Oldbear83 said:
quash said:
Osodecentx said:
quash said:
Bearitto said:
Opposition to tariffs at all costs is like being a pacifist who opposes violence for any reason. Murdering innocent people is wrong, but killing in war, self defense or the defense of others is completely justified and good. Tariffs to protect cronies is wrong. Tariffs to protect IP or essential industries can be useful; particularly if short term.
Define "short term".
To me we are past short term: we are paying the import tax (and thereby reducing our purchasing power), our businesses have lost market share, GDP will take a small hit, and we are paying billions for bailout of some of those businesses. And we have a president who still thinks tariffs are a revenue source streaming into the country (Tweet from 2/12/20: "PAID FOR OUT OF THE MASSIVE TARIFF MONEY COMING INTO THE USA!").
If it were truly short term businesses could plan around tariffs. Going on 2+ years, with adjustments and retaliatory tariffs, takes the certainty out of impacted markets. The market likes certainty.
As to IP issues, remember that companies that trade with China are fully aware of what they are getting into. Most of them have made a business decision to accept the joint venture partner (with access to IP) or the outright transfer, just to get access to the Chinese market. If it works they stay, if it doesn't they leave.
I just don't think the state needs to get involved in market decisions. The Chinese state will, but capitalists have always dealt with state interference and still prized their freedom from such control by their own state.
I oppose tariffs, whether in US or our trading partners. However, if a trading partner puts ups barrier against out exports I'm okay levying a tariff on their products.
After negotiation, after an international adjudication, sure.
"International adjudication" = 'letting someone else set the rules'
Hell no.
We've had success in them. When we don't (as I said) then tariffs are still in the toolbox.
If you can get past sovereignty issues (and sometimes you can't) the WTO and the various treaty-created fora offer, well, rules. Rules help because they represent areas of agreement flushed out before a conflict arises, and they offer some measure of predictability in trade dealings, and some measure of accountability. They can boost confidence in trade and prevent trade wars.
Or, as Bastiat says, to prevent actual wars: "A French ironmaster says: "We must protect ourselves from the invasion of English iron!" An English landlord cries: "We must repel the invasion of French wheat!" And they urge the erection of barriers between the two nations. Barriers result in isolation; isolation gives rise to hatred; hatred, to war; war, to invasion. "What difference does it make?" say the two sophists. "Is it not better to risk the possibility of invasion than to accept the certainty of invasion?" And the people believe them, and the barriers remain standing.
And yet, what analogy is there between an exchange and an invasion? What possible similarity can there be between a warship that comes to vomit missiles, fire, and devastation on our cities, and a merchant vessel that comes to offer us a voluntary exchange of goods for goods?"