If tariffs are bad, how did the USA became an industrialized country?

[CultureCitizen]

In theory abolishing tariffs is good for the economy. Nevertheless, the US became an industrialized country in spite ( or maybe because of) tariffs. During the first half of the XIX century Great Britain was the most industrialized country.

"Tariffs were the main source of all Federal revenue from 1790 to 1914. At the end of the American Civil War in 1865 about 63% of Federal income was generated by the excise taxes, which exceeded the 25.4% generated by tariffs. In 1915 during World War I tariffs generated only 30.1% of revenues. Since 1935 tariff income has continued to be a declining percentage of Federal tax income."
...
"The lack of imported goods relatively quickly gave very strong incentives to start building several U.S. industries in the Northeast. Textiles and machinery especially grew."

It is notable that the average tariff was particularly high during the gilded age, one of the periods during which the US experienced one of fastest growing rates. During that period the average tariff was 32%.

Tariffs in United States history - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Agit8r]

The US was a mercantilist country from 1789 until 1947 (and to a lesser extent, until 1994). That's just a fact.

 

[Londoner]

Tariff protections make sense when you want defend your national manufacturing base against foreign competitors.

But what if you don't want a powerful domestic manufacturing base?

Consider this.

The problem with a powerful domestic manufacturing base in a free country is that it comes with a labor market in that same free country.

Labor markets in free countries are more expensive than the labor markets in freedom-hating, dictator-lead, nations in the developing world.

So if you really want to increase profits, you don't want to protect domestic manufacturing (which is tied to domestic labor markets). To the contrary: you want to deindustrialize and shift your manufacturing to freedom-hating nations where Nike investors can take advantage of ultra cheap workers who live in dirt-floored hovels beneath the iron fist of brutal dictators.

What happens to domestic labor markets when American jobs are sent to freedom-hating regions so that our capitalists can realize higher profits? Answer: American workers, having lost their jobs/benefits, become more reliant upon credit to survive. They become debt-slaves. Once this happens, you can slowly bring the manufacturing back to the U.S. where you have the kind of desperate and docile workforce they exists in the 3rd world. In short, removing tariffs and opening trade is a way of disciplining expensive domestic labor markets.

 

[CultureCitizen]

They become debt-slaves. Once this happens, you can slowly bring the manufacturing back to the U.S. where you have the kind of desperate and docile workforce they exists in the 3rd world. In short, removing tariffs and opening trade is a way of disciplining expensive domestic labor markets.

Except for the fact that salaries are still way above third world countries and automation might get in the way bringing back only a small fraction of the jobs that were lost.

I sense a really gloomy future for those who have no high education.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In theory abolishing tariffs is good for the economy. Nevertheless, the US became an industrialized country in spite ( or maybe because of) tariffs. During the first half of the XIX century Great Britain was the most industrialized country.

"Tariffs were the main source of all Federal revenue from 1790 to 1914. At the end of the American Civil War in 1865 about 63% of Federal income was generated by the excise taxes, which exceeded the 25.4% generated by tariffs. In 1915 during World War I tariffs generated only 30.1% of revenues. Since 1935 tariff income has continued to be a declining percentage of Federal tax income."
...
"The lack of imported goods relatively quickly gave very strong incentives to start building several U.S. industries in the Northeast. Textiles and machinery especially grew."

It is notable that the average tariff was particularly high during the gilded age, one of the periods during which the US experienced one of fastest growing rates. During that period the average tariff was 32%.

Tariffs in United States history - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

too stupid and 100% liberal as always. If every individual or town had a tariff people woulde slowly starve to death.

Hard to imagine but a liberal lacks the IQ to understand trade.

 

[CultureCitizen]

too stupid and 100% liberal as always. If every individual or town had a tariff people woulde slowly starve to death.

Hard to imagine but a liberal lacks the IQ to understand trade.

Well Ed, then use your bright mind to explain how was it that the US became the leading industrialized nation and the gilded age became a reallity in spite of an average of 32% in import tariffs.
Go ahead, enlighten us.

