
Your arguments today show yourself to be prisoner A. Loudly proclaim you will never squeel and let Prisoner B take advantage of you over and over which actually hurts you.
Despite knowing China is not a free market actor, you want to continue to operate as if they were.
In game theory economic models and gaming the strongest and most robust economies are formed around algorithms of a type of tit for tat trade theory. Of someone lies or cheats, you alter the behavior and don't deal with them. The algorithms that lose the most are the ones who never react to the information of being taken advantage of.
This is why you're economically illiterate. I gave you multiple books with links to explain this and you refused to read them. You have no intention of educating yourself.
Basic principles don't change.
So you understood nothing in my post.
Youre treating economics like 3rd grade math instead of multivariate algebra.
The economy is not ruled with a couple of basic principles dumdum. It isnt an ideal system. Consumers are irrational. Suppliers seek comparative advantages. People don’t act in ideal free market fashion.
Your retreat to bumper stickers is noted.
A very simple example of why you are wrong is explained below. More complicated rules as well.
You think of everything in very simplistic terms when market interactions are not. Theft, manipulation, supply shifts, supply chain risk, etc are all things that occur in markets every fucking second.
But your loyalty to China is noted.
All I'm saying is that game theory doesn't defy basic laws of economics like supply and demand, or comparative advantage.
For fucks sake. Game theory is tangential to decision making.
It explains choices based on assumed trade conditions.
Do you truly not know the fundamental rule of economics is not all actors are rational? People make decisions based on their own interests. Like you do in excusing slavery and theft if it nets you a benefit. This choice is a market inefficiency you choose to utilize as it is a benefit to you. Game theory is used to describe conditions based on actions. This is explained below. Again. Read. A. Fucking. Book.
And I have shown you repeatedly that oil production is higher now than anytime under Fatass Donnie. NatGas is 10% higher and we are more energy independent now, you moron.
Rig count!
If you start from covid lows. And if you credit Biden for production on private and state lands. What is this just today...
President Biden
@POTUS
My Administration is canceling all remaining oil and gas leases issued under the last administration in the Arctic Refuge and proposing to protect 13 million acres in the Western Arctic.
.
There's more to do, but we’re taking action to meet the moment for future generations.
You continue to be an ignorant defender of dems buddy.
I'm still not shrike, you lying POS.
Are you aware that other countries exist? And that Biden's ability to change energy prices is significantly limited?
IME no-one is quite as loudly ignorant about economics as the average American right-winger. Small wonder some of you - yourself included - think that Trump is some kind of economics expert.
So now transport costs aren’t costs. Got it.
Reducing global supply has no effect on supply. Got it.
And now you're resorting to misrepresentation of my point.
If the US had high inflation when other Western countries had generally lower inflation, you might lay some of that on Biden. But when the US's inflation is unremarkable relative to other countries...?
“How did Biden raise the price on everything? And how did he get other countries to do the same?”
Free money…. Something the left purposefully ignores constantly. Money is nothing but a ‘median’ of value. You can’t print value freely or pick it off some money tree because it has no inherent value.
But when government pretends it can; it makes all value require more fake-fiat $ value (price increases) while destroying any savings from labor in the process. It’s essentially another form of “armed-theft” taxation under the covers of fake-fiat $. A scheming crooks trick.
Gov-Guns don’t make sh*t. It STEALS sh*t. Which is an economic negative. There’s only so much theft that can occur and it’s process is a zero-sum resources environment. When production halts because there is no more motivation to labor/create production it’s a dog-eat-dog into total despair.
The amount of ignorance the gov-gun god worshipers display in this area is frightening. It’s almost like they purposely want to destroy this nation completely. Just another collapsed nation to add to the very long historical list of nations conquered and consumed by the belief that gov-guns can make sh*t (i.e. criminals).
They asked for 300% (and could have asked for 3 billion per cent) but right now it’s going to be 122% on China, 7% on Germany, 5% on Canada, and 0% on South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, the Netherlands and United Kingdom. If a foreign entity declares war you expect to lose human capital and your piece of the economy suffers if you don’t build war time necessities; if they wage trade war you expect to pay extra. Trying to define and declare ‘tariffs’ as inherently evil is inherently stupid.
