Would import tariffs work to improve our economy?

[Shapton]

With our manufacturing base being moved to other countries where slave wages keep costs down, would enacting tariffs help in leveling the playing field? What about tax penalties to companies that move their labor force overseas? Is there any hope for getting our manufacturing economy back, or is that gone forever?

I know the political reality would make the chances of this happening very slim, but do you think these measures would work?

[Odin2005]

1. Yes. Any knowledge of history shows that protectionism and industrialization go hand in hand.

The Free-Traders are full of it. One of the causes of the Civil War was that the North was getting fed up with the Free Trade-ism of the Southern Planters because it was slowing industrialization.

[jtuck004]

2. That is kind of like asking if it would be a problem standing 10 feet

from a concrete wall and throwing a super ball as hard as you can straight at the wall. Might not be a problem, might put a hole in your face, or someone else's. :)

If we impose a tariff, they impose a tariff. We buy more imported stuff than many other countries, and the money used to buy that comes partly from exports we sell. These won't sell so well when they put on a retaliatory tariff, and they will. And that will cost the folks selling the chemical made in New Jersey jobs, along with other places.

I read somewhere recently that China's consumption only includes 8% imports, and that ours is considerably higher than that. Our economy is in the toilet (20 plus million people unemployed, no relief in sight), so any pain from a trade war could have serious consequences. On the other hand engineers in China are quite happy making 800 a month. Which is why Applied Materials is opening a factory there while we sit back and carp about it.

Better than tariffs we could use a trillion bucks to energize some mfg and start business incubators here, teach people why buying local is in their best interest, maybe raise some awareness of how buying from people in this country could benefit our own communities even at higher costs, etc, and slowly work ourselves out of this...no, wait, we already spent that to make sure an individual in a hedge fund could make 4 billion on synthetic financial derivatives and several hundreds of billions more making sure people who don't produce anything of value could get their millions in bonuses, along with the political capital to bolster Main Street. Well, it was a thought...

It's like fixing a leak in a broken hose - there is always another weak spot to cause a problem.

[Oregone]

4. "If we impose a tariff, they impose a tariff"

So?

"We buy more imported stuff than many other countries"

Yep, you slap on a tariff and that makes domestic goods that much more competitive (thus stimulating domestic production). We wouldn't need to import stuff, but rather, buy domestic.

I understand trade wars aren't good for anyone. No one said "trade war". They said "tariff", and a tariff can be reasonable and beneficial

[Selatius]

14. Problem is we'd need to rebuild domestic manufacturing, especially electronics manufacturing.

We lack the infrastructure right now for domestic consumer electronics manufacturing. We pretty much have to rely on China and other countries to fill that void, and it is a large chunk of business activity in the US. We have lost the know-how, and all the people who did know are now either retired or dead after 40 years of outsourcing and tossing them overboard.

We would need to spend billions of dollars re-educating the workforce to set up precision manufacturing for these kinds of goods, tens to hundreds of billions building the facilities and re-acquiring the land to build those facilities upon. If we were doing it in a similar manner we did when we mobilized for war against the Axis Powers, it would take several years, maybe a decade until full mobilization. This isn't like building an engine or body frames for warplanes and tanks. That's relatively easy compared to building components for the average computer nowadays.

Even then, once that industrial capacity is set up, you would still have to change laws and regulations to encourage domestic manufacturing. Personally, I believe tariffs will just encourage trade wars. We need to approach it in the way of licensing. Any corporation that begins off-shoring manufacturing operations should be required to purchase a license to off-shore manufacturing on a yearly basis, a fee essentially. The fee, if set high enough, will discourage domestic firms from moving off-shore. Foreign firms with extremely low labor costs wishing to enter the American market should be free to do so, but only after they form a joint venture partnership with an American firm using American labor, this to help keep the money flowing inside the US and not simply flowing out. You should not simply be allowed to make a product paying somebody 60 cents an hour and then simply ship it to the US and sell directly to consumers. You would have to do a joint venture where you make the same product, only in partnership with an American firm with American labor.