 

[Agit8r]

In theory abolishing tariffs is good for the economy. Nevertheless, the US became an industrialized country in spite ( or maybe because of) tariffs. During the first half of the XIX century Great Britain was the most industrialized country.

"Tariffs were the main source of all Federal revenue from 1790 to 1914. At the end of the American Civil War in 1865 about 63% of Federal income was generated by the excise taxes, which exceeded the 25.4% generated by tariffs. In 1915 during World War I tariffs generated only 30.1% of revenues. Since 1935 tariff income has continued to be a declining percentage of Federal tax income."
...
"The lack of imported goods relatively quickly gave very strong incentives to start building several U.S. industries in the Northeast. Textiles and machinery especially grew."

It is notable that the average tariff was particularly high during the gilded age, one of the periods during which the US experienced one of fastest growing rates. During that period the average tariff was 32%.

Tariffs in United States history - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

too stupid and 100% liberal as always. If every individual or town had a tariff people woulde slowly starve to death.

Hard to imagine but a liberal lacks the IQ to understand trade.

There is plenty of protectionism still going on within our borders. Whenever one city gives bounties to companies so they will move there, or stay there, that is protectionism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

too stupid and 100% liberal as always. If every individual or town had a tariff people woulde slowly starve to death.

Hard to imagine but a liberal lacks the IQ to understand trade.

Well Ed, then use your bright mind to explain how was it that the US became the leading industrialized nation and the gilded age became a reallity in spite of an average of 32% in import tariffs.
Go ahead, enlighten us.

dear, you are slow beyond belief. if 2 people trade with each other they will do better than if libturds made trade between them illegal and so on. Do you understand yet? T

The Golden Rule is : the more with whom you trade the richer you get.

 

[Moonglow]

The US was a mercantilist country from 1789 until 1947 (and to a lesser extent, until 1994). That's just a fact.

Advantages of being a winner of WWII...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The US was a mercantilist country from 1789 until 1947 (and to a lesser extent, until 1994). That's just a fact.

Advantages of being a winner of WWII...

the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world; the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get. If you could not trade at all you'd have to make everything yourself and so starve to death or live a subsistence life style. Hence, the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world.

Moreover, its exactly as Richard Nixon once said, "our goods have to be world class if we want to be a world class country". Imagine how backward our industry would be if it did not have to compete in the globalized market place? Our cars would be like soviet car were, i.e., you had to use a dip stick to check how much gasoline you had and back them up hill because carburetors were gravity fed. This is what the liberals, in effect, propose because they lack the ability to understand free trade.

 

[Moonglow]

The US was a mercantilist country from 1789 until 1947 (and to a lesser extent, until 1994). That's just a fact.

Advantages of being a winner of WWII...

the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world; the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get. If you could not trade at all you'd have to make everything yourself and so starve to death or live a subsistence life style. Hence, the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world.

Moreover, its exactly as Richard Nixon once said, "our goods have to be world class if we want to be a world class country". Imagine how backward our industry would be if it did not have to compete in the globalized market place? Our cars would be like soviet car were, i.e., you had to use a dip stick to check how much gasoline you had and back them up hill because carburetors were gravity fed. This is what the liberals, in effect, propose because they lack the ability to understand free trade.

Henry Ford was a liberal and a socialist...Written anymore Pulitzer Prizes lately?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The US was a mercantilist country from 1789 until 1947 (and to a lesser extent, until 1994). That's just a fact.

Advantages of being a winner of WWII...

the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world; the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get. If you could not trade at all you'd have to make everything yourself and so starve to death or live a subsistence life style. Hence, the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world.

Moreover, its exactly as Richard Nixon once said, "our goods have to be world class if we want to be a world class country". Imagine how backward our industry would be if it did not have to compete in the globalized market place? Our cars would be like soviet car were, i.e., you had to use a dip stick to check how much gasoline you had and back them up hill because carburetors were gravity fed. This is what the liberals, in effect, propose because they lack the ability to understand free trade.

Henry Ford was a liberal and a socialist...Written anymore Pulitzer Prizes lately?

Henry Ford??

 

[Agit8r]

The US was a mercantilist country from 1789 until 1947 (and to a lesser extent, until 1994). That's just a fact.