Trying to define and declare ‘tariffs’ as inherently evil is inherently stupid.
"If you need an economist to make your moral argument, you've already lost."
Unilateral free trade is great unless you start running a deficit on humans.
Complaining about unilateral free trade is saying it's not fair that foreigners pay taxes on imports, and to make it fair you want to pay taxes on imports too.
No. Not today. Crawl back to you garbage can, pussy.
Ignoring open theft from entities like China that raises domestic costs does not mean free trade is the baseline.
One day you'll educate yourself, just not in the near future.
Maybe learn how basic accounting works? How theft, security costs, etc go into the end price of goods?
How does forcing Americans to pay taxes on imports make it fair? Why to anti-tax Republicans demand taxes on imports?
"China is being unfair! That's not fair! I demand that I pay more taxes on stuff from China! That will make it fair!"
*facepalm*
How does forcing Americans to pay taxes on imports make it fair? Why to anti-tax Republicans demand taxes on imports?
Because the shit’s chess, it ain’t checkers?
The goal, flawed as it might be is incentivizing consumers and local manufacturers to utilize locally source/produced products.
In way oversimplified terms, if everyone in your country finds themselves out of a job, or woefully underemployed, the fact they can buy a 46″ flat screen TV for $399.95 instead of $423.79 is not much solace.
As one polemicist put in regards to dropping wages due to unchecked immigration: To the regular working class person, they don’t much care about the new fucking restaurant on the corner or the fact that they can hire a cheap nanny.
None of my comment should suggest that this or that specific tariff or “industrial policy” as Reason likes to sweepingly say– is effective or resulting in its stated goals.
The locavores want you to buy tomatoes from the garden in the county. But it turns out it can be cheaper to buy them from Mexico. Why? Shipping and storage. Economy of scale.
So it becomes a moral argument, not a economic argument.
What are we having, a moral or economic argument?
If it turned out Mexico used slave labor to keep the prices on its tomatoes low, or subsidized the growers for 75% of their costs, what would the argument become?
Edit: Or is the massive subsidies France provides to its aviation industry just something that happened to other people?
I'm not playing the what-if game today. Sorry.
So the French and Canadian subsidies of their large scale industries is a what-if game?
You mean they are forcing their taxpayers to make stuff cheaper for us? Sucks for them. Where do I sign up?
Ohhhh, you mean you want our government to tax us and make their subsidized stuff more expensive so domestic companies can compete.
Just chalk up subsidies as a comparative advantage for their ability to sell, and roll with it.
Your scenario was literally a what if based on an ideal system that doesn't exist you retarded fuck.
You ignore reality to promote bumper stickers.
Reality is that tariffs aren't a tax on China. They aren't paid by the Chinese. They're a tax on Americans paid by Americans.
You can pretend it's more complicated, but it's not.
Reality is China is not a free market actor and there are other suppliers. Allowing them to openly steal from domestic or other suppliers implants a cost. If a supplier elsewhere is less than China plus tariffs a supply shift occurs and motivates China to not be so open with theft. It is why China negotiates enforcement of their theft against tariff reduction.
Again, you think in such simplistic terms as to be nonsensical.
If a supplier elsewhere is less than China plus tariffs a supply shift occurs and motivates China to not be so open with theft. It is why China negotiates enforcement of their theft against tariff reduction.
Define theft in this context.
What the fuck sarc. I explained how theft is a cost. Domestic prices rise on theft and security costs. You can't be this stupid.
You continue to act as if a single controlled variable can be changed and you'll get a static or constant response to some economic parameter. The variables are not independent variables but each one has an effect on the other variables.
You are thinking of economics as a set and fixed ecosystem when it is not.
It is utilizing friction free physics modeling to design an airplane. The shit doesn't work. It is linear algebra and multi variate calculate. Every variable change effects the others. There is no static response. Once you understand this basic principle maybe you can understand actual economic theory.
What theft? Theft of what by whom? You use this as a basic premise. Well define it then. What was stolen? Who was it stolen from?