[jtuck004]

21. Yup - but tariffs are likely to be trickier than people think

Can can you imagine how willing China would be to work with us when we are adding tariffs to restrict trade? As you said, trade wars. It will take an investment of trillions of dollars and time to change things, which is why it would have been better to concentrate on jobs instead of HCR and propping up real estate temporarily and all the other distractions that have been and are going on. If we don't the U.S. is going to slide further and further down the slope we are on, and lose what little edge we have in weapons, aircraft, and a bit of high-end electronics. But it's worse than that. We are terribly behind in education, our infrastructure is not what it should be, and we have essentially three political parties - Democrats, Repubs, and the Congress\Administrative\Finance sector, all working at cross purposes to each other while employment and home ownership is in a death spiral. The odds that all of these are ever going to get re-aligned without bloodshed is probably slim, and it might be that another country actually finds a way to relegate this little experiment to history.

As far as the previous post, tariffs in the last century were a very different thing. We were the big boys (and women). Many countries were barely coming out of a feudal past, their governments were not giving people the freedom and support to innovate and grow, and various factors combined to make the U.S. successful. Things are not that way any longer. Germany, Japan, and China all have fully functioning manufacturing and healthy exports, with China and other countries bringing new people online (who used to live in shacks, so $800 a month is good to them). As the next person noted we no longer have the people, the facilities, or even some of the knowledge it would take to compete against anyone who wants to end our exports with tariffs. We have gotten rid of most of what made us successful, and are at each others throats, with most of the wealth being concentrated in one small group who shows absolutely no interest in investing in this country. They don't need to, because they can make the money they used to in countries outside of here. And good luck changing that system, because we have changed our policies to insure their success, and virtually all of the politicians are solely owned subsidiaries of the finance sector.

Not that people couldn't move their asses off the couch, trade their SUV's for higher mpg cars, give up their vacations and second homes, ride bikes, grow gardens and start learning how to manufacture things in their backyard like the Chinese did not that many years ago as our standard of living lowers.

But there is a reason that books like "Who Moved My Cheese" strike a cord in people - most people don't see change until it has taken a big bite out of their life, and then they react very poorly. We have mis-educated a lot of people by teaching them that the U.S. is strong without helping them internalize the cooperation and sacrifice that it took, somehow letting them begin to think that we are just entitled to be the rule-makers because we invented MTV. We are full of people who are full of themselves, and it is likely to be our downfall.

[SocialistLez]

10. Yeah I think urging people to buy local

is the way to go.

If you can find someone who designs clothes, why not strike a deal with them to design your clothes?
I've thought of this because I see clothes on the rack at the mall that just don't jump out at me. I have a good friend though that is AWESOME at making clothes and I'd gladly pay her to make me clothes if she lived closer and could do the measurements.

Shop at locally owned grocery stores if you're lucky enough to have one in your area.
Get your pet groomed at a locally owned pet place or a vet rather than Pets Smart

The list goes on.

I am however not opposed to having tariffs.
China has tariffs on our goods so their people will buy the stuff made in China. Why can't we do the same?

[Mr Rabble]

20. That "weak spot" is your argument altogether.

If China only uses 8% imported goods in total- as you claim- how exactly is a tariff going to hurt US manufacturers?

As was pointed out in the post you responded to, the only surefire way to encourage growth throughout the relatively recent history of capitalist trade, is to implement "protectionist" policies that help domestic producers. Period.

In fact, I dont know of a single example where this has not been the case. Do you?

[jtuck004]

22. Looking to tariffs as a solution is like blaming illegal immigrants for

our own economic shortcomings. We have put policies and politicians in place that have helped most of the wealth in this country move to a very small number of people who are not interested in investing in the country, and given away most of the engines that create wealth. I think we may have lost whatever it was that helped us recognize the we need to take responsiblity instead of pointing fingers (or tariffs) at others.

I think if China just shut their borders today our economy would implode. It would take trillions of dollars and decades to replace what we have given away. We need China much more than China needs us. 'Course, oil might make that academic. China has been planning to replace their dependance on oil with other technologies for several years, and if they win that battle we are going to look terribly weak if we haven't figured out something else. Partly why you are hearing the new push for nuclear power, which might wind up being part of our salvation. But we will probably argue much too long over that.

No, I don't know of a case, though I will work through this some more. But we are in a new century, with the world flatter than it ever has been, no longer the only potential keepers of the flame. And just because things worked a certain way when Henry Ford was popping cars off an assembly line doesn't mean that it will work that way when we can turn on a screen and move trillions of dollars across multiple currencies around the world in seconds, or create and transfer knowledge faster than we ever have. The other side of that question you asked is how many countries have been a super power, with all the manufacturing know how and an economy based on fossil fuels that blew other countries away, then rebuilt them and moved all it's capacity out of it's country and gave all it's wealth to a small percentage of people and expected not to pay a price? Is there any time in our history that is really comparable?

