Good ol' Bernie Trump.

"And pick up a history book, FFS. The income tax was instituted because the wealthiest weren't paying their fair share of taxes."

Which history book? The one by Howard Zinn?

Income taxes were first implemented during the civil war to raise money quickly.

How can you pay your fair share of the taxes if no one is getting taxed? It's like every response is some sort of post-Marxian knee-jerk.

"You didn't pick up that history book like I suggested, did you? Disappointing."

No, but I did go to the St. Louis Fed. Here's what they had to say on the matter:

"Origins of the Income Tax: The Civil War: The United States' first federal income tax was levied during the Civil War. It became clear to Congress that this would not be a quick war, and the government needed to generate more revenue. It was also during this period, in 1862, that a Commissioner of Internal Revenue was established."

"The one that explained tariffs were choking off the working man. IOW, pretty much any honest book describing the economic times. The Robber Baron class was paying very little, and tariffs fell to the middle and lower classes."

Again, which history book. Income taxes were only imposed permanently, in small amounts on a limited number of households, as a means of compensating for the government reducing tariffs.

"But, riddle me this - were Bernie Sanders, Schumer, and Pelosi stupid when they called for tariffs in the past or are they stupid now for opposing them? Only thing certain is that they are stupid - I just want your reason as to why."

I'm very curious as well.

For decades, limits on free trade and expansive tariffs were the purview of the far-left. Those who were not so far left as to consider themselves socialist, but still wanted the government to create protected economic classes. As I've said several times, Trump reminds me most of Dennis Kucinich and Huey Long, both populist democrats considered to be pretty far left.

Now it's Trumps "Republicans" who are supporting those same things. It's almost as if the Dems snuck in a surrogate Bernie Sanders...and republicans are LOVING it. And Democrats can't stand it.

"Tariffs are a valid tool to be used in certain cases."

Which cases?

"But that's because their purpose isn't fighting trade imbalances. Their purpose is to break the system for the consolidation of wealth and power."

I don't buy that. You would have to walk me through it. But don't you think if that were the intent, it was the intent of all the left-wing politicians who supported limiting free trade as well?

And if so, isn't free trade the antidote to this poison?

"So... What is their purpose, then?"

Bring manufacturing back to the US. Provide higher paying jobs for lower skilled workers. Protect the United State's strategic industrial interests.

Trump is a populist. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, the $5 trillion dollar loss in the stock market over the last few days didn't cost you anything.

Furthermore, Trump is entertaining taxes on the rich to reduce the burden on lower income earners. how can you not like that?

"Can you agree with that, or are you forced to disagree?"

I don't think manufacturing is EVER, EVER, EVEREVEREVER coming back to the US beyond the minimal amount that would be required to support internal US demand, which would be far lower than current demand because manufacturers would have pricing power tangent to what it would cost to buy an imported good of the same type. And US manufacturers will never be a bigger global player than they are now, barring any sort of devasting event in Europe or Asia.

"By manufacturing outside the US, the cost of imported raw materials is not heavily jacked up by tariffs on products entering America. Manufacturing in the US means your cost of any imported raw materials is significantly more expensive than importing them to be manufactured elsewhere."

The cost of labor in the US would also be significantly higher than in other places, which is one of the reasons manufacturing left the US. For goods that behave as commodities, it's difficult to impossible to compete with countries where labor costs are a fraction of what they are in the US.

And if you go back to ECON 101 and the concepts of comparative and absolute advantage, that's OK.

"What's that mean? Name the top goods by $ that do and others that don't."

It means undifferentiated products. Think about a generic toaster, or storage bin, or plastic cups. Not technically commodities, but you're buying them for a utilitarian purpose, so lowest cost technically feasible will be the choice. To produce a generic toaster or storage bin would cost more in the US than it would to make it elsewhere and ship it here. Which is why those industries are no longer located in the US.

"The United States is still, for now anyway, the global leader in high tech manufacturing, and has been for many decades."

Yeah...we're not talking about the production of F-35s or Teslas. But that goes back to comparative advantage. The US should be making these things because the US can, while most others cannot. It would be a waste of resources for the US to focus on the production of goods that could be produced in other countries.

"And that's why tariffs are so devastating. The ROI is almost certainly negative for Uncle Sam, and the externalities are even more negative for actual companies that actually create wealth."

Have you taken an econ course recently or something?

As a side, the dollar declined by an additional $.02 in the last 24 hours. That's $.09 since 01 March. Nice work.

If you plan on visiting Europe this summer, it just got 10% more expensive.

A punitive tax, maybe? For all those disloyal Americans who would choose Amsterdam over Myrtle Beach?

#86

So...since it would appear we are in agreement on the effects of tariffs, are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Some sort of knee-jerk reaction?

#89

You are a very strange human.