You're dancing around the question like it's a sombrero and you've got diarrhea.
Look at you retreat to the concept of purely free markets so you can avoid complexity of international trade. A sure sign of your economic education levels.
Newton's Laws break down when you approach the speed of light. That doesn't mean they no longer apply to most things. You're telling me to throw away basic principles because "it's complicated."
There's a term for that. It's called bullshit.
Newtons laws are a set of linear equations that depend on few variables. Economics is a chaotic system with irrational actors.
Your idiocy continues to be shown.
Economics is closer to climate science than it is physics.
To put it in perspective youre now arguing a High Schooler who took basic physics can design an airplane without risk. That is what you are arguing now.
This is why I put you on mute. You're trying to make the conversation about me instead of the topic. Just stop, ok? I'm saying that when people overcomplicate things they're usually obfuscating for the purpose of deception. Is that wrong?
I have done nothing but destroy your naive and bumper sticker explanations with argument after argument but you have no ability to comprehend the arguments. That’s on you. I have explained in simple and non simple terms and you keep treating this like high school physics. Youre incapable of honest economic discussions because you are so ignorant to the actual discussion. I gave you books and you refused to learn.
Economics is fucking complicated. I've explained that to you a half dozen ways and you refuse to acknowledge it. There is no simplicity.
Irrational actors. Linear systems. Multi variate dependent interactions. There is no simplicity in economics.
You haven't destroyed anything. If anything you've left me with an interest in how game theory applies to economics. I may look it up. I may not. I doubt it will destroy the basic principles and rules of economics though.
If you would like to bore yourself to death over this type of subject, I recommend you dig into the Canadian Softwood Lumber dispute. If it doesn't put you to sleep, it lays bare the complications and concerns of unfair trading practices based on national policies.
You really aren't intelligent enough to understand retaliatory protections are you? The very few attempts to limit theft and anti market actions by China come about due to tariffs you economic illiterate fuck.
There is also an economic concept called supply shift you should learn about. China isn't the sole provider of any actual good.
How fucking retarded are you sarc?
C'mon dude. You're defending taxes here. I want to know why you want everyone to pay more taxes. I want to know why you oppose people buying cheap imports and having money left to spend on other things. Why are you opposed to people having the freedom to buy and sell over political borders without punishment? Why are you anti-freedom and pro-tax?
Youre defending china's bad acts raising domestic prices so you can save 5 cents on a good.
Look dumbass, we literally just went through a pandemic showing multiple avenues of economic costs based on your simpleton theories of trade. Supply chain risk is a cost. Theft, and security increases, is a cost. You have never looked at an accounting book.
The current estimated IP theft of China is triple the estimated tariff costs, and that's assuming there is no supply shift due to costs. Which is an assumption retards make, which is why you make it. China's theft is 3x the tax on domestic goods and you defend that theft openly as you are against any action to counter it.
Let me simplify it for you retard.
If the mob was ribbing warehouses and reselling goods at half price on the market would you be against any form of government response to it? Are you that retarded.
The theft from China doesn't only raise domestic costs but also reduces money spend on R&D which decreases consumer costs. Industry shifts money from R&D to security costs.
It is clear you have no idea how a business or a market works, living solely in an idealistic world that doesn't exist.
I tried to give you books to educate yourself and instead you reverted back to bumper sticker slogans and 8th grade economic systems.
Taxing Americans who buy stuff from China hurts China?
You think repeating the same bumper stickers over and over is an argument?
If Chinese costs plus tariffs cause a supply shift to another exporter reducing demand from China does that hurt China? Why does China only agree to reforms to their anti competitive practices with the promise of tariffs reduction.
God damn sarc. Try to think about something for even a fucking second.
Your argument relies on China being the sole supply of an object. Bumper stickers.
Youre a simpleton.
And that's worth someone's paycheck not going as far as it could have?
Let’s be clear sarc, if you want slaves manufacturing your cheap shit overseas, then the 13th is just words on paper.
Tariffs, like this one, will not be devastating economically because sales taxes are the least of taxes in the first place.
