Why are tariffs a "bad" thing?
Why do liberals oppose tariffs? If you're a humanitarian you should support tariffs. Because when you buy cheap labor you're promoting the practice of cheap labor.
>>29592634
>Why do liberals oppose tariffs?
Usually it's the liberals, but not always. Thatcher/Reagan really put neoliberalism into motion.
Partly it's economic exploitation of the third world yeah. And they try to present it as a good thing. They're not REALLY helping them in the long run (because they definitively could), but it's still better than nothing.
And also it's class warfare, pure and simple. They want to disenfranchise workers to lower their wages and make them compete harder. This benefits the elite and the middle classes to some extent (which protects the elite).
Comparative advantage doesn't benefit the common people. Even GDP increases doesn't matter to most people.
The west would be capable of incredibly high productivity if it were to reindustrialize. But they decided to promote the service industry instead (partly enabled by the petro-dollar scheme (i.e., we bomb brown people for it)).
There is also a geopolitical aspect to it. Global trade makes countries more dependent on the US' financial system. Which allows it more opportunities to spread western influence.
But they'll just scream "racist" at you if you criticize globalization.
>>29592634
Liberals have completely bought into the capitalist free trade meme. There's no actual left or right in American politics, just varying shades of centrist capitalist. Trump and Bernie are just slightly left and right of center respectively, but they're treated like extremists.
dare I ask, isn't it a good thing that there's cheap labor for kids in china and india or wherever? because in countries these people would literally be starving to death without what little they can get paid in their shitty factory?
>>29592634
Tarriffs weigh on domestic producers of goods, thus weighing on the consumer
>>29593026
The US would still be trading cotton with Europe as its primary source of wealth with that attitude.
I'm all for helping the rest of the world, but not in a way that sacrifice our own workers and make corporations so powerful.
The primary goal of the US is to influence the development of other countries so that they will be controllable in the future. It is not to make them better off. The US is often behind a lot of the problems within those countries that make their economic exploitation seem like a charitable thing.
>>29592634
Most liberals I know of are totally into tariffs.
Well, I usually read "liberal" as "progressive," because a Hillary Clinton style "liberal" is no liberal at all. As far as enabling the use of cheap labor, most anyone that's in the establishment, left or right, is in favor of trade deals and against any kind of protectionism for American workers because they've all been bought off by the corporations and industries that benefit most from being able to use sweatshop labor. And of course the people running these corporations and industries have no problem selling America down the river because they were taught greed is good, look out for number 1 and fuck everyone and everything else, including your home nation.
>>29593026
Not really, because they somehow made it to the modern era before any factories were built, right? It's the same way it worked in America and the rest of what is now the developed world, initially factories were total shitholes and nobody wanted to work in them if they could help it. Only after centuries of battle between labor and owners do we now have factories that aren't human rights nightmares in which the fingers of children are ripped off by mechanical looms. But, of course, the business elite has been moving their operations to places where they don't have to pay decent wages or follow safety practices as closely so they can get back to the glory days of higher profits.
They absolutely could be building safe factories in these countries and paying decent wages which would actually elevate the people within those nations, but they just won't because the corporate structure demands profit before anything else. Instead what they do is suppress wages and labor power and have essentially turned what were once free agrarian peoples into wage slaves. This affects children the worst, because if their childhood is just working at the factory and not learning about the world, what chance do they have to rise up for a better life?
>>29593283
>>29593398
it's not like india or china are going to say "damn, our poor are out of a job, we better get our act together and help them out", they will literally just die in the millions and they wont give a shit
>>29593518
If there's no way out, then they HAVE to revolt. It's always been that way. It's how things get better. And this could be supported by the west (but there are other players that would interfere, AND the west is not actually trying to help them anyway...). They're 2.5 BILLION people, they need a country that works for them. The west cannot support them forever. It's not possible. It's not as apparent yet, but we're in deep trouble too.
>>29592852
A well informed post, on my 4chan?
Historically tariffs allowed the United States to build up its own industries following its declaration of independence. By not allowing cheap foreign goods to flood our large domestic market we were able to build our own industries. This is also why sanctions on countries like Russia don't work, they have a large domestic market so when foreign imports stop flowing in the local industries do better.
Now we have a financial system where if the United States is doing well financially we can buy other people's goods but if the dollar's value is lowered we can flood the markets of other nations. This is why China is forced to buy our debt because if they don't they won't be able to export to us.
>>29592634
Because tariffs negatively effect GDP growth and GDP. Which seem to be the only two metrics Neo liberals(Hillary/Obama) and Neoconservative (Romney/Bush) care about.
Plus its easy to oppose them when the argument used to promote them is so weak.
Tariffs wont bring back any jobs. In order to do so they would have to more than cover the distance between the wage of an american worker and the wage of a 3rd world worker.
And even if we were to implement tarries that massively burdensome, our environmental regulations prevent the factories from being built here.
