[Uncle Skeleton]

I've been hearing lately about how the US should raise tariffs and especially target foreign goods that don't adhere to the same labor-ish restrictions that American goods are subject to. In a nutshell, the same protectionist philosophy that held the common imagination 100-200 years ago, with the new twist that a company can avoid the tariff if they show they are following US-compatible labor practices. I haven't been able to think of any argument against this, but my gut tells me there are some I'm just not seeing them. Little help?

The benefits:
American companies will be back on an even playing field
American workers will have jobs and be consumers for American merchants
Foreign companies will start treating their workers better so they can avoid our tariffs
Doofy can stop wringing his hands over stupid things like exporting just as many potatoes as we import and shipping tulips in from south africa (aka commerce becomes more local, less $ wasted on unnecessary transportation)

The drawbacks:
We stop benefitting from impossibly cheap goods due to foreign slave labor (not that we have a shortage of untapped labor in the US)
??? <- help me out here

[The Final Dakar]

I suck at economics but I think this would give us a sharp cost of living increase.

[turtle777]

A stupid plan. F*cking stupid.

Can you imagine other countries opposing (restricting) goods from the US due to a different perception of values ?

No more Ford cars for Europe, because not granting same sex marriages is discriminatory.
No more GE medical equipment for Europe, since the US labor restrictions are so much looser than the European.
No more US ag products for Europe, since they cause more carbon footprint than allowed in EU.

See the point ?

F*cking stupid idea.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No more Ford cars for Europe, because not granting same sex marriages is discriminatory.
No more GE medical equipment for Europe, since the US labor restrictions are so much looser than the European.
No more US ag products for Europe, since they cause more carbon footprint than allowed in EU.

I don't think you understand what I wrote. It is not a ban on imports from a whole country that doesn't follow our policies as a block. It's a fine on individual products that don't follow our policies, purely to negate the financial benefits of not following the policies, thereby stopping the policies themselves from being a detriment to domestic companies. So it would be:

Ford footing the costs (whatever you think those are) of same sex marriages IF they don't choose to just allow them
GE paying the difference in costs between US labor restrictions and EU ones IF they don't choose to adopt them
US ag producers having to fund their carbon footprint (discrepancy) IF they don't choose to lower it instead

Why should we punish our own companies for following our own policies?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I suck at economics but I think this would give us a sharp cost of living increase.

To some extent balanced by an income increase.

To the rest, if we care about fair labor practices for American companies but don't give a crap for Chinese companies, then we're hypocrites AND we're kneecapping all our domestic businesses. I don't know why we would want to do either of those things.

True basic cost of living items like food and shelter can be sourced locally just fine. It's only luxury items that are really having their costs hidden by globalization and slavery. (Right? If I'm wrong just say so, but try to refrain from profanity if you want to be taken seriously)

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

To some extent balanced by an income increase.

Yeah, I would think so. That would come later, though, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

To the rest, if we care about fair labor practices for American companies but don't give a crap for Chinese companies, then we're hypocrites AND we're kneecapping all our domestic businesses. I don't know why we would want to do either of those things.

Practicality and diplomacy, I imagine. By passing judgement and enacting tariffs, we open ourselves up to be judged on our methods or to plain old bitter retaliation.

True basic cost of living items like food and shelter can be sourced locally just fine. It's only luxury items that are really having their costs hidden by globalization and slavery. (Right? If I'm wrong just say so, but try to refrain from profanity if you want to be taken seriously)

Sounds right, but what the **** does profanity have to with anything?

(Yes, I had to)

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think you understand what I wrote. It is not a ban on imports from a whole country that doesn't follow our policies as a block. It's a fine on individual products that don't follow our policies, purely to negate the financial benefits of not following the policies, thereby stopping the policies themselves from being a detriment to domestic companies. So it would be:

Ford footing the costs (whatever you think those are) of same sex marriages IF they don't choose to just allow them
GE paying the difference in costs between US labor restrictions and EU ones IF they don't choose to adopt them
US ag producers having to fund their carbon footprint (discrepancy) IF they don't choose to lower it instead

Why should we punish our own companies for following our own policies?

I think the point is still valid, if less extreme. You would expose U.S. companies to retribution in the form of fines and tariffs based on other countries' values.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, I would think so. That would come later, though, wouldn't it?

Can't make an omelet... if impatience is the only reason we can't have things "the right way," then there's not much point in having a government in the first place. Besides the balance is not just one-way. People who make profit here from slave-wages in China will be worse off in the right-now, but people who are already unemployed here because of overseas outsourcing will be better off in the right-now. Which group is larger? I don't know, I don't think it really matters in the long run.

...retaliation...

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

...retribution...