Advantages of being a winner of WWII...

the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world; the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get. If you could not trade at all you'd have to make everything yourself and so starve to death or live a subsistence life style. Hence, the more with whom you trade the richer you get no matter if they are across the street or across the world.

Moreover, its exactly as Richard Nixon once said, "our goods have to be world class if we want to be a world class country". Imagine how backward our industry would be if it did not have to compete in the globalized market place? Our cars would be like soviet car were, i.e., you had to use a dip stick to check how much gasoline you had and back them up hill because carburetors were gravity fed. This is what the liberals, in effect, propose because they lack the ability to understand free trade.

Lol. What party was in charge when 1994 GATT was passed?

 

[georgephillip]

dear, you are slow beyond belief. if 2 people trade with each other they will do better than if libturds made trade between them illegal and so on. Do you understand yet? T

I couldn't help noticing you didn't answer the question about how the US became a a major industrial power while operating behind average import tariffs of 32%

 

[CultureCitizen]

too stupid and 100% liberal as always. If every individual or town had a tariff people woulde slowly starve to death.

Hard to imagine but a liberal lacks the IQ to understand trade.

Well Ed, then use your bright mind to explain how was it that the US became the leading industrialized nation and the gilded age became a reallity in spite of an average of 32% in import tariffs.
Go ahead, enlighten us.

dear, you are slow beyond belief. if 2 people trade with each other they will do better than if libturds made trade between them illegal and so on. Do you understand yet? T

The Golden Rule is : the more with whom you trade the richer you get.

Ed, I am trying to be patient because of your self-evident functional illeteracy.
I'm not discussing a hypothetical situation , but rather an historical one : how the tariffs in the US helped develop the local industry and generated a sizeable amount of revenue for the federal government.

Feel free to join the discussion .

 

[Agit8r]

There are plenty of reasons to be for free trade, the most obvious being the maintenance of peaceful relations with other nations, and the dispersion of wealth around the world.

That said, it will not improve the domestic economy in the short term.

 

[georgephillip]

There are plenty of reasons to be for free trade, the most obvious being the maintenance of peaceful relations with other nations, and the dispersion of wealth around the world.

The dispersion of wealth around the world seems to be heading in the wrong direction:

"A new report from the anti-poverty group Oxfam has helped put inequality back near the top of the global agenda, just in time for the World Economic Forum’s annual gathering of global elites in Davos, Switzerland. In particular, one striking claim from the Oxfam report has generated headlines: By next year, the top 1% of the world’s population could own more wealth than the other 99%.

"The Oxfam report – just one of many attempts at measuring worldwide economic disparities – fits into a broader pattern of growing interest in, and concern about, inequality."

Inequality is at top of the agenda as global elites gather in Davos Pew Research Center

 

[Agit8r]

There are plenty of reasons to be for free trade, the most obvious being the maintenance of peaceful relations with other nations, and the dispersion of wealth around the world.

The dispersion of wealth around the world seems to be heading in the wrong direction:

"A new report from the anti-poverty group Oxfam has helped put inequality back near the top of the global agenda, just in time for the World Economic Forum’s annual gathering of global elites in Davos, Switzerland. In particular, one striking claim from the Oxfam report has generated headlines: By next year, the top 1% of the world’s population could own more wealth than the other 99%.

"The Oxfam report – just one of many attempts at measuring worldwide economic disparities – fits into a broader pattern of growing interest in, and concern about, inequality."

Inequality is at top of the agenda as global elites gather in Davos Pew Research Center

That isn't because of opening trade in itself. It is because trade deals are negotiated with input from special interests.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed, I am trying to be patient because of your self-evident functional illeteracy.
.

dear, a literate person would know how to spell illiteracy!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

: how the tariffs in the US helped develop the local industry and generated a sizeable amount of revenue for the federal government.

Feel free to join the discussion .

Too 100% stupid and liberal. As a liberal you simply lack the IQ for the topic. A closed or protected economy of 1 person or 2 or 300 million or 7 billion will develop but obviously the larger the economy the faster it will develop.Why not think about that over and over until you understand the one thing on which virtually all economists agree.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance!! No other conclusion is possible.