How about a China-California Free Trade Agreement?
https://mises.org/power-market/why-not-china-california-free-trade-agreement
https://mises.org/power-market/why-not-china-california-free-trade-agreement
Interesting Idea
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
On another front I have a question/idea. If tariffs are good policies to correct trade imbalances, why doesn’t Oklahima impose a steep tariff on all goods brought into the state from Texas? Use all that extra Texas cash to pay for education. Texas would pay the tariffs, right? Let Texas fund our education! Tariffs are good, right? We could impose tariffs on every product “imported” into Oklahoma from every other state. My God! We could be the richest state in the union!
Because Congress has express authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution...supremacy clause...boom no interstate tariffs.
If you did that (notwithstanding JD's answer) it would be OK residents paying the taxes. The end user always pays the costs.
Come on, JD, you're my lawyer! I'm paying you to be my mouthpiece to argue my case. So argue my case. I don't want my lawyer to tell me what I can't do; I want you to find me a judge that will buy into what I want. I don't want to hear "boom" unless you present me with a winning argument!
Hmm, you may have a point. Oklahoma residents would wind up paying the taxes. But, but, I have been assured by almost everyone on this board that when Trump imposes taxes on foreign products it is a good thing, it's getting even with those foreign bastards. Why is it good when the US government does it to foreign entities, but it would be bad for Oklahoma to do it to other states? It shows a complete lack of consistency, does it not?
I'd say if Texas had:
1. A 25% advantage in purchasing power because it's currency was artificially discounted by that much, and
2. further penalized Oklahoma by being the largest purchaser of our currency causing it to be overvalued by 10%, and
3. Gave Texas producers a 15% export tax rebate (hard cash payment) for every item sold into Oklahoma, and
4. Subsidized its industries with billions of dollars for those industries selling goods into Oklahoma, and
5. Charged Oklahoma firms a combined 27% tariffs and taxes for goods being sold into Texas, while Oklahoma firms were only allowed to charge Texas firms a combined 9%, giving Texas firms another 18% advantage, and
6. Only allowed joint ventures with Oklahoma companies or Oklahoma investment in Texas entities if the Oklahoma entities gave up all of the intellectual property rights, and
7. openly encouraged and used its courts systems for Texas firms to steal intellectual property,
Then I would agree that nothing should be done.
You continue to argue (in a vacuum) that any changes to trade policies are bad....without recognizing that there are serious problems with the EXISTING arrangement that need to be addressed. I am 100% for free trade. China is NOT for free trade and you are taking their side.
1. A 25% advantage in purchasing power because it's currency was artificially discounted by that much, and
2. further penalized Oklahoma by being the largest purchaser of our currency causing it to be overvalued by 10%, and
3. Gave Texas producers a 15% export tax rebate (hard cash payment) for every item sold into Oklahoma, and
4. Subsidized its industries with billions of dollars for those industries selling goods into Oklahoma, and
5. Charged Oklahoma firms a combined 27% tariffs and taxes for goods being sold into Texas, while Oklahoma firms were only allowed to charge Texas firms a combined 9%, giving Texas firms another 18% advantage, and
6. Only allowed joint ventures with Oklahoma companies or Oklahoma investment in Texas entities if the Oklahoma entities gave up all of the intellectual property rights, and
7. openly encouraged and used its courts systems for Texas firms to steal intellectual property,
Then I would agree that nothing should be done.
You continue to argue (in a vacuum) that any changes to trade policies are bad....without recognizing that there are serious problems with the EXISTING arrangement that need to be addressed. I am 100% for free trade. China is NOT for free trade and you are taking their side.
For crying out loud, Pancreek, you are deluding yourself if you claim to be 100% for free markets, but demand our government interfere in response to others' interference. At least recognize that much about yourself. You advocate government interference. That is the opposite of a free trader. Your argument completely contradicts itself.
As for your statement that I oppose changes in trade policy, you are incorrect. There is one change I would recommend. The change I would prefer would be for there to be NO trade policy. People and companies are on their own, must accept responsibility for their mistakes, and leave the rest of us out of it. That's what free trade means. If it is true that you are for free trade, then that is what you should be advocating as a professional economist.
I'd be up for your policy of "no trade policy" globally.
