Harvard/Harris Poll: GOP Voters Overwhelmingly Back Tariffs on China

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Trump brings the GOP back to its roots of
economic nationalism and away from the donor class’ preferred free trade absolutism. And Republicans like it.

"Nearly eight-in-ten Republican voters say they support the recent decision by Trump to increase tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports from ten percent to 25 percent. Close to 85 percent of Trump supporters, as well as 76 percent of self-identified “conservative” voters, said they support the hike in tariffs on Chinese imports.

"By a majority of 53 percent, American voters told Harvard/Harris pollsters that they support Trump’s increasing tariffs on China to protect U.S. workers and domestic industries from unfair, subsidized foreign competition."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...gop-voters-overwhelmingly-back-tariffs-china/

 

[imprimis]

The Chinese economy is being hurt. Their central bank, their version of the Fed, is dumping billions into their economy to keep it afloat similarly to the way Obama did.

 

[aix_xpert]

Its interesting having a president who understands that its our economy that stirs the world's drink and is willing to leverage that power in trade negotiations.

 

[NeekReevers]

I know several small business owners that are directly impacted by the tariffs. Even they, to a person, support the tariffs in the short term if it leads to meaningful progress in the trade conditions between the two countries. Hopefully it will.

 

[aix_xpert]

I know several small business owners that are directly impacted by the tariffs. Even they, to a person, support the tariffs in the short term if it leads to meaningful progress in the trade conditions between the two countries. Hopefully it will.

If it doesn't lead to progress, then we should probably be questioning if these are trading partners we want in the first place.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Trump brings the GOP back to its roots of
economic nationalism and away from the donor class’ preferred free trade absolutism. And Republicans like it.

"Nearly eight-in-ten Republican voters say they support the recent decision by Trump to increase tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports from ten percent to 25 percent. Close to 85 percent of Trump supporters, as well as 76 percent of self-identified “conservative” voters, said they support the hike in tariffs on Chinese imports.

"By a majority of 53 percent, American voters told Harvard/Harris pollsters that they support Trump’s increasing tariffs on China to protect U.S. workers and domestic industries from unfair, subsidized foreign competition."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...gop-voters-overwhelmingly-back-tariffs-china/

I would only point out one error in your thinking. The donor class does not prefer free trade absolutism. The donor class prefers rent-seeking government-protected crony capitalism that gives them an advantage in a marketplace. Free trade absolutism eliminates government intervention in transactions freely made between people. The donor class shrinks in horror at the thought they might actually have to participate in a fair competition. The donor class prefers to buy politicians who will use the police power of the state to do their bidding in international trade. That's what all the "free trade treaties" are all about.

 

[aix_xpert]

I would only point out one error in your thinking. The donor class does not prefer free trade absolutism. The donor class prefers rent-seeking government-protected crony capitalism that gives them an advantage in a marketplace. Free trade absolutism eliminates government intervention in transactions freely made between people. The donor class shrinks in horror at the thought they might actually have to participate in a fair competition. The donor class prefers to buy politicians who will use the police power of the state to do their bidding in international trade. That's what all the "free trade treaties" are all about.

While true, it fails to recognize that free trade practices with zero government intervention only works if there is zero government intervention (from both sides). Since we already know that China fails that test, expecting the US to not provide similar protections for its citizenry and industry is pretty ludicrous.

 

[Ponca Dan]

While true, it fails to recognize that free trade practices with zero government intervention only works if there is zero government intervention (from both sides). Since we already know that China fails that test, expecting the US to not provide similar protections for its citizenry and industry is pretty ludicrous.

What you wrote is considered common knowledge by most laymen, but is considered completely wrong by most economists.

Nonintervention by a government is the tactic most certain to enrich a society regardless of what any other government does to its society. Government intervention in the form of subsidies and tariffs, for example, is most harmful the the country whose government employs them.

Believing a tit-for-tat government intervention is good for a society ignores that subsidies and tariffs are most harmful to the country employing the tit-for-tat.

I know we are on completely opposite sides of this debate, and neither of us is ever going to convince the other of his error. So I’ll stop at this point and give you the last word.

 

[Ostatedchi]

What you wrote is considered common knowledge by most laymen, but is considered completely wrong by most economists.

Nonintervention by a government is the tactic most certain to enrich a society regardless of what any other government does to its society. Government intervention in the form of subsidies and tariffs, for example, is most harmful the the country whose government employs them.

Believing a tit-for-tat government intervention is good for a society ignores that subsidies and tariffs are most harmful to the country employing the tit-for-tat.

I know we are on completely opposite sides of this debate, and neither of us is ever going to convince the other of his error. So I’ll stop at this point and give you the last word.

