Are Trump’s Tariffs On Steel Having The Desired Effect?
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
But what about preventing stolen technology or counterfeit products being imported into America? Tariffs are the only effective way to make that theft uneconomical. Are you in favor of theft?
This isn't a false dichotomy issue. It is one of the few either/or questions.
This isn't a false dichotomy issue. It is one of the few either/or questions.
Ostatedchi, I’ve come to realize I owe you an apology. You said something the other day, I think in reply to aliabedi, who rightly pointed out Trump’s tariffs, as insisted by Trump himself, are for the purpose of ending the trade deficit, to which you basically said you didn’t care a whit about the trade deficit, you wanted to stop the theft of technology. Or something to that effect.
It made me realize we have been talking past each other without actually listening to each other. I realized you think I dismiss the theft, and while I never supported the tariffs as a way to stop the theft, my focus has always been the tariffs won’t impact the trade deficit. I obviously failed to explain my argument in a way for you to understand, while at the same time not properly engaging you in the side of the argument you are so passionate about.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I disagree with you that tariffs are the ONLY way to stop the theft. And in fact I believe a tariff’s negative impact on innocent people is not worth the assumed positive impact in stopping the theft. I do not think it appropriate to harm Henry in an attempt to help Paul.
Be that as it may I want to publicly acknowledge my misstep in understanding the disconnect in our debates.
No, it’s not restricted. I don’t know why you can’t connect. Keep trying, it’s a good article!
I’ll post the link again, maybe you can get it this time.
https://reason.com/2019/06/19/as-u-...ion-its-time-to-stop-pretending-tariffs-work/
Do you realize what you just said? You just said that you support the trafficking in stolen goods since it helps Henry even though its Paul's commodity that has been stolen and resold.
Henry isn't the victim here. Paul is. As such, he's the one that should be protected.
And yes, international tribunals or other criminal paths are totally ineffective. Not just somewhat ineffective. Totally ineffective. The only effective way to combat this economic theft is via economic means. Embargo, Tariff, and quotas are the only means we have. You seem to be against all of them.
So logically you endorse the theft and trafficking of stolen goods.
I'm for fair trade; as you should be.
I accept your apology even though it is still pretty condescending. You explained it in a way that I understood. You don't need to talk to me like a child for me to grasp the concept. Just stop the passive aggressive tone with people who disagree with you and quit being condescending, smug, and lecturing.
Realize that your stance is an absolute one that would work in a theoretical vacuum. But there are other, much more complex, real world factors that you aren't considering. Theft is just one that I know very well since thwarting it is a huge factor in my field of expertise.
Lastly, I agree with you that there really isn't a thing as a trade imbalance. If we import more goods from a country than we export - so what? That's not an imbalance. That's just trade. Any talk of trade imbalances I pretty much ignore as crap. Tariffs as a tool to correct an imbalance is stupid.
But tariffs (and embargoes and quotas) as a tool to leverage better inter-country trade agreements, thwart the profiteering of IP theft and counterfeiting, and economic sabotage are totally legitimate uses and should be used when needed.
I assure you no part of my apology was intended to be condescending. I just reread it and am stumped on what you found to be anything but sincere.
As to your reply I can only point out it is part and parcel of what I was saying! I said I don’t want tariffs to hurt innocent people in an effort to help the afflicted, that I don’t want to hurt Henry in an effort to help Paul. In my scenario Henry is nothing more than an innocent bystander. What you deduced is Henry participates in the theft by buying the stolen knockoff product.
The Henry I am contemplating is not involved in any way in the theft. He didn’t steal anything and he didn’t buy a knockoff. He’s just the poor schlub that got blindsided in the deal.
Let me give you a real life example. In my industry we use electric motor blowers in Vacuums. The motor blowers we use have not seen ay technological change in over 50 years. They are built exactly like they have always been built, exactly the same parts with exactly the same quality. Nothing about them has been stolen by anybody. But a few years ago the manufacturer moved its assembly plant to China to take advantage of cheaper labor, which kept their prices at a manageable level. Chinese put them together (with the same high quality as always), boxes them up and ships them to America.
But now, thanks to Trump those motors have been slapped with a 25% tariff. So a product that was already relatively expensive has now become exorbitantly so. The manufacturers who buy those motor will raise their prices causing the wholesalers to follow suit and so on right up the line to the end users. The higher prices will most certainly result in lower sales which will lead to employee termination, etc.
Every single person in that industry is innocent. They don’t have technology to steal, they don’t buy stolen product, not the manufacturer, not the wholesaler, not the retail store and not the end user. They are innocent bystanders that are being blindsided by tariffs. Nothing about them or their situation is involved in any way with theft or buying stolen goods.
That’s the Henry I’m talking about. You see there is a whole segment of the population you seem to be blind to. Most people are not buying stolen goods. But they’re having very serious negative consequences because of the tariffs.
I'm not stealing or buying stolen goods. But I guarantee that I'm helping cover the cost of shoplifters.
So China steals tech from Henry and tries to sell it to Paul. No matter the benefit to Paul or those who would otherwise benefit from that transaction - they aren't the victims. Henry is. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Like I said, the cost of clothes in a store are increased so that the general purchase has the built in cost of shoplifting. The concept is no different here. You yet again omit pertinent vectors in your equation.
So in your instance of steel tariffs, maybe they are misapplied. Okay. I'm not going to argue that. But that's irrelevant to my point.
