Tariffs, Protectionism, Trade Deficits, and Trade War

[Speaker to Animals]

I disagree with this silly notion that protectionism is bad for America (it's bad for most of the world who are net exporters, but not for us). However, that aside, there exist more important reasons to implement such policies. For instance, China is subsidizing its steel industry and illegally dumping steel on our markets because steel is a strategic resource and, if they manage to wipe out our steel industry as they are trying to do, then the United States will find itself at a severe military disadvantage to China.

A world power is an industrial power. A world power is able to make what it needs to defend itself and its interests abroad. Insomuch as you stab your fellow Americans in the back for your personal gain, and you destroy our ability to maintain our base materials and manufacturing industries, you render our nation indefensible in the next world war (which will come).

It's fucking stupid, really. The existence of your nation and the ability to defend yourselves are more important than silly notions about free trade.


The old maxim that, if you want peace, then make war applies today, but today it's more like: if you want world war, then trash the ability of the United States to defend itself in war; if you want peace, then keep American industry strong to preempt aggression.

How much steel do we need to maintain the nuclear triad?

Please join us in the 21st century, we miss you.

Get with reality. Nuclear exchange is hardly the end of the war. Most Americans would actually survive the initial exchange. You still need to be able to maintain a large navy, air force, and army, all of which requires a shit ton of steel.

This is yet another example of why I would disenfranchise people who don't serve. No idea about what is required to maintain a modern armed forces. Completely clueless about shit. You think nuclear war would end all life on Earth, probably. People like you aren't capable of making rational decisions about the fate of our nation and, in fact, you've been destroying this nation for several decades now.

[Speaker to Animals]

And that's just steel. The same thing, if not more so, is true of aluminum. That industry is under attack too.

You have been under a state of economic warfare since 2000 and you are shilling for you enemies for fuck sake.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I disagree with this silly notion that protectionism is bad for America (it's bad for most of the world who are net exporters, but not for us). However, that aside, there exist more important reasons to implement such policies. For instance, China is subsidizing its steel industry and illegally dumping steel on our markets because steel is a strategic resource and, if they manage to wipe out our steel industry as they are trying to do, then the United States will find itself at a severe military disadvantage to China.

A world power is an industrial power. A world power is able to make what it needs to defend itself and its interests abroad. Insomuch as you stab your fellow Americans in the back for your personal gain, and you destroy our ability to maintain our base materials and manufacturing industries, you render our nation indefensible in the next world war (which will come).

It's fucking stupid, really. The existence of your nation and the ability to defend yourselves are more important than silly notions about free trade.


The old maxim that, if you want peace, then make war applies today, but today it's more like: if you want world war, then trash the ability of the United States to defend itself in war; if you want peace, then keep American industry strong to preempt aggression.

How much steel do we need to maintain the nuclear triad?

Please join us in the 21st century, we miss you.

Get with reality. Nuclear exchange is hardly the end of the war. Most Americans would actually survive the initial exchange. You still need to be able to maintain a large navy, air force, and army, all of which requires a shit ton of steel.

This is yet another example of why I would disenfranchise people who don't serve. No idea about what is required to maintain a modern armed forces. Completely clueless about shit. You think nuclear war would end all life on Earth, probably. People like you aren't capable of making rational decisions about the fate of our nation and, in fact, you've been destroying this nation for several decades now.

You want to keep fighting, after wiping a good chunk of humanity from the earth, while the rest slowly starve? That's a special kind of sickness...

Absolutely pointless to have a gigantic armed force - certainly for a superpower. There is only one outcome of a war with us. The problem is that we've conducted enough "police actions" and unconstitutional wars, that it actually seems normal to you. Therefore, we need infinite troops to fight infinite wars for oil profits.

[Speaker to Animals]

How much steel do we need to maintain the nuclear triad?

Please join us in the 21st century, we miss you.

Get with reality. Nuclear exchange is hardly the end of the war. Most Americans would actually survive the initial exchange. You still need to be able to maintain a large navy, air force, and army, all of which requires a shit ton of steel.

This is yet another example of why I would disenfranchise people who don't serve. No idea about what is required to maintain a modern armed forces. Completely clueless about shit. You think nuclear war would end all life on Earth, probably. People like you aren't capable of making rational decisions about the fate of our nation and, in fact, you've been destroying this nation for several decades now.

You want to keep fighting, after wiping a good chunk of humanity from the earth, while the rest slowly starve? That's a special kind of sickness...

Absolutely pointless to have a gigantic armed force - certainly for a superpower. There is only one outcome of a war with us. The problem is that we've conducted enough "police actions" and unconstitutional wars, that it actually seems normal to you. Therefore, we need infinite troops to fight infinite wars for oil profits.

Correct. I am not a pussy that gives up as soon as people attack me.

If China launched against CONUS, we would incinerate their cities, and in due course, American MEN would be marching on Asia.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Get with reality. Nuclear exchange is hardly the end of the war. Most Americans would actually survive the initial exchange. You still need to be able to maintain a large navy, air force, and army, all of which requires a shit ton of steel.

