Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Like we really need to export cars right ? WE are the market, not $2 hour Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians.Killing exports will not create US jobs. Good luck exporting any overpriced cars.
Economic HemophiliaOf course tariffs work and every country has tariffs. The WTO allows tariffs for a number of reasons, but in general these regulations favor developing countries at the expense of developed countries. Will the tariffs the President has proposed cost consumers something, possibly but I think most American would be willing to pay a few dollars more for their next flat screen TV if it allowed their neighbor to keep his job and his house.There is NO SUCH THING as "higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs" No firm can raise the price of its product above its market price. To do so will put it out of business.And the reality is:
2009 tire tariffs cost US consumers $926K per job saved and led to the loss of 3 retail jobs per factory job saved • AEI
According to our calculations, explained in this policy brief, the total cost to American consumers from higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs on Chinese tires was around $1.1 billion in 2011. The cost per job manufacturing saved (a maximum of 1,200 jobs by our calculations) was at least $900,000 in that year (see table above).
There is tons of propaganda that is to the contrary of this simple economic reality >> it is designed for the ignorant. That is what your link is. Nothing more.
We have many years of examples like the one I posted. Tariffs have never worked. Your claims don't match reality.
They work as a tax yes. But give me an example where they ever saved jobs or increased wages. Steel tariffs saved few steel jobs at the cost of many more jobs in manufacturing.
Like we really need to export cars right ? WE are the market, not $2 hour Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians.Killing exports will not create US jobs. Good luck exporting any overpriced cars.
It makes operating overseas not economical, forces the companies to return to the US, creating US jobs. (also reduces their enormous shipping costs)
The BAT is the GOP's plan, not the Democrats.There is no BAT tax tacked onto the cost. - read the OP.My research indicates quite a bit of confusion and some complexity with this issue, starting exactly with what this border adjustment tax is and who is affected and who isn't. Does it apply only to US companies who shift operations abroad and then bring the product back here to sell it to us at a reduced price due to lower labor costs? Or does it apply to every product that is imported into the US regardless of where it came from or who built it? IOW, will foreign companies have to pay that BAT too? And, will a BAT be struck down by the WTO (World Trade Organization)? And, what will the repercussions be from those countries that are negatively affected? Also, I suspect some US businesses would be adversely affected too, like retailers that sell shoes and clothing and electronics that are made much more cheaply elsewhere and sold here. Obviously our standard of living declines if we have to pay significantly more for stuff like that if there's a big BAT tax tacked onto the cost.
Basic economics say that when the cost or supply (production) goes up, so does the price. And correspondingly the demand drops, that's ECON 101. So IMHO it boils down to winners and losers some industries and business sectors will do well but others will not. Supporters of the BAT will tout the winners and the opposition will decry the losers, with neither side telling you about the flip side. My general impression is that when prices go up due to gov't intervention (which is what a BAT is), the consumer generally comes out a loser, especially those at the lower end of the income ladder. Cuz your dollars won't go as far, simple as that. Some say that won't happen if the BAT results in a stronger dollar; personally I'm a bit skeptical about that.
I read your OP, it's nonsense. To suggest that consumers won't have to pay for a significant BAT that IS tacked onto the cost (price) is ridiculous. I have never understood the fantasy by some on the the Left that they can raise taxes on something without raising the cost of producing a product or service.
1. Of course the price has to exceed cost by a certain amount of profit. So ??But the price has to exceed cost by a certain amount of profit, how do you not understand that? It ain't like a business can ignore the TACKED ON expense of a big BAT tax that previously didn't exist, and arbitrarily raise the price of the product by that amount. Yes, I get that a business will set their price at whatever the market will bear, but dude, if that price does not exceed the cost or does not exceed it enough to make the enterprise worthwhile then that business will begin to explore alternative measures, most of which are unpleasant. To say that the BAT has no effect is nonsense, because in so doing you are raising the costs of supply, which effects the price because price has to exceed cost by a sufficient amount.
What I think you are implying is that a business can absorb the additional cost of BAT and still operate, at the same price albeit at a lower profit. HUGE assumption there.