Thank you for making me think about it...

[pampango]

31. The advantage is that, in both cases, you get to blame foreigners for our problems.

One can switch from blaming Mexican who leave home to blaming Mexicans that stay home and work in factories. Rather than change our own society to make us more like Canada, European countries and other progressive countries, we focus on keeping Mexicans and their stuff out.

Trade, particularly "free" trade, is a much bigger factor in the Canadian economy than it is in the US, yet it is a much more progressive place than our country. European countries have "free" trade with 30 other countries on the continent, as well as open immigration borders. It is the far-right wing parties, like the BNP in the UK, the National Front in France and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands are the ones that want to dismantle the EU and reinstitute tariffs and immigration controls with other European countries.

[FreakinDJ]

3. YES

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Only if you don't mind triple digit inflation.

[Dickster]

6. It would help immensly if done right

The National Organizationn for Raw Materials (http://www.normeconomics.org/)has advocated for tariffs for years. The call it"Fair Trade" Here's how it works: Let's use China as an example. China makes a widget that cost $750 to maufacture. That same widget made in America cost $1000, due to our higher wages, etc. If the Chinese widget is brought to America to be sold, a tariff of $250 is placed on it, placing it on par with the American Widget. The tariff money goes into an interest bearing acount owned by the Chinese. They have one year to redeem the $250 in American goods or services. If they choose not to redeem the $250, after one year it goes into the treasury of the US. This system is simple, it favors no one, it would virtually eliminate our trade deficit, bring back maunufacturing, etc. Of course, the Chinese would probably institute something similar, so it would behoove us to work out the treaty mutually.

[Shapton]

15. That sounds like such a simple solution

[Motown_Johnny]

7. Yes

[DainBramaged]

8. It would level the playing field

There are restrictive regulations and hidden tariffs on EVERY American made car or part imported into japan and Korea, but NONE for them here.

And people wonder where the jobs are going.....

[Poiuyt]

9. Welcome to DU

I seem to recall Thom Hartmann discussing this some time ago. It did make sense, but I don't think anyone in Congress would want to take this on.

[SocialistLez]

11. You sound like John Gray, candidate for U.S. Senate

" The tax and tariff structure in place when President Eisenhower left office had produced over 200 years of trade surpluses. We had become the strongest economy in the world. We were the world’s greatest creditor, lending money all over the world to countries in need. We shipped finished goods and imported raw materials. We were truly a first world nation. But, no more! Beginning in the mid-70’s we began taking that structure apart. It really picked up steam in 1981, when President Reagan took office. With the breaking of the air traffic controllers union, the assault on the middle class and the unions on which it was based became deadly serious. We are now, by all definitions, a third world country. We import finished goods and export primarily raw materials. We have piled more debt on our children and grandchildren than the world has ever known. We are cutting down the beautiful mountains of Kentucky, West Virginia, etc., and shipping the coal to China. We should be ashamed, as a nation, to allow a travesty of this magnitude to occur."

Source: http://www.johngrayforussenate.com/restoretariff.htm

[Selatius]

13. 60 years ago, he would've been a Democrat, not a Green Party member.

The Democratic Party has moved rightward so much over the last 30 years.

[pampango]

32. Not really. FDR campaigned against Smoot/Hawley (both republicans) tariffs in 1932 and dismantled it

while he was president. He and, later, Truman pushed GATT (which became the WTO in 1995) as a means to promote international trade. (Actually Truman wanted to go further and establish an International Trade Organization. While the ITO charter was "repeatedly submitted to the (Republican-controlled ) US Congress, it was never approved. The most usual argument against the new organization was that it would be involved into internal economic issues." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Trade_Organization#cite_ref-4)

Kennedy pushed through the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. At the signing ceremony he said:

"This act recognizes, fully and completely, that we cannot protect our economy by stagnating behind tariff walls, but that the best protection possible is a mutual lowering of tariff barriers among friendly nations so that all may benefit from a free flow of goods. Increased economic activity resulting from increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our workers. Our industry, our agriculture, our mining will benefit from increased export opportunities as other nations agree to lower their tariffs. Increased exports and imports will benefit our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they handle an increased amount of trade. Lowering of our tariffs will provide an increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries will be stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer competition with the industries of other nations for an even greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, and productive system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth." (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=8946)

Who are these pro-tariff Democrats of yesteryear of whom you speak?