Whenever someone says "Let's be clear.." whatever follows is invariably a man of straw. Also the "One more cut, and it's only a small one" argument doesn't pass muster with me.
Try again to explain why you want people to pay taxes on Chinese stuff, reducing their total purchasing power, and ultimately lowering their lifestyle.
Because single sourcing is terrible.
Because consumer culture is terrible.
Because taxing consumption is more fair than all other taxes.
Because China is a fundamentally communist country and we shouldn't be giving them money in the first place.
See my second comment to NOYB2 below.
As far as your final point goes, I couldn’t disagree more. Trade makes the people wealthier, and more able to resist tyranny. You don’t see rich countries with tyrannical governments. At least compared to what impoverished populations have to live with.
I say hoorah to trade with communist countries. Make the people wealthier. Use capitalism to give them the power to shake off the communist chains.
This would be news to the Chinese populace, who have only been getting more oppressed.
They're also instituting stricter economic controls which suppresses the creation of wealth. There is an inverse correlation.
Nevermind that contradicts your earlier sentiment of "kill them with capitalism", this is grasping.
They've gotten favored nation status ever since Nixon went to China, but can anybody point to any liberalism that happened over there?
Trade with China doesn't "make the people wealthier", it makes the Communist Party wealthier, and they are using that wealth to oppress the Chinese people more.
No, but you see tyrannical countries with rich governments. And "trade with China" is rapidly turning China into that.
Yeah, no doubt you do, because you are an a--hole who doesn't give a f*ck about the oppressed people in those communist countries.
Red China was tyrannical when it was poor, and it's still tyrannical when _some_ Chinese are rich. Perhaps tyranny and wealth are not closely related - but leftist doctrines are always a great way to install tyrants, impoverish the masses, and concentrate the wealth in the tyrants and their cronies.
His statement was 100% accurate. Youre advocating foreign slave labor so you can save a few cents. You are advocating open theft of business by foreign adversaries so you save a few cents.
Youre economically an idiot.
Why should I pay taxes because of what someone is doing in an other country?
Because youre ignoring their actions youre raising costs on consumers who don’t support their actions retard. Their theft is a cost to domestic suppliers. Youre forcing others to subsidize your choice.
What the actual fuck. How can you read and respond and comprehend nothing?
I even gave you the simple mob example above. God damn man. Read a fucking book.
You shouldn't. In fact, you shouldn't buy from China at all, given that it is a communist regime using slave labor.
Since people like you can't get it through your thick heads that China is a communist dictatorship, maybe a better policy would simply be to prohibit trade with China altogether (=infinite "tariff"), just like like we prohibit slave labor in the US.
The actual issue is he raises costs for others who choose not to do business with China who openly commits theft and slave labor.
Sarc literally chooses to fuck over other human beings to save a few pennies.
Sarc would have been on the pro slavery slide in America telling people not to free the slaves. Who are they to tell him to not buy cheap cotton even at the expense of others.
My thinking too: Sarc would have been on the pro-slavery side in the 19th century.
Why wouldn't Sarc be pro-slavery? The greatest difference between Democrats in 1860 and Democrats now: In 1860, they supported keeping _some_ of the people enslaved to other people. Now they want to enslave _everyone_ to the government.
Unilateral free trade is great unless you start running a deficit on humans.
I mean, the Dahomey had slaves to sell, White Southerners had cotton that needed picked. Comparative advantage, *bi*lateral free trade, freedom wafting to and fro on the transatlantic breezes, what's not to love?
It's not stupid if you are a propaganda mouthpiece for the interests of wealthy elites who benefit (commercially/through bribery/indirectly) tremendously from low tariffs on China.
Tariffs are not on China. Tariffs are on Americans who buy stuff from China.
The tariff is not paid by China or the exporter. It's paid by the consumer. By you and me.
And you continue to ignore allllllll the anti free market actions of China that add costs and risks to consumers because you're a fucking idiot.
"Tariffs on China" is shorthand for "tariffs on goods imported from China". We don't have "tariffs on Americans"; that's not how the English language works.