Yes, but consider that the proposed tariff is just the other side of the coin from our non-reciprocal labor protections. The two are interchangeable. We're already feeling that cost, but we're getting nothing for it.

Plus even without international trade, the US is flush with labor, raw materials, innovation/education, everything we need. I don't think the damper on globalization would be complete, it will simply bring it back down to sane levels where making widgets right next door is better than making the exact same widget halfway around the world. But what I'm saying is that even if this guess is wrong, we won't be in too much trouble, it's not like we can't fend for ourselves if necessary. And having that option gives us leverage during both boom and bust.

Edit: I think a better way to state this is that some level of reciprocal tariffs actually serves the 4th item on my list of "benefits" in the OP: localization and decentralization. If this leads to each country being more able to sustain its own citizens and less dependent on international trading partners for every little thing, then this is a good thing not a bad thing.

[SpaceMonkey]

Yes, but consider that the proposed tariff is just the other side of the coin from our non-reciprocal labor protections. The two are interchangeable. We're already feeling that cost, but we're getting nothing for it.

We're getting lower costs for manufactured imports and lower transaction costs in other areas of trade than if we opened up the values can of worms.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Can't make an omelet... if impatience is the only reason we can't have things "the right way," then there's not much point in having a government in the first place. Besides the balance is not just one-way. People who make profit here from slave-wages in China will be worse off in the right-now, but people who are already unemployed here because of overseas outsourcing will be better off in the right-now. Which group is larger? I don't know, I don't think it really matters in the long run.

I try to be principled, but this reeks of more trouble than its worth. Will the tariffs be leveled depending on the item or the origin country? Both? Would this be a bureaucratic nightmare? On top of being a diplomatic one?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, but consider that the proposed tariff is just the other side of the coin from our non-reciprocal labor protections. The two are interchangeable. We're already feeling that cost, but we're getting nothing for it.

Of course, we could make them feel the cost and then have it turned right back on us, making the entire process masturbatory.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Plus even without international trade, the US is flush with labor, raw materials, innovation/education, everything we need. I don't think the damper on globalization would be complete, it will simply bring it back down to sane levels where making widgets right next door is better than making the exact same widget halfway around the world. But what I'm saying is that even if this guess is wrong, we won't be in too much trouble, it's not like we can't fend for ourselves if necessary. And having that option gives us leverage during both boom and bust.

The scenario is starting to sound like a secessionist gun-hoarding sect from Montana. Which makes me wary.

---

A few questions that come to mind regarding the imbalance:
Was the imbalance in labor practices greater or lesser in the past (say the 80s)? Has this imbalance helped propel countries like China and India to develop faster or has it merely allowed for a small upper class that exploits its own working class?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

We're getting lower costs for manufactured imports and lower transaction costs in other areas of trade than if we opened up the values can of worms.

At the cost of most of our industries and technical jobs, because any shrewd employer would choose to flee our labor market at the first opportunity. Isn't that like selling the car for gas money? What good is a cheaper iphone to me if I don't have a job? Also isn't the values can already open, as evidenced by our labor laws existence?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I try to be principled, but this reeks of more trouble than its worth.

Maybe, yes. I'm trying to see how.

Will the tariffs be leveled depending on the item or the origin country?

Only the item.

Would this be a bureaucratic nightmare? On top of being a diplomatic one?

The manufacturer will be incentivized to demonstrate their adherence to the rules as clearly and unambiguously as possible, because they are the ones who pay if the demonstration is not satisfying. So it wouldn't be a fight with them, á la the war on drugs.

Of course, we could make them feel the cost and then have it turned right back on us, making the entire process masturbatory.

What I'm saying is that we're paying the cost either way. We can pay it in jobs like we're doing right now, or we can pay it in pricier iphones. I don't think abandoning the domestic employment and industrial base is a good strategy for long-term prosperity. But maybe it is.

The scenario is starting to sound like a secessionist gun-hoarding sect from Montana. Which makes me wary.

It's only a sanity test. In the extreme (no international trade at all), we are no worse off than any other country. No one can out-tariff us into oblivion.

A few questions that come to mind regarding the imbalance:
Was the imbalance in labor practices greater or lesser in the past (say the 80s)?

I guess lesser. I don't see the significance.

Has this imbalance helped propel countries like China and India to develop faster or has it merely allowed for a small upper class that exploits its own working class?

I think it's a given that you can boost economic gains at the price of human rights losses, and vice versa. In which case I don't know how your question can have an answer. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

At the cost of most of our industries and technical jobs, because any shrewd employer would choose to flee our labor market at the first opportunity. Isn't that like selling the car for gas money? What good is a cheaper iphone to me if I don't have a job? Also isn't the values can already open, as evidenced by our labor laws existence?