And even if we removed those environmental regulations and minimum wage laws, you would make Americas economy so strong that it would make the dollar worth too much. So no one would be able to buy all the shit we built.
Trumps economic policy is a joke. Half of his policies create effects that conflict with the effects of this other policies.
I would really like to see how someone could defend any of these positions from either an economic or citizen welfare perspective.
>>29592994
I would say Trump and Sanders are economically left of Clinton. Hell, all the big banks bailed out of the republican party to support clinton.
>>29593839
>Now we have a financial system where if the United States is doing well financially we can buy other people's goods but if the dollar's value is lowered we can flood the markets of other nations.
The US keeps itself more versatile than other nations in this regard? This is capability they protect and develop for this purpose?
>This is why China is forced to buy our debt because if they don't they won't be able to export to us.
desu I don't really understand how that works. But clearly they're not just buying the debt to do us a solid. They need the USD for their own purposes. I thought the petro-dollar scheme was the main factor behind this, but it's probably a lot, lot more complicated than I realize...
>>29594378
You're right tariff won't bring back jobs, but in the long run it will make the US the most productive nation on the planet. It forces people to invest in automation more so because it's a means of cutting long term expense, and thus makes the US more productive
>>29594378
>citizen welfare perspective
All I care about really. The main argument for protectionism to me is to bring back those corporations under our control. To stop exposing our market to entities not regulated by our laws. To me it's the only way social progress can occur. Hillary isn't even trying to make things better. She's so corrupt. I just want a president that is gonna try. Bernie or Trump. I wished it would have been Bernie, but Trump is by far better than Hillary to me.
>>29594494
>The US keeps itself more versatile than other nations in this regard? This is capability they protect and develop for this purpose?
We had an opportunity to do it first and the postwar world economy allowed us the opportunity. We're currently in a situation like the monkeys, ladder, and bucket (look it up if you haven't heard of it) where people in the system only know that it must be maintained but not necessarily its origin. This system allows us to run a large deficit, which was useful during the Cold War, because other countries don't want our debt bomb to explode. Basically other world powers that are "partners" with the US are fucked. Small countries or countries like Russia are more resistant because they aren't within our sphere of influence.
>desu I don't really understand how that works. But clearly they're not just buying the debt to do us a solid. They need the USD for their own purposes. I thought the petro-dollar scheme was the main factor behind this, but it's probably a lot, lot more complicated than I realize...
If the value of the dollar gets too low we won't be able to buy their exports and our exports will be cheap enough that we can flood them with our goods and wreck their profits. It's a very one-sided and unsustainable arrangement but if they keep buying our debt then they can enjoy some temporary security.
>>29594500
> it will make the US the most productive nation on the planet. It forces people to invest in automation
Are you serious? By the time we can widely implement automation China and Indians combined middle classes will be a much larger market for consumer goods than america.
A more productive us doesn't mean we will be better off. It just means we will have a bunch of autonomous factories owned by foreigners on our soil that will refuse to pay taxes.
>>29594560
>. To stop exposing our market to entities not regulated by our laws
This is impossible. Social progress can happen by controlling how we react to outward influences. Pretending they dont exist will do nothing but weaken our position when something happens we cannot ignore.
>>29594654
You seem pretty knowledgeable about this...
>We're currently in a situation like the monkeys, ladder, and bucket (look it up if you haven't heard of it)
I will.
>It's a very one-sided and unsustainable arrangement but if they keep buying our debt then they can enjoy some temporary security.
I keep reading about that, but never really getting a good understanding. I guess I would have to learn a lot more about economics to understand their games...
It does SEEM like it is destined to collapse eventually and something big will need to happen. The US imports so much in exchange for overpriced services and financial shenanigans (thanks to their position of power).
Also, the way I see it, Trump is not REALLY gonna change anything major, right? These things seem to be way, way too important for a president to affect them significantly. Seems like Trump is just going to put the brakes on it a little bit to take care of the US' infrastructure and workers. And will generally pretend to be stupid and unpredictable to give them an edge when renegotiating these trade deals.
>>29594824
We don't have to allow any of this. If we are sovereign we don't have to let foreign nations buy our country. There used to be a lot of capital control laws after the wars. My understanding is that we are returning to pre-WW1 level of international laissez-faire.
>>29594834
>You seem pretty knowledgeable about this...
I'm an armchair economist/poliscientist , take everything you read on 4chan with a grain of salt. Most of what I understand comes from an economist named Michael Hudson. The best book on this particular subject is called Super Imperialism by him. It details how the US uses its position as global financial leader to maintain its hegemony, it was also written in 1972 when all this started.
>Also, the way I see it, Trump is not REALLY gonna change anything major, right? These things seem to be way, way too important for a president to affect them significantly. Seems like Trump is just going to put the brakes on it a little bit to take care of the US' infrastructure and workers. And will generally pretend to be stupid and unpredictable to give them an edge when renegotiating these trade deals.