So when China steals American Intellectual Property and then tries to sell it back to Americans the American government should just sit back and take it?

 

[Ponca Dan]

So when China steals American Intellectual Property and then tries to sell it back to Americans the American government should just sit back and take it?

No, theft is never acceptable behavior. There are international tribunals that exist to adjudicate such disputes.

But taking actions such as tariffs are a mistake. It is an attempt to punish China by harming American citizens/consumers. American citizens/consumers are not guilty of stealing intellectual property, and should not be punished because a foreign entity such as the Chinese government did.

 

[CBradSmith]

No, theft is never acceptable behavior. There are international tribunals that exist to adjudicate such disputes.

But taking actions such as tariffs are a mistake. It is an attempt to punish China by harming American citizens/consumers. American citizens/consumers are not guilty of stealing intellectual property, and should not be punished because a foreign entity such as the Chinese government did.

How long are you going to not acknowledge substitute goods and services or alternative sourcing?

You cry harm, but you don't even represent basic economics well.

And for that reason, I'm out. (But I'll keep reminding you)

 

[Ponca Dan]

How long are you going to not acknowledge substitute goods and services or alternative sourcing?

You cry harm, but you don't even represent basic economics well.

And for that reason, I'm out. (But I'll keep reminding you)

Perhaps I would acknowledge those things if I had the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Rather than retreat from the conversation why don’t you present your case and we can talk about it?

 

[CBradSmith]

Perhaps I would acknowledge those things if I had the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Rather than retreat from the conversation why don’t you present your case and we can talk about it?

Possibly tomorrow.

For now, Google "substitute goods"

 

[Ostatedchi]

No, theft is never acceptable behavior. There are international tribunals that exist to adjudicate such disputes.

But taking actions such as tariffs are a mistake. It is an attempt to punish China by harming American citizens/consumers. American citizens/consumers are not guilty of stealing intellectual property, and should not be punished because a foreign entity such as the Chinese government did.

That's just insane. When Venezuela nationalized and stole our company's assets we sued in international court. Nothing... nothing has or ever will come of it. Your tribunals are a farce.

You've simply made no sense. So I steal a truck of TV's. Go to the parking lot of Best Buy and sell them out of my trunk for pennies on the dollar. And you think that's fine because the consumer benefits.

Just insanity.

 

[Medic007]

That's just insane. When Venezuela nationalized and stole our company's assets we sued in international court. Nothing... nothing has or ever will come of it. Your tribunals are a farce.

You've simply made no sense. So I steal a truck of TV's. Go to the parking lot of Best Buy and sell them out of my trunk for pennies on the dollar. And you think that's fine because the consumer benefits.

Just insanity.

I think that Ponca Dan's misty eyed visions of anarchist utopia sometimes keep him from seeing reality. In his mind, nothing any other country does matters as long as our government interferes in nothing. You don't want to have your trade secrets stolen and duplicated, don't do business in China. Problem solved.

 

[Ponca Dan]

That's just insane. When Venezuela nationalized and stole our company's assets we sued in international court. Nothing... nothing has or ever will come of it. Your tribunals are a farce.

You've simply made no sense. So I steal a truck of TV's. Go to the parking lot of Best Buy and sell them out of my trunk for pennies on the dollar. And you think that's fine because the consumer benefits.

Just insanity.

To answer your last sentence first, no I would never be fine with selling stolen goods.

If outfits like the WTO do not have sufficient powers of adjudication I would suggest Trump and his administration (or any other administration for that matter) would serve the American public better by insisting it have more teeth, which is a more reasonable response than punishing American citizens for the malfeasance of China (I’ll ignore the Venezuelan reference in an attempt to stay on
point).

China stands accused of stealing American technology. Like you I have no doubt their government is in cahoots with many of their industrial giants and is guilty as charged. I ask, is China stealing only from Americans? Are they playing fair with England, France, Germany, Italy, and all the other members of the WTO? I’m pretty sure China was begging to be admitted to the WTO, and it was allowed in very reluctantly. I’ve read that China tends to back down when the WTO comes calling. Their meteoric rise has been significantly aided by their joining the WTO. Why wouldn’t the Trump administration put together an alliance of WTO countries affected by Chinese tactics to bring the hammer down on them through the WTO? Why wouldn't these military allies of our not join us in an economic action?

 

[Medic007]

You've simply made no sense. So I steal a truck of TV's. Go to the parking lot of Best Buy and sell them out of my trunk for pennies on the dollar. And you think that's fine because the consumer benefits.

And you stole them from that Best Buy.

 

[Medic007]

Why wouldn't these military allies of our not join us in an economic action?

Interesting that you invoked military allies over trade issues...

 

[Ostatedchi]

To answer your last sentence first, no I would never be fine with selling stolen goods.