You don't have to pay those tariffs if you don't buy from China. There are a couple of hundred other countries in the world you can buy from, many of which do not use slave labor.
I would change my tune on tariffs if the government shifted from taxing production (income and corporate tax) to taxing consumption (sales taxes and tariffs).
Until that happens I will oppose them on economic principle.
Instead you'll continue to advocate for massive corporate theft in the range of 700B a year. No cost to consumers from that theft at all after all.
And what "economic principle" would that be? That communist slave labor and fascist economics are good?
If it saves him a few pennies.
Yes. That is the economic argument. If you are making a moral argument, then be honest about it. That means acknowledging the difference and treating them as two separate things. Then persuading me that the moral argument is better than the economic one.
I made an economic argument just 3 posts above retard. You ignored it as it exposes your hypocrisy.
Your choice to ignore Chinese theft raises costs on those who choose not to. Youre a piece of shit who only cares about yourself, not others. Economics is not individualized. Your choices also effect others, but you dismiss it.
The costs to domestic companies of 700B a year so you can save pennies.
The costs of those in slavery at a large fucking cost to their rights for you to save a few pennies.
You ignore alllllll the costs that go against your choices. Youre not making economic or libertarian choices, youre making selfish ones. It isnt about morality. You are literally agreeing to raise costs on others and have determined tariffs as worse than slavery and theft. Youre an idiot sarc.
Again if the mob is stealing from a business and reselling it at half price, there is an economic cost on the business. Just because the cops come and shut the mobs down doesn’t mean your costs are greater than the costs the business owners recoup. Youre asking for an economic shift from victims to compensate your pocket book.
Youre rationalizing your own selfishness, not making an economic argument.
If 100B in tariffs stops 150B in theft, overall America benefits in an economic sense. But you ignore the theft as it ruins your selfish arguments.
You're not differentiating between the moral and economic arguments, and your attempts at persuasion are just name calling.
Come back when you can behave like an adult.
Nobody is trying to persuade you; that would be pointless as trying to persuade a neo-Nazi. We're simply talking about you and your reprehensible views.
We have always been making a moral argument. Libertarianism is about morality, not about economics.
The problem is that you don't listen to moral arguments. If slave labor makes things cheaper for you, you endorse slavery. If expropriating your fellow Americans makes things cheaper for you, you're no doubt on board with that too.
That's impossible. You are a greedy, amoral p.o.s. You would have been on the side of slavery in the civil war.
What I don't listen to is "if you, you, you, you..."
If you can make arguments without making them personal then I'll be happy to debate them.
I’m not having a debate with you; that’s pointless. I’m exposing you for the a–hole you are, on the hopes that others are repelled by you and your views, and that others will recognize what contempt people have for your views.
(Speaking as someone who experienced the tender mercies of a communist government growing up.)
Only China makes "nice things" of course so that's why the American taxpayer has to give them a free-ride; actually subsidized in many occasions. /s
Well their trash is getting better but a lot of it is still trash.
You could, if the US government didn’t take away half of what you earn and inflated your savings away. Tariffs comparatively don’t have a big impact on US consumers in general.
(And I would point out that Americans have a lot of "nice things", a lot more than pretty much anybody else on the planet.)
Gosh, what fantastic crony capitalist - progressive language: "is this good for the consumer?"
How about: (1) where does most expropriation of Americans take place, and (2) relative to other ways of financing the US government, are tariffs better or worse?
Reason is a progressive, crony-capitalist rag that's pushing the agenda of its wealthy donors: mass immigration, low tariffs, consumption. Reason writers have zero interest in either liberty or free markets.
When you say you agree with the ideas, but disagree with the messaging and the tactics, this is what you agree with.
That must be why Brendan O'Neill and Nick Gillespie are seeing so much red shift between one another, these days.
If only we lived in a system were someone could innovate an alternative to tin and create a new market free from the tariff. Well, one can dream I guess.
lol... It's been a long time since America was focused on making anything besides lobbyists who insist on halting/curbing making anything especially innovation. For F'Sakes they've lobbied us clear back to the windmill.
Hello Sir, my name is Aluminum.