2. I didn't say "the BAT has no effect" Those are YOUR words, not mine.
3. The BAT affects the profit margin (or could even nullify it), but it still has no effect on the PRICE. The price comes from ONE thing >. what people see as a correct price for the product, what they're willing to pay and not willing to pay, and this is one of the most difficult things to change. People have a very firm idea of what something is supposed to cost. Your go above that, and they turn off like a light switch. Getting it now ?
4. You think WRONG. I never imply, insinuate, or infer anything, ever. If I have something to say, I say it. And I 'm not assuming anything either.Some business may be able to absorb the additional cost of BAT and still operate, some may not. For the ones who cannot still operate, THEY DON'T. They go out of business - showing that were unable to be in business in the first place, and shouldn't have been. If you're an American business owner (as I was once), you should pay AMERICANS a decent, standard American wage, or you shouldn't be in business. Second time I'm saying this in this thread.
"Of course the price has to exceed cost by a certain amount of profit. So ??"
So, if you institute a BAT you have just raised the COST. In which case the company has to raise the price to maintain their profit if the market will bear it. Or they cut costs elsewhere if they can, or they go out of business. But to suggest that the production cost for your product (which includes the BAT if there is one) has no influence on the price is ludicrous, that's why many foreign made products are sold in Walmart; they can sell their stuff for a lower PRICE because their production COSTS are lower.
Like we really need to export cars right ? WE are the market, not $2 hour Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians.Killing exports will not create US jobs. Good luck exporting any overpriced cars.
And killing exports WILL create US jobs, It makes operating overseas not economical, forces the companies to return to the US, creating US jobs. (also reduces their enormous shipping costs)
We are less than five percent of the world's population. If you want to shut out the other 95 percent of the world's markets, that's pretty stupid.And killing exports WILL create US jobs,
1. You're still hoodwinked by those who claim that prices will go up, if the firm gets additional costs. You simply don't understand what makes a price. Reread what I wrote about the market price, price hikes and reductions in SALES$$$, and the bell shaped curve. I suggest you take a college course in microeconomics, although it might not help because I've been giving you one right here , and you're just not getting it. Some kind of mental block, whatever."Of course the price has to exceed cost by a certain amount of profit. So ??"
So, if you institute a BAT you have just raised the COST. In which case the company has to raise the price to maintain their profit if the market will bear it. Or they cut costs elsewhere if they can, or they go out of business. But to suggest that the production cost for your product (which includes the BAT if there is one) has no influence on the price is ludicrous, that's why many foreign made products are sold in Walmart; they can sell their stuff for a lower PRICE because their production COSTS are lower. Gettingit now?
"Some business may be able to absorb the additional cost of a BAT and still operate, some may not. For the ones who cannot still operate, THEY DON'T. They go out of business - showing that were unable to be in business in the first place, and shouldn't have been."
You are displaying a remarkable lack of understanding for how businesses are started and how they function. Obviously if a BAT is already in place then any new company is going to include that factor in their decision to go into business in the 1st place. Which is why if you create a BAT you are going to reduce the number of startup businesses, the risk is greater. Now - if you create a BAT then the companies already in existence will have to factor that intot heir future plans; how are they going to deal with the added expense. And one of the ways they'll deal with it is increasing the PRICE if they think the demand will not drop significantly. Or they take other steps, perhaps in concert with a small price increase and some other actions. That is why a BAT could impact the price.
"you should pay AMERICANS a decent, standard American wage, or you shouldn't be in business."
Non sequitor. Has nothing whatsoever to do with a BAT. Many businesses operate today on a fairly thin profit margin. Add in a BAT and you could be tipping the edge over to where the reward is so small or even non-existent relative to the risks of losing money or an insufficient profit. Money flows to where it makes the highest return you know. Which means there are consequences to adding a BAT into the equation for many businesses. And to say they shouldn't be in business in the first place is extremely unjust; that's a rash judgement based on nothing but you personal biases. As a former business owner you ought to know that there are some factors that change as your business adapts to a changing marketplace. Innovations, changing rules and regulations, changes in tax rates or laws, etc. If you institute a BAT there will be consequences, maybe the federal gov't gets more revenue and maybe some businesses more than otherwise and people lose their jobs more than otherwise.
"
Like we really need to export cars right ? WE are the market, not $2 hour Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians.Killing exports will not create US jobs. Good luck exporting any overpriced cars.