Wouldn't one way to prevent the sale of stolen goods is to make them so expensive as to not be purchasable?

And Venezuela nationalizing our assets is exactly like stealing our intellectual property.

America could bomb the plants. But anything short of that will have to be economic. You know - tariffs.

 

[Medic007]

Wouldn't one way to prevent the sale of stolen goods is to make them so expensive as to not be purchasable?

Seems like common sense to me...

 

[Ponca Dan]

Interesting that you invoked military allies over trade issues...

Yes, it seems reasonable that allies willing to stand with the USA in a military conflict could be easily persuaded to invoke economic consequences on an offending government like China, rather than punish innocent citizens.

 

[Medic007]

Yes, it seems reasonable that allies willing to stand with the USA in a military conflict could be easily persuaded to invoke economic consequences on an offending government like China, rather than punish innocent citizens.

Fair enough.

How are innocent citizens being punished, Dan? Don't buy washers and dryers from China if they are too expensive.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Wouldn't one way to prevent the sale of stolen goods is to make them so expensive as to not be purchasable?

And Venezuela nationalizing our assets is exactly like stealing our intellectual property.

America could bomb the plants. But anything short of that will have to be economic. You know - tariffs.

Yes, that would be a reasonable response. Organizations like the WTO could impose fines of such magnitude (with the threat of expulsion from the group if the fine is not paid) the Chinese government would conclude it would be in their interest to play fair. I may be misunderstanding what you wrote, but it sounds like you are wanting to make products so expensive Americans could no longer buy them. IMO that’s not reasonable.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Yes, that would be a reasonable response. Organizations like the WTO could impose fines of such magnitude (with the threat of expulsion from the group if the fine is not paid) the Chinese government would conclude it would be in their interest to play fair. I may be misunderstanding what you wrote, but it sounds like you are wanting to make products so expensive Americans could no longer buy them. IMO that’s not reasonable.

But that's the only way to prevent their sale. It's totally reasonable if you are actually serious about preventing the sale of stolen property. All your other methods don't work. This one does.

Anything less is just lip service with no teeth.

 

[JimmyBob]

There are international tribunals that exist to adjudicate such disputes.

What a total load of naivete BULLSHIT! Do you really think China gives two hoots and a got dam about any
such "adjudication"?

 

[Medic007]

but it sounds like you are wanting to make products so expensive Americans could no longer buy them. IMO that’s not reasonable.

China isn't the only country that produces goods, Dan. If Chinese goods become too expensive for you to buy, buy goods from other countries.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Fair enough.

How are innocent citizens being punished, Dan? Don't buy washers and dryers from China if they are too expensive.

Well, the washer/dryer tariffs are aimed at our ally, South Korea, not China. But, OK, lets look at washers/dryers.

South Korea, in true interventionist fashion, subsidized their major washer/dryer manufacturers. What that means is the SK government taxed its own citizens and handed the money over to its crony capitalist friends (who probably bought as many politicians as needed to get the dough). Using S Korean taxpayer money these manufacturers were able to export their products and sell them on the international market at lower prices than their competitors. The washer/dryers were of acceptable quality so that American consumers quite rightly preferred them over the higher priced American competition. In other words because of the subsidies South Korean taxpayers were footing a portion of the bill Americans were paying. It was a really sweet deal for American consumers. It was like one of their citizens was giving us $50 to buy the product. So 330+ million people were enjoying the benefits of South Korean taxpayer largesse. But American manufacturers responded by demanding our government do to us what the SK government was doing to its citizens. Trump, believing he was doing right by us, imposed his tariffs (calling them a “national defense” necessity). He couched it in nationalist/protectionist language, assuring us that he was protecting American jobs, when in reality he was employing the time honored practice of providing aid to his rent-seeking crony capitalist buddies. It drove up the average price of washer/dryer combination by $200. American corporations not only raised their prices on those products directly affected by the tariffs, but raised their prices on related products as well. They hired a couple of thousand new employees at a price calculated to be around $800,000 per new job. 330+ million American taxpayers are facing an increase of about $200 when we want to buy a new washer/dryer so that $800,000 can be spent on a couple of thousand new hires. That’s one example of how the American consumer/taxpayer is being hurt by one tariff.

 

[Medic007]

Well, the washer/dryer tariffs are aimed at our ally, South Korea, not China. But, OK, lets look at washers/dryers.