By opening the can I mean using certain labor standards as a precondition for freer trade negotiations. The natural response for a negotiating partner who is not inclined to change their labor practices will be to demand a precondition of their own that offsets the advantage we would gain from ours. To a certain extent, what you are proposing is not unreasonable if it is negotiated within a larger framework. NAFTA, for example, contains environmental provisions and other "values" concerns as a condition of its enforcement. On a subject like labor, though, where many of our trading partners will start on dramatically different playing fields, having such a strict precondition based on our values will be a net negative, IMO.

Keep in mind also that, usually at the behest of Big Labor and for IP reasons, these things are also addressed within particular industries. A company making a deal with China to establish new factories, for example, will stipulate in its negotiations that certain stages of assembly will be left out of those production lines.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

By opening the can I mean using certain labor standards as a precondition for freer trade negotiations. The natural response for a negotiating partner who is not inclined to change their labor practices will be to demand a precondition of their own that offsets the advantage we would gain from ours. To a certain extent, what you are proposing is not unreasonable if it is negotiated within a larger framework. NAFTA, for example, contains environmental provisions and other "values" concerns as a condition of its enforcement. On a subject like labor, though, where many of our trading partners will start on dramatically different playing fields, having such a strict precondition based on our values will be a net negative, IMO.

But are the provisions you're talking about voluntary, on an individual one-by-one basis? Or are you talking about the government having to enforce all industries to the standard in question? I don't think it's informative to compare one to the other.

Keep in mind also that, usually at the behest of Big Labor and for IP reasons, these things are also addressed within particular industries. A company making a deal with China to establish new factories, for example, will stipulate in its negotiations that certain stages of assembly will be left out of those production lines.

It sounds like you're saying they want certain stages of assembly to be in the US. In that case I don't think that's at all the same as wanting all stages of assembly to be competitive with what US workers are allowed to do.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The manufacturer will be incentivized to demonstrate their adherence to the rules as clearly and unambiguously as possible, because they are the ones who pay if the demonstration is not satisfying. So it wouldn't be a fight with them, á la the war on drugs.

And what happens if they decide to go crying to their government instead? (Which I think bloody likely)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What I'm saying is that we're paying the cost either way. We can pay it in jobs like we're doing right now, or we can pay it in pricier iphones. I don't think abandoning the domestic employment and industrial base is a good strategy for long-term prosperity. But maybe it is.

I think the answer lies in whether you believe we're headed in the direction of a global economy.

Tell me what would you think if individual states decided to operate under what you're proposing?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's only a sanity test. In the extreme (no international trade at all), we are no worse off than any other country. No one can out-tariff us into oblivion.

Just because we can't lose doesn't make it right. Maybe you don't believe there's such a thing as being too principled. To me a scenario which could progress to isolationism doesn't seem completely sane to me.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I guess lesser. I don't see the significance.

I'd be generally in favor of what you're proposing if it could be shown that the way things are are harming (or have no effect) on the peoples of those countries we do trade with, rather than slowly improving their conditions.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think it's a given that you can boost economic gains at the price of human rights losses, and vice versa. In which case I don't know how your question can have an answer. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It sounds like you are. Unfortunately I can't think of a metaphor that wouldn't confuse the situation further. I think I'm asking if whether by letting those countries have a leg up on us now are we accelerating how soon they catch up and will be at general parity with us, economically speaking.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And what happens if they decide to go crying to their government instead? (Which I think bloody likely)

I never said they wouldn't. It's just like a tariff, but more lenient because at least they (individual manufacturers) have the option to avoid it.

Tell me what would you think if individual states decided to operate under what you're proposing?

Individual states already have restrictions on things like liquor and fresh produce, and that includes private travelers in addition to merchants. The national liquor and produce industries did not come tumbling down.

Just because we can't lose doesn't make it right.

Again, just a sanity test. Sanity tests aren't supposed to tell you you're right, they only tell you if you're wrong.

I think the answer lies in whether you believe we're headed in the direction of a global economy.

...and whether you think a global economy is by definition a good thing (for us).

To me a scenario which could progress to isolationism doesn't seem completely sane to me.

Isolationism was a good thing in this country for a long long time. It's only since WW2 that we have been indoctrinated that international trade is itself a worthwhile policy goal (example: trading equal numbers of potatoes mentioned in the OP). Questioning the globalization orthodoxy is the basis of this thread. I welcome arguments supporting globalization, but simply stating "remember that globalization is good" is not beefy enough to satisfy me.

I'd be generally in favor of what you're proposing if it could be shown that the way things are are harming (or have no effect) on the peoples of those countries we do trade with, rather than slowly improving their conditions.

Slave wages are slowly improving the slaves' conditions? I don't follow

I think I'm asking if whether by letting those countries have a leg up on us now are we accelerating how soon they catch up and will be at general parity with us, economically speaking.