[Elwood P Dowd]

38. None of that is relative today. The corporations now own the politicians and write the trade deals.

That wasn't true back in the days you mention. There were not 30,000 corporate lobbyists in Washington buying up the politicians and turning what are now called "free trade" deals into corporate/outsourcing investment scams. Calling NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, etc. free trade is laughable.

[Selatius]

12. We could try requiring foreign firms to set up joint ventures with American firms.

Also, we could require an export license for moving manufacturing operations overseas. If you want to move the equipment overseas, you pay a fee for that. Then, one could also impose a quota on the number of export licenses granted per year.

[anigbrowl]

16. History suggests otherwise

http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1921_timeline/smoot_tariff.html

"The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the onset of the Great Depression than an initial cause. But while the tariff might not have caused the Depression, it certainly did not make it any better. It provoked a storm of foreign retaliatory measures and came to stand as a symbol of the "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies (policies designed to improve one's own lot at the expense of that of others) of the 1930s. Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations."

[Elwood P Dowd]

17. Total bullshit.

International trade wasn't even 4% of GDP prior to Smoot-Hawley. It eventually dropped to 2%, but then all trade, wheather it was international, interstate, or intrastate, dropped as much or more because nobody had any fucking money. If Smoot-Hawley had never been passed, it wouldn't have made any difference. That little trade deal is a republican/corporate talking point to scare the shit out of people like you into supporting our suicidal free trade policies.

[anigbrowl]

18. So you say...

I'd like some evidence for your claim that intrastate trade dropped by the same proportion as international trade.

As for what you consider suicidal trade policies, my experience as an EU citizen is that removing market barriers works quite well, thanks.

[Elwood P Dowd]

19. I'm talking about US trade policies, not the EU.

Ours are written by multi-national corporate lobbyists. We even allow EU countries to hit us with VAT taxes of up to 30% on USA-made products while we have no VAT on imports. We gave many of our trading partners 10-15 years to lower their tariffs, while we lower ours almost immediately. We are running unsustainable current account deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars a year and have lost over 10 million jobs due to so called "Free Trade".

[anigbrowl]

23. VAT on imports in the EU is the same as on domestic products

VAT rates vary across the EU but do not discriminate between imported and domestic products.

[Elwood P Dowd]

24. You don't understand.

1 - Exports from EU countries enjoy rebates of VAT taxes that goods sold domestically in those same countries would be subject to, while U.S. exports receive no such rebate of federal taxes and much smaller relief from state sales taxes.

2 - The problem is compounded when you realize that imports into EU countries are subjected to VAT at the border, while imports into the U.S. are not taxed at the border.

3 - As a result, U.S. exports are taxed twice, while exports from EU countries are traded free.

[anigbrowl]

33. I do. You're wrong.

US exporters do not pay sales tax, which is only collected by retailers. As for your comparison with federal tax, this is irrelevant. EU companies are liable for corporation taxes, not just VAT.

Your suggestion that US goods are taxed twice is simply wrong. I have operated businesses in the EU. It is just not true.

[Elwood P Dowd]

36. I pay US taxes on profits from products I ship to the EU.

When it arrives in the EU country, the buyer is hit with tariffs and VAT charges that often exceed 20%. A product that sells for $1,000.00 here in the US ends up costing almost $1,300.00 in many EU countries. It's even worse in most Asian countries (China/Japan). That same product could be shipped from the EU to the US for less than $1,050.00. It's happened so many times, I finally gave up selling products overseas. I had to give such discounts that it was unprofitable to continue because, in effect, I was getting hit twice.

Under the rules of the World Trade Agreement, nations that use a VAT can rebate those taxes on exports and impose an equivalent amount on imports. Thus, other nations are able to subsidize their exports sold in the United States, while imposing a tariff-like VAT on U.S. imports into their countries.

In 2007, the 153 other nations with a VAT provided $230 billion in rebates for goods exported to the U.S., and imposed $125 billion of import taxes on U.S. made goods sold in their countries. Their products got a VAT-created competitive advantage.