South Korea, in true interventionist fashion, subsidized their major washer/dryer manufacturers. What that means is the SK government taxed its own citizens and handed the money over to its crony capitalist friends (who probably bought as many politicians as needed to get the dough). Using S Korean taxpayer money these manufacturers were able to export their products and sell them on the international market at lower prices than their competitors. The washer/dryers were of acceptable quality so that American consumers quite rightly preferred them over the higher priced American competition. In other words because of the subsidies South Korean taxpayers were footing a portion of the bill Americans were paying. It was a really sweet deal for American consumers. It was like one of their citizens was giving us $50 to buy the product. So 330+ million people were enjoying the benefits of South Korean taxpayer largesse. But American manufacturers responded by demanding our government do to us what the SK government was doing to its citizens. Trump, believing he was doing right by us, imposed his tariffs (calling them a “national defense” necessity). He couched it in nationalist/protectionist language, assuring us that he was protecting American jobs, when in reality he was employing the time honored practice of providing aid to his rent-seeking crony capitalist buddies. It drove up the average price of washer/dryer combination by $200. American corporations not only raised their prices on those products directly affected by the tariffs, but raised their prices on related products as well. They hired a couple of thousand new employees at a price calculated to be around $800,000 per new job. 330+ million American taxpayers are facing an increase of about $200 when we want to buy a new washer/dryer so that $800,000 can be spent on a couple of thousand new hires. That’s one example of how the American consumer/taxpayer is being hurt by one tariff.

Do you have a source I can check out for the accuracy of this information? It sounds like the US should have taken action against South Korea much sooner than Trump's election.

 

[Ponca Dan]

But that's the only way to prevent their sale. It's totally reasonable if you are actually serious about preventing the sale of stolen property. All your other methods don't work. This one does.

Anything less is just lip service with no teeth.

I’m all for giving teeth to organizations created to adjudicate international economic disputes. It would work if they would do it. But they instead resort to 19th century mercantilist methods that have limited success if they succeed at all.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Do you have a source I can check out for the accuracy of this information? It sounds like the US should have taken action against South Korea much sooner than Trump's election.

I have to confess this response caused me to break out in uncontrollable laughter! No, I don’t have a source for you. I read from many sources and I’m not intelligent enough to remember where a lot of it comes from. Those tariffs are from about a year ago, and economists were explaining the error of them at that time. I do know I read the $200 figure and the $800,000 figure just a few days (or maybe weeks) ago. I’m pretty sure they were talked about on Mark Perry’s website. But I read about it in more than one place. Sorry, I would tell you if I knew. I’m not trying to blow smoke up your skirt.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I’m all for giving teeth to organizations created to adjudicate international economic disputes. It would work if they would do it. But they instead resort to 19th century mercantilist methods that have limited success if they succeed at all.

So, you talk out of both sides of your face at once. On one hand you say stolen property shouldn't be resold. Yet you give no real world effective method to accomplish this. Nothing you've stated has or will stop it at all. Nothing. You talk in theoretical absolutes instead of real world actuals.

So again, I've tried to talk to you. You stubbornly adhere to your ideological view despite all realities that contradict that ideal. I'm out. I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I have to confess this response caused me to break out in uncontrollable laughter! No, I don’t have a source for you. I read from many sources and I’m not intelligent enough to remember where a lot of it comes from. Those tariffs are from about a year ago, and economists were explaining the error of them at that time. I do know I read the $200 figure and the $800,000 figure just a few days (or maybe weeks) ago. I’m pretty sure they were talked about on Mark Perry’s website. But I read about it in more than one place. Sorry, I would tell you if I knew. I’m not trying to blow smoke up your skirt.

And with that response I going to wrap it up for the night. I’m old and spent all day swinging a hammer. I’m tired and worn out from trying to keep up with three or four conversations at once. Have a great night!

 

[Medic007]

I have to confess this response caused me to break out in uncontrollable laughter! No, I don’t have a source for you. I read from many sources and I’m not intelligent enough to remember where a lot of it comes from. Those tariffs are from about a year ago, and economists were explaining the error of them at that time. I do know I read the $200 figure and the $800,000 figure just a few days (or maybe weeks) ago. I’m pretty sure they were talked about on Mark Perry’s website. But I read about it in more than one place. Sorry, I would tell you if I knew. I’m not trying to blow smoke up your skirt.

I was specifically looking to read about the $200 and $800,000 claims you made. No worries, Dan, I'm capable of seeking out the information on my own. I was just curious if you had the links to where you read that stuff. No biggie that you don't.

 

[CBradSmith]

China isn't the only country that produces goods, Dan. If Chinese goods become too expensive for you to buy, buy goods from other countries.

Ding ding ding....Here's a clue Dan. Alternative sourcing.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I was specifically looking to read about the $200 and $800,000 claims you made. No worries, Dan, I'm capable of seeking out the information on my own. I was just curious if you had the links to where you read that stuff. No biggie that you don't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/business/trump-tariffs-washing-machines.html