I assume you're talking about countries in whole, not individual people or companies. I am under the impression that China is either at parity or above the US, economically speaking. They are our biggest trade deficit, so I use them as example. Economically speaking, I don't think they need our help.

Our next biggest deficit is Mexico, do I think that the status quo is allowing Mexico to catch up to us economically? I'm no expert but my gut tells me no. What does your gut tell you?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I never said they wouldn't. It's just like a tariff, but more lenient because at least they (individual manufacturers) have the option to avoid it.

You can enumerate all the ways this is fair, but at the end of the day that's moot if realistically no one is going to go along with the plan.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Individual states already have restrictions on things like liquor and fresh produce, and that includes private travelers in addition to merchants. The national liquor and produce industries did not come tumbling down.

Liquor is a highly controlled substance. Do states do this for manufactured non-perishable goods (which I've interpreted as the target of your tariffs) on a large scale?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Again, just a sanity test. Sanity tests aren't supposed to tell you you're right, they only tell you if you're wrong.

You'll have to explain to me what this sanity test is because I've never heard of it before.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Isolationism was a good thing in this country for a long long time. It's only since WW2 that we have been indoctrinated that international trade is itself a worthwhile policy goal (example: trading equal numbers of potatoes mentioned in the OP). Questioning the globalization orthodoxy is the basis of this thread. I welcome arguments supporting globalization, but simply stating "remember that globalization is good" is not beefy enough to satisfy me.

I haven't said anything either way. I've indicated that I believe the final product of your proposed policy might be isolationism, but I haven't seen why that's so much better than what we have now other than a feeling of moral superiority.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Slave wages are slowly improving the slaves' conditions? I don't follow

Are people in said country better off now than a year ago. Five years ago. 20 years ago. If the answer is "barely" then I probably support your tariffs.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I assume you're talking about countries in whole, not individual people or companies. I am under the impression that China is either at parity or above the US, economically speaking. They are our biggest trade deficit, so I use them as example. Economically speaking, I don't think they need our help.

I'm talking about people. That's what I thought this was about. People being exploited for low wages in other countries. People not having jobs in manufacturing in this country. I'm not sure what the proper variable is to measure what I'm thinking, but it encompasses living conditions, access to goods and services, level of technology, cost of living.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You can enumerate all the ways this is fair, but at the end of the day that's moot if realistically no one is going to go along with the plan.

It won't be no one, ever. There are no absolutes. But if some amount of trade suffers, causing a reduction in our trade deficit with China, that's the whole point.

Liquor is a highly controlled substance. Do states do this for manufactured non-perishable goods (which I've interpreted as the target of your tariffs) on a large scale?

Well, liquor is a mildly controlled substance. Cocaine is a highly controlled substance. And why would non-perishable goods behave any differently than perishable goods? Regardless, I'm not feeling this analogy because different states don't have different currencies, so no matter how "free" the global marketplace is it will not mirror the interstate domestic marketplace. IMO.

You'll have to explain to me what this sanity test is because I've never heard of it before.

What is a Sanity Check?

I haven't said anything either way. I've indicated that I believe the final product of your proposed policy might be isolationism, but I haven't seen why that's so much better than what we have now other than a feeling of moral superiority.

I think that some degree of isolationism is desirable, because it prevents us from being completely at the mercy of potentially hostile foreign countries. Right now our strategy is to shun isolationism in favor of whole-hog dependent-ism. I'm just saying that a more equal balance would be more.... conservative.

Are people in said country better off now than a year ago. Five years ago. 20 years ago. If the answer is "barely" then I probably support your tariffs.

I'm not sure what the proper variable is to measure what I'm thinking, but it encompasses living conditions, access to goods and services, level of technology, cost of living.

Let me try to understand it, by the same subjective metric are Americans better off now than 1, 5 or 20 years ago?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I've been hearing lately about how the US should raise tariffs and especially target foreign goods that don't adhere to the same labor-ish restrictions that American goods are subject to. In a nutshell, the same protectionist philosophy that held the common imagination 100-200 years ago, with the new twist that a company can avoid the tariff if they show they are following US-compatible labor practices. I haven't been able to think of any argument against this, but my gut tells me there are some I'm just not seeing them. Little help?

This sounds good on paper ... but I suspect it would be untenable in actual practice. I simply don't think the US could realistically manage the labor practices in dozens of other countries. Perhaps instead of being "protectionist" or seeking to impose tariffs based upon labor practices in foreign countries ... a better approach would be to focus on the overall trade balance? If we are going to do business with another country then, outside of gross human rights issues, the government should only concern itself with maintaining a healthy trade balance between the two countries. Tariffs should be imposed only when trading partners are flooding our market with their goods and services but not reciprocating by buying ours.

OAW