slug.com slug.com

4 2

Tariffs may benefit a certain constituency, but overall, hurt the vast majority of other producers and consumers.

[mises.org]

CdnLbtn 4 June 12
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

It's bad economics to interfere with the free market, but the market's not free.
Tariffs are like nukes.
If the other guy has one, you need a bigger one; "good idea" or not...

0

Well if there was anyone actually concerned about Fascism then they would be protesting the CCP.

This isn't about economics it's about the detention of one million ethnic minorities, open discrimination against blacks in China, a social credit system Hitler would have been proud of, currency as a weapon of economic warfare, support of terrorist regimes, the military encroachment on neighbors, ignoring treaties to suppress democracy in Hong Kong, growing military confrontation with India, brutal suppression of religious freedom, industrial espionage, so on and so forth.

0

Hmmm ... the way the Tariffs were working, the Producers were eating the upcharge ... no Loss there.
Much if the stuff with Tariffs applied are/were available somewhere else or “optional” goods ... no Loss there.
Putting Tariffs on Countries that are Killing Our Products with even HIGHER Tariffs is Restoring Balance ... no Loss there.

EVERY ONE of those Countries getting nailed with Tariffs were given the Option to Drop Theirs and We’d Drop Ours.
Cry Me a River ...

1

Economics 101: If you have to kill the competition to compete, it is not competition, it is murder.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:103682
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.