But YOU are the one saying it is ok for there NOT to be free trade. Sometimes in political/foreign policy statements need to be made because the other side simply will not be reasonable.
China has created a 50%+ unfair advantage (25% currency, 15% cash rebates, 18% tax/tariff differential) and it is YOU that is ok with that and YOU that say we shouldn't do a damn thing about it. If we were talking about immaterial differences of 5-10% I'd agree with you. Yes, I advocate diplomatic and economic interference when there are very gross abuses. I advocate economic interference with N. Korea and Iran too, but I guess you are against those.
But YOU are the one saying it is ok for there NOT to be free trade. Sometimes in political/foreign policy statements need to be made because the other side simply will not be reasonable.
China has created a 50%+ unfair advantage (25% currency, 15% cash rebates, 18% tax/tariff differential) and it is YOU that is ok with that and YOU that say we shouldn't do a damn thing about it. If we were talking about immaterial differences of 5-10% I'd agree with you. Yes, I advocate diplomatic and economic interference when there are very gross abuses. I advocate economic interference with N. Korea and Iran too, but I guess you are against those.
Well at least you finally realized you are not 100% for free trade. I'll take that as a start. Eventually you will recognize the contradiction in your philosophy. Gotta' get to work! It's been fun!
https://amgreatness.com/2018/04/09/the-limits-of-american-patience/
"China ignores international rules in various aspects of its trade policies. It skirts copyright and patent laws. It expropriates U.S. technology. It hacks and runs extensive commercial espionage enterprises.
Trade surpluses are built into Beijing’s DNA. All of the above is predicated on several assumptions: 1) America shrugs that such laxity will “modernize” and “Westernize” China, 2) America is supposedly so wealthy it can afford the asymmetry, 3) Americans most hurt by unfavorable trade are not those who craft its politics, 4) China would never allow what it demands from the U.S., 5) China interprets magnanimity as naiveté and weakness, not as outreach to be returned in kind. To suggest that a reckoning is needed is akin to wanting an all-out “trade war.”"
"China ignores international rules in various aspects of its trade policies. It skirts copyright and patent laws. It expropriates U.S. technology. It hacks and runs extensive commercial espionage enterprises.
Trade surpluses are built into Beijing’s DNA. All of the above is predicated on several assumptions: 1) America shrugs that such laxity will “modernize” and “Westernize” China, 2) America is supposedly so wealthy it can afford the asymmetry, 3) Americans most hurt by unfavorable trade are not those who craft its politics, 4) China would never allow what it demands from the U.S., 5) China interprets magnanimity as naiveté and weakness, not as outreach to be returned in kind. To suggest that a reckoning is needed is akin to wanting an all-out “trade war.”"
There's a difference you fail to recognize.
I am 100% for free trade until somebody abuses the privilege, in which case I am 100% for corrective action. The analogy is I am all for freedom until somebody abuses the privilege (such as capital murder), in which case I am all for the loss of freedom.
You are 100% in favor of allowing others to continually abuse us in the name of free trade. The analogy would similarly be "you are ok with people being free even when they should lose the privilege."
The best advice a lawyer can give to a client is usually you can’t/don’t do that and if you have already done it we are going to talk about damage control rather than #winning.
Also, I wasn’t arguing your case. I was answering your question.
So....boom.
Does California have the authority to make such an agreement?
Since they are allegedly a part of the United States, Trump's tariffs would still apply to them.
Since they are allegedly a part of the United States, Trump's tariffs would still apply to them.
The tariffs on Chinese goods coming into California would still apply, but yes...the agreement mentioned (California waives STATE taxes on same goods and China waives its tariffs for California goods specifically) could be done without violating Supremacy Clause.
EXACTLY! It really feels like that's where we're heading. I'd imagine the CA military members are fairly based so it would be put down rather quickly I'd imagine.
Actually with the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.
Maybe reinforced and reiterated by the Civil War.
history doesn’t read like it was settled in the supreme court per the constitution
I think you should read that article as borderline satire. The author has libertarian leanings, which puts him opposite Jerry Brown almost all the time. I think he was spoofing. He knows California could not get away with it, but it would be cool to see them try.