Most of the positions Trump and even Sanders were arguing for are out of their direct control as president. They can set agendas and nominate officials but most of the policy decisions are decided by the legislature. Currently the neoliberals hold most of the cards and it's unlikely any president who opposes their principles will get much done. The more battles you fight as president the more political capital you lose and the less you will get done in the future so presidents usually conserve power, every time Trump fights a battle it will receive a lot of push back.
Republicans who aren't necessarily neo-libs/cons just want to maintain a status quo (or shut the government down entirely) while Dems that aren't part of the neo-lib/con machine are generally impotent/incompetent.
What's more important is electing legislators. The presidential election is a horse race where everyone roots for their favorite, but it's the legislators that actually get things done. I doubt most Americans ,even the "informed" on the internet, can name who represents them in the legislature or what they have voted on. I'm rambling now.
>>29592634
cause they don't fucking work.
>>29595153
>take everything you read on 4chan with a grain of salt
kek ALWAYS
>The best book on this particular subject is called Super Imperialism by him. It details how the US uses its position as global financial leader to maintain its hegemony, it was also written in 1972 when all this started.
Interesting, I'll look into it. That was quite a while ago... There's a new edition with extra chapters that must rectify a few things at least.
I've been (slowly) reading "International Relations since 1945", and it's SUPER interesting, but it takes a long while to reach "modern" times.
>Most of the positions Trump and even Sanders were arguing for are out of their direct control as president.
Yeah, that's what worried me.
It seems like the way Trump will demand protection "tributes" and impose tariffs (even if they end up being pointless) might be a way to give himself as president more direct control over these funds, and allow him to finance the rest of his plan more independently. Dunno if it makes sense, just a theory I have.
>I doubt most Americans ,even the "informed" on the internet, can name who represents them in the legislature or what they have voted on.
Heh, yeah... good point. :/
>>29595387
>Interesting, I'll look into it. That was quite a while ago... There's a new edition with extra chapters that must rectify a few things at least.
This is the version I have and it adds some chapters. Most of it is him expressing surprise that instead of a warning the original worked more like a blueprint (not that they weren't going to do it anyway).
>It seems like the way Trump will demand protection "tributes" and impose tariffs (even if they end up being pointless) might be a way to give himself as president more direct control over these funds, and allow him to finance the rest of his plan more independently. Dunno if it makes sense, just a theory I have.
The point of tariffs is to protect local industries, government income is an added bonus but the increased tax revenue is the meat of the plan. There's no way for Trump to institute his plan without increasing the deficit, every candidate this election season had this problem. Ideally the increased deficit will lead to a future surplus.
Both sides of the aisle will ask the other side "Who's going to pay for it? Where's the money going to come from?" and the answer is that the government controls the money supply and can print more. This will lower the value of the dollar but if the investment pays off then the government won't go bankrupt and can print more money later, or even generate a future tax surplus.
>>29595617
Seems like a really good book desu. Does it require a lot of knowledge of economics?
I always wished western countries could isolate themselves from the rest of the world, and start to massively automate and reduce the working hours, fix social issues, etc. You know, go into the future without having to worry about competing with cheap labor. But I see now why it can't happen. They can't allow the rest of the world to turn on them. They have to try to control them and become interdependent. Otherwise we will be crushed. Not that our politicians wouldn't already be too corrupt to really allow social progress to happen otherwise...
>>29595906
>Seems like a really good book desu. Does it require a lot of knowledge of economics?
I got through it as a noob but I bookmarked stuff to reread after I read more. He's releasing another book in August call J is for Junk Economics which he says is a more entry level book.
>I always wished western countries could isolate themselves from the rest of the world, and start to massively automate and reduce the working hours, fix social issues, etc. You know, go into the future without having to worry about competing with cheap labor. But I see now why it can't happen. They can't allow the rest of the world to turn on them.
This is a little paranoid because you're thinking in terms of monolithic forces (I've probably encouraged that language in my posts too) when it's individual actors. People in government (imperialists like Clinton) want national prestige and people in business want profits (their personal income is tied to short term profits). The rest of the world is just as fucked by this system because they are prevented from developing their own industries.
I'd like to talk more but I need to go to my lab now. I'll check for the thread later if you want to reply but it's been fun having someone listen to my rambling.
>>29596038
>He's releasing another book in August call J is for Junk Economics which he says is a more entry level book.
Neat. Definitively will look into it.
>monolithic forces
Yeah I get that it's hell of an over simplication. It's kind of like the "realist" and "liberal" approach to foreign relations.
>I'd like to talk more but I need to go to my lab now. I'll check for the thread later if you want to reply but it's been fun having someone listen to my rambling.
Hey sure, that was cool talking to someone who understands better than me but doesn't buy in the bullshit so much. Many economists really seem to be fucking tools...
>>29592634
>Why do liberals oppose tariffs?
I'm a liberal and I support them. I believe they are the only way to break the 30+ years of stagant wages in this economy. This book influenced me enormously. You anons should check it out:
http://www.freetradedoesntwork.com/