And killing exports WILL create US jobs, It makes operating overseas not economical, forces the companies to return to the US, creating US jobs. (also reduces their enormous shipping costs)
I'm ignoring facts that SHOULD be ignored. And the reason why they should, is because they represent a time in our history that is not applicable to the present. I'm not saying that tariffs were bad in the past, but good or bad, they were at a time when we didn't have millions of manufacturing jobs lost to overseas outsourcing companies.You are posting nonsense and ignoring facts. Tariffs have a very long history of failure, many believe they may have lead to the Great Depression. Your claims have been tested in the real world and they have failed.
No, tariffs were NOT "tested" >> under the conditions existing today. Your run of the mill argument has been refuted 100,000 times over the past 2 years.
1. You're still hoodwinked by those who claim that prices will go up, if the firm gets additional costs. You simply don't understand what makes a price. Reread what I wrote about the market price, price hikes and reductions in SALES$$$, and the bell shaped curve. I suggest you take a college course in microeconomics, although it might not help because I've been giving you one right here , and you're just not getting it. Some kind of mental block, whatever."Of course the price has to exceed cost by a certain amount of profit. So ??"
So, if you institute a BAT you have just raised the COST. In which case the company has to raise the price to maintain their profit if the market will bear it. Or they cut costs elsewhere if they can, or they go out of business. But to suggest that the production cost for your product (which includes the BAT if there is one) has no influence on the price is ludicrous, that's why many foreign made products are sold in Walmart; they can sell their stuff for a lower PRICE because their production COSTS are lower. Gettingit now?
"Some business may be able to absorb the additional cost of a BAT and still operate, some may not. For the ones who cannot still operate, THEY DON'T. They go out of business - showing that were unable to be in business in the first place, and shouldn't have been."
You are displaying a remarkable lack of understanding for how businesses are started and how they function. Obviously if a BAT is already in place then any new company is going to include that factor in their decision to go into business in the 1st place. Which is why if you create a BAT you are going to reduce the number of startup businesses, the risk is greater. Now - if you create a BAT then the companies already in existence will have to factor that intot heir future plans; how are they going to deal with the added expense. And one of the ways they'll deal with it is increasing the PRICE if they think the demand will not drop significantly. Or they take other steps, perhaps in concert with a small price increase and some other actions. That is why a BAT could impact the price.
"you should pay AMERICANS a decent, standard American wage, or you shouldn't be in business."
Non sequitor. Has nothing whatsoever to do with a BAT. Many businesses operate today on a fairly thin profit margin. Add in a BAT and you could be tipping the edge over to where the reward is so small or even non-existent relative to the risks of losing money or an insufficient profit. Money flows to where it makes the highest return you know. Which means there are consequences to adding a BAT into the equation for many businesses. And to say they shouldn't be in business in the first place is extremely unjust; that's a rash judgement based on nothing but you personal biases. As a former business owner you ought to know that there are some factors that change as your business adapts to a changing marketplace. Innovations, changing rules and regulations, changes in tax rates or laws, etc. If you institute a BAT there will be consequences, maybe the federal gov't gets more revenue and maybe some businesses more than otherwise and people lose their jobs more than otherwise.
"
2. It's not unjust to say that they shouldn't be in business in the first place. If they can't afford to be in business, then they should do what all the rest of us do (who also can't afford it) >> GET A JOB!
3. People don't lose jobs from a tariff, which causes firms to return to the US. People (Americans that is) GAIN jobs.
PS - do you not know how to use the quoting system in this forum ? You click the REPLY tab and then post. If you want to change something, you click the EDIT tab. Good luck.
How about if you come clean with us, Brain ? You own STOCK in outsource companies, right ? Which ones ? what is your VESTED INTERSET ?Yes we should have exports. See how well GM does if exports die.
When firms return to the US (their overseas status having become uneconomical), jobs are created in the US, not lost.Yes they do lose jobs. Steel tariffs saved few jobs in steel and cost many more in manufacturing.
Economists project that border adjustments will cause the dollar to strengthen relative to other currencies, and that the increased tax on imports will be fully offset by imports’ reduced cost. This offset is all but certain in the long term. It’s the short term that’s at risk.
No Need to Fear the Border-Adjustment Tax