[jdp349]

25. Our manufacturing base isn't being moved to other countries

rather it's expanding, just look at manufacturing output over the past 2 decades.

The number of manufacturing jobs world wide is plummeting due to drastic increases in productivity brought on by further automation of production among other things. Productivity is good for society in the long run, but it can be disruptive in the short run. This is accelerating in the United States because we're outsourcing the production of low skill labor intensive goods to the developing world.

Enacting tariffs would put a lot of strain on American's as it would result in drastic price increases. Tariffs are an incredibly regressive tool for income redistribution. the original progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century understood this and fought to reduce tariffs and trade barriers. Tariffs and quotas are just another form of corporate welfare that domestic industries who are at a disadvantage lobby for to artificially prop themselves up all at the expense of consumers. The opportunity costs are tremendous we need to keep ripping the trade barriers down, but need to improve our programs to assist dislocated workers in retraining for industries that are expanding as a result of trade.

[Elwood P Dowd]

26. Our manufacturing base has fallen to 12% of GDP and continues to fall.

It wasn't that long ago when it was well over 20%. And it's not just low skill stuff as you say.

As for the trade barriers, we are doing almost nothing to "rip" down trade barriers with the rest of the world. We are "ripping" down trade barriers for multi-national corporations so they can pay workers pennies an hour, avoid US environmental laws, avoid US consumer product safety laws, avoid US labor laws, eliminate US union jobs that pay a living wage, and export their crap back into the USA for a 2% tariff. It's the ultimate wet dream and gold mine for the corporate republicans. The CEOs and billionaire investors are getting all the gold, and the workers are getting the shaft. Your talking points sound like something from William Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Fred Barnes, or James Glassman.

[jdp349]

27. As a percentage of GDP...

This is like the equivalent of lamenting the shrinking share of agriculture as a % of the GDP in 1900 to manufacturing. Food production is higher than ever but with only 2% of the population actually working in agriculture.The relative contributions of each sector will change as technology changes, the last labor intensive sector is services which has been experiencing a tremendous boom thanks to the freed up labor. Do you know how ridiculous of a point that is.

As for the rest of your arguments I will have to get to them tomorrow as it's almost 4:00AM, but as a primer none of them are reasonable or credible arguments for widespread protectionist economic policies.

Homework assignment for you for when I return: find out what the OH Model is and read the wiki page that'll at least give you the bare bare bones to begin to understand an incredibly complex set of issues that is misunderstood by just about the entire country.

[AdHocSolver]

28. It is the U.S. corporations who import goods and export jobs, not the foreign countries.

The goods that are imported are manufactured overseas for importation by U.S. manufacturers which used to make their products here with American labor.

Many of the factories in China were built by American corporations and the Chinese workers were trained by Americans. The U.S. corporations have a financial stake in these foreign factories which is why they are all supportive of "free trade".

Import quotas and tariffs have worked very well to build a manufacturing infrastructure and have been very successful.

The U.S. has used such protectionist policies in the past to protect American businesses from foreign competition. For example, import quotas and tariffs were used to protect the sugar industry from foreign competition.

Some earlier posts complained erroneously that it would take "trillions" of dollars and "decades" to rebuild the American manufacturing infrastructure. That is nonsense. Most of the high tech factories, such as for electronics manufacture, are automated. They have to be upgraded every few years anyway. Just as American engineers went to China to set up factories there, Chinese engineers could be hired to set up factories here in America.

For "low tech" jobs, American workers can be trained as easily as non-degreed Chinese workers to operate those factories. Most Chinese workers are no better educated than an American worker.

The U.S. economy will not recover until most of the everyday goods that we purchase are made in the U.S. by American workers. When most of what we spend for purchasing everyday goods goes to pay foreigners, the outflow of capital will push this country into bankruptcy. At some point our creditors will decide it isn't worth propping up the U.S. economy, and that is when the REAL depression begins.

America is paying a steep price to support the highest paid corporate executives on the planet.

Political reality tells us that it will be a cold day in hell before we get rid of NAFTA, the WTO, the World Bank, and all of the other corporate cartel agreements, and impose workable import quotas and tariffs to revive the American economy.

Realistic Americans who care can help the cause by buying American, buying local, and telling retailers that they will only shop at stores which offer American made products for sale.