There's nobody that says,
these executive order tarriffs are unconstitutional.
To think after KMW just wrote an article about applying constitutional principles, I had hope Reason ,(Boehm specifically) might actually start making those arguments in their articles.
+1000000 The worst part always ignored.
In what way are the "unconstitutional"?
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"
Not the President.
Congress has delegated certain powers to the President regarding tariffs and trade policy. Some of the key legislation that grants the President authority to impose tariffs and adjust trade policy include:
1. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: This allows the President to impose tariffs on specific industries if the Department of Commerce determines that imports in those industries pose a threat to national security.
2. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: This enables the President, through the U.S. Trade Representative, to take action against foreign countries that engage in unfair trade practices.
3. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Congress grants the President authority to negotiate trade agreements, which are then submitted to Congress for approval without amendments.
4. Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015: This legislation outlines the authority granted by Congress to the President in the area of trade policy, including the authority to impose additional tariffs and quotas in response to unfairly traded imports.
What amendment was passed giving Congress the authority to change the plain wording of the constitution?
The constitutional basis for Congress's power to delegate powers to the executive branch comes from the principle of implied powers and the interpretation of the nondelegation doctrine. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to delegate its powers, the Supreme Court has held that in some situations, the legislative branch can grant some of its power to administrative agencies or the executive branch.
So, if you think that these delegations of the tariff authority are unconstitutional, take it to SCOTUS. Good luck. Until you succeed, they remain constitutional.
Pretty sure that's exactly how the USA got to the point where it is today. FDR's SCOTUS also proclaimed socialist security was Constitutional.
Well, I don't know what you want.
SCOTUS is the legal authority on what is and isn't constitutional, and they believe Congress can delegate these powers. So that's the legal situation.
We can also have a philosophical debate. You claim delegation contradicts "the plain wording of the Constitution". I don't see that, sorry. You're welcome to make an argument to that effect.
well at least you admit you need 2 widely-separated parts of the COnstitution brought together to make your ridiculous case.
But 'you missed a spot' "can grant SOME Of its power" and we are back to square. What can it delegate and not delegate. See your argument falls to the groun on your own terms 🙂
"Final episode?"
Nah, f*ck that. This is probably my favorite Reason podcast. It would be a sin to end it.
Still not looking at the long causal chain that starts with feds supporting and enabling what they later decry. Who pays for this : Amazon generated 599 million pounds of plastic packaging waste in 2020. This is a 29% increase of Oceana’s 2019 estimate of 465 million pounds. The report also found that Amazon’s estimated plastic packaging waste, in the form of air pillows alone, would circle the Earth more than 600 times.
YOu subsidize Amazon and you pay for their mess. Thanks Obama and Biden
you ignore destuction of markets to talk of minor perturbations of the market !!! Biden the stupid and lazy is subsidizing the production and the purchase of EVs, that means : THERE IS NO MARKET
And again, what business does the US Mail have taking the economic load off Amazon for Sunday delivery !! Robert Reich can cerebrate till his head explodes but that is crazy.
They do this because nobody with a face seesm to be affected.
Now what about this problem : Amazon’s annual plastic packaging waste could circle the world 800 times, report alleges
No one cares about tin except corrupt lifers like Biden. Now Amazon, that is a huge, maybe the hugest, polluter by far on the planet.
I despair of the people on here. Does no one see the implication of the fact
FACT No cans currently in wide use are composed primarily or wholly of tin
IMPLICATION Biden will need a Board to determine what fits the legal definition of Tin. Then Biden would revive Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) so that lies about what is tin can be punished. And then we will have anti-tin and pro-tin incentives as with EVs
It's this libertarian crush on the science and technology that they don't understand -- that makes this all seem rational.
Not pro-tin and NOT anti-tin,that is none of government's business.
Funny, I don't remember authorizing Consumer Brands Association to speak on my behalf. And if Cleveland-Cliffs has higher prices, shouldn't somebody enter the market to undercut them? That's what libbertarians believe. Tariffs should make no difference according to economic theory, because somebody should show up with lower domestic prices. Right, libbertarians? Or maybe economics is bull droppings.