No, I see the difference quite clearly. You're for free trade as long as it's convenient. Then you're for government intervention. That's not a totally unreasonable attitude to have. It's just not an attitude for someone that is 100% free trade. The mistake you make in your analogy is you are calling free trade a privilege. It's not a privilege. It's a way of conducting business. The correct analysis of your analogy would be to say you are opposed to capital murder until someone commits capital murder on one of his family members. Then you think it would be OK for you to commit capital murder on one of your family members in response.
I am NOT in favor of others abusing a trade agreement/contract with me. From that point forward his reputation would precede him, as it well should. As windriver pointed out his company will no longer do business with China. And I suppose they are advising anyone who will listen to do the same. If enough people/companies heed their advice China will have no option but to cease the abuse. But, as I have repeatedly pointed out, China has planted the seeds of its economic destruction. It's just a matter of time. Our government doesn't need to abuse us in the meantime, a policy which you support.
Think we can get 38 states to agree that CA, OR, and WA don't deserve to be part of Trumps America?
What does one of your many think group websites say about tariffs as leverage (versus intended long term policy)?
Opposed to tariffs and the threats thereof in every instance. Can’t speak for my “think group (did you mean group think?), but I am delighted by the outcome. I hope this marks the end of Trump trade war talk.
How does opposing tariffs in any situation help protect correct workers?
I understand that the may be some statistical for your position in the long term.
Opposition doesn’t necessarily help to protect workers. Opposition protects consumers. Tariffs are really nothing more than “protection” of companies that live in the swamp. Tariffs on steel, for example, harm the purchasing power of 330,000,000 American consumers while protecting the jobs of a few thousand workers. Workers whose bosses have political pull. Tariffs “protect” a handful of workers while potentially harming hundreds of millions of buyers.
The other day I satirically proposed that Oklahoma impose tariffs on all products purchased in Oklahoma but manufactured in the other 49 states. Use the tariff money to resolve our “education crisis.” Someone immediately pointed out the absurdity because Oklahomans would ultimately be the ones paying those taxes. And he was 100% correct! The same holds true when foreign entities have to pay tariffs. Ultimately it is the consumer that gets stuck with the bill. In essence the manufacturer is not harmed at all. The poor slob that has to buy his product is. That is the main reason for opposing tariffs every time.
In this, what, week or 2 long instance, the basis for your first sentence is essentially incorrect. Most likely American goods will experience less Chinese tariffs resulting in greater demand...requiring more American labor input.
Do you need a certainty of outcome in order to get behind an idea or plan? Re: your statement "Opposition doesn't necessarily protect workers."
It seems to me that your ideological framework is idealistic which removes the dynamism of day-to-day life.
Let me address your last paragraph. What is idealism? To me idealism is a certain world view that says “this is the way things ought to be.” All of us should be idealists, at least in that regard. I argue on behalf of my ideals knowing full well they will almost never win the day. The idea is to convince the occasional person that a particular ideal is worth fighting for. Move the needle in my direction as well as I can. Pragmatists, compromisers and the like argue from a position of weakness. They betray any principle they might have. They settle. As a result the needle most often movesin the opposite direction.
I argue against tariffs, for example, because I see them for the economic mistake they are. They offend my understanding of right and wrong. They offend my understanding of what is the proper role of government. Why on earth should I become pragmatic and compromise on something with which I so vehemently disagree? Will I “win” the debate? Almost certainly not! The world is made up of too many “realists,” people with few if any principles on which to stand. But there are some people out there who may find solace in something I say, who have thought along the same lines but have never articulated them.
Last edited:
You argue morality then. And morality demands purity.
You and the leftists have that in common. To a lesser extent, so do socially conservative Republicans (lesser because their influence is waning)
As a pragmatist myself, my fundamental principle is to first view the world realistically as it is rather than how I wish it or believe it should to be and to realize that all change is incremental. An absolute utopian has never been responsible for any actual movement towards their ideal. It is always the pragmatic that realizes some movement towards the ideal and ultimate goal is better than none. A pragmatist doesn’t simply conclude that because they got some movement to their ideal that the fight is over. They take their gains and continue the struggle.
Fantastic.
A quote I like to keep handy for myself: "Don't sacrifice good at the feet of perfection."
No one is sacrificing anything. Only arguing perfection in the hope that it becomes an endeavor for more people.
Similar threads