[Shapton]

34. I agree with most of your post, but I see no need to hire Chinese engineers

Highly educated, white collar workers have also suffered in this recession. I'm sure there are plenty of US engineers who are quite capable.

[AdHocSolver]

37. In hindsight, I should have put a sarcasm "thingy" after that comment. nt

[jtuck004]

35. Paying Chinese citizens to work here and tariffs like those on sugar are answers?

The U.S. started jacking with the sugar market with tariffs in 1816. Those tariffs assured employment and really great income for a number of members of congress over the years. Even better:

From The Great Sugar Shaft: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498d.asp

"Sugar sold for 21 cents a pound in the United States when the world sugar price was less than 3 cents a pound. Each 1-cent increase in the price of sugar adds between $250 million and $300 million to consumers' food bills. A Commerce Department study estimated that the sugar program was costing American consumers more than $3 billion a year.

Congress, in a moment of economic sobriety, abolished sugar quotas in June 1974. But, on May 5, 1982, President Reagan reimposed import quotas. The quotas sought to create an artificial shortage of sugar that would drive up U.S. prices and force consumers to unknowingly support American sugar growers. And by keeping the subsidies covert and off-budget, quotas did not interfere with Reagan's bragging about how he was cutting wasteful government spending.

Between May 1982 and November 1984, the U.S. government reduced the sugar import quotas six times as the USDA desperately tried to balance foreign and domestic sugar supplies with domestic demand.

While USDA bureaucrats worked overtime to minutely regulate the quantity of sugar allowed into the United States, a bomb went off that destroyed their best-laid plans. On November 6, 1984, both Coca Cola and Pepsi announced plans to stop using sugar in soft drinks, replacing it with high-fructose corn syrup. At the drop of two press releases, U.S. sugar consumption decreased by more than 500,000 tons a year — equal to the entire quotas of 25 of the 42 nations allowed to sell sugar to the United States. The quota program drove sugar prices so high that it wrecked the market for sugar — and thereby destroyed the government's ability to control sugar supply and demand. On January 16, 1985, Agriculture Secretary John Block announced an effective 20 percent cut in the quota for all exporting countries"
__________________________________________

You do make a good point about factory machines being simpler, which is a problem because it takes less workers to run them. How then to employ others so that they have the income to purchase the output? It in fact will take trillions and decades to rebuild, if for no other reason than it took 30+ years to dismantle. For a private endeavor of any size you will need investment capital (good luck with that one), land, environmental considerations, a thousand things.The machines may be simple but they ain't McDonald's fryers with timers and buzzers, and if they were the jobs would not be worth having. You can't run this nation on $7 hr jobs. Schools, even junior colleges are not equipped to handle the training necessary, so those would have to be funded and staffed and curriculum written. Major infrastructure improvements would have to be made in roads and safety - the size of this would be staggering. And oil will run out before it does, so new methods of power generation will have to be developed and built (nuclear, others?).

Most importantly you have to sell all this stuff. We have at least 27 million people unemployed or underemployed. Gallup just did a poll that says 21%, or one of every 5 people currently employed expect to lose their job in the next year. Let's say that only 50% of them are correct. You could begin this undertaking with close to 40 million people, or 1 in every 4 people in your work force unemployed. So you will need public debt to build the factories, train the workers, get them some money to buy the output from the new factories. And we haven't even seen the top of the foreclosure crisis because banks are avoiding foreclosures to avoid marking their assets down - more debt.

So the solution is to tack on tariffs and raise prices on items that people can barely afford if at all?

Time to get to work...

Don't take my position as "free market" - with all the ways we give a business advantages tariffs are only the most obvious, so I don't believe a "free market" exists. But I do think we would do better for ourselves to take responsibility, take the pain of lowering the standard of living for everyone, (it will take that, for years) educate our people as to what can make us really strong and how they affect their own lives with their pocketbook, build our capacities back. Strengthen ourselves without trying to cripple others. That's the behavior of a weakling, not a strong country. Do I think that's gonna happen when our country has the option of pointing fingers at people who have learned from us how to act?

No. It will seem easier in the short run to point at everyone else as the problem. And the ship will quietly fill with water...

[Waiting For Everyman]

29. Yes.

It worked before, it would work again.

That's as opposed to "anything goes", which has never worked and won't suddenly start to.

It's a no-brainer.

[DailyGrind51]

30. Definitely, OUR products need to compete on an even pricing field.