This is yet another example of why I would disenfranchise people who don't serve. No idea about what is required to maintain a modern armed forces. Completely clueless about shit. You think nuclear war would end all life on Earth, probably. People like you aren't capable of making rational decisions about the fate of our nation and, in fact, you've been destroying this nation for several decades now.

You want to keep fighting, after wiping a good chunk of humanity from the earth, while the rest slowly starve? That's a special kind of sickness...

Absolutely pointless to have a gigantic armed force - certainly for a superpower. There is only one outcome of a war with us. The problem is that we've conducted enough "police actions" and unconstitutional wars, that it actually seems normal to you. Therefore, we need infinite troops to fight infinite wars for oil profits.

Correct. I am not a pussy that gives up as soon as people attack me.

LOL When's the last time we were "attacked" by another nation? Pearl Harbor?

Do you think the reason that hasn't been repeated has more to do with nukes, or our Super World Police Global Army For Freedom Defense Explosions?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Heh, turns out Congress has been ceding their authority on tariffs for quite a while. I still (foolishly) thought they had kept control of that.

This will involve SCOTUS at some point.

https://trade.djaghe.com/?p=3546

Congress’s delegation of tariff-setting authority to the President comes in two broad categories. First, beginning with the Tariff Act of 1934, the Congress has authorized the President to negotiate the reduction or elimination of tariffs in the context of international agreements, including World Trade Organization agreements and bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs). The most recent authorization was the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, which provided for tariff negotiations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement.

In the second category of delegation of tariff authority, Congress has given the President broad power to raise tariffs when certain requirements are met. Legislative measures that provide such authority include:

1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act: IEEPA gives the President the authority to respond to “any unusual and extraordinary threat”, from outside the U.S., “to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States”, after the President has declared a national emergency. Under IEEPA, the President can take a variety of actions to curtail international commerce, including raising tariffs.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Section 301 authorizes the Executive branch to retaliate against a foreign country whose act, policy or practice: (i) violates, or is inconsistent with a trade agreement, or otherwise denies benefits to the U.S. under an agreement, or (ii) is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. The retaliatory actions may include the imposition of tariffs or other import restrictions. Congress enacted Section 301 as negotiating leverage to ensure compliance by foreign countries with trade agreements and to eliminate restrictions and other distortions to trade. (A subsequent post will address challenges of resorting to Section 301.)

Trade Expansion Act of 1962: Section 232 of that Act provides that, where the Secretary of Commerce finds that an article is being imported into the U.S. “in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security”, the President may take necessary actions “to adjust the imports of such article so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security”. Those actions could include imposing tariffs or quotas to offset a negative impact on trade.

Another legislative measure that provides more limited tariff authority is Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. It authorizes the President to impose temporary tariff surcharges of up to 15% ad valorum (in addition to any duties already imposed) or quantitative restrictions for up to 150 days against countries with large balance of payments surpluses. Under this law, a longer extension requires Congressional approval.

A statute that provides the President with very broad power, but only in times of war, is the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. Under that law, the President can restrict any and all trade between the U.S. and its enemies in times of war.

To raise tariffs, the President would need to meet the requirements of one or more of these laws. Such actions could be subject to challenges in U.S. courts, as well as, in the WTO or under bilateral or regional trade agreements, if the tariff increases exceeded U.S. tariff commitments.

[Speaker to Animals]

You want to keep fighting, after wiping a good chunk of humanity from the earth, while the rest slowly starve? That's a special kind of sickness...

Absolutely pointless to have a gigantic armed force - certainly for a superpower. There is only one outcome of a war with us. The problem is that we've conducted enough "police actions" and unconstitutional wars, that it actually seems normal to you. Therefore, we need infinite troops to fight infinite wars for oil profits.

Correct. I am not a pussy that gives up as soon as people attack me.

LOL When's the last time we were "attacked" by another nation? Pearl Harbor?

Do you think the reason that hasn't been repeated has more to do with nukes, or our Super World Police Global Army For Freedom Defense Explosions?

You have no business casting votes.

[Speaker to Animals]

You will push for anti-American policies, and when the consequences of those policies result in attack, you will just surrender.

You have no business voting.

Back in the Paleolithic, the rest of us would just kill men like you. By the middle ages, we'd just make you peasants. But now you get a vote in the destiny of nations, and you are seriously threatening the future of our country.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You will push for anti-American policies, and when the consequences of those policies result in attack, you will just surrender.

You have no business voting.

Back in the Paleolithic, the rest of us would just kill men like you. By the middle ages, we'd just make you peasants. But now you get a vote in the destiny of nations, and you are seriously threatening the future of our country.

Since you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, that's probably true. Thank god we're not ruled by the drooling mob (for the time being).

[Speaker to Animals]

You will push for anti-American policies, and when the consequences of those policies result in attack, you will just surrender.

You have no business voting.

Back in the Paleolithic, the rest of us would just kill men like you. By the middle ages, we'd just make you peasants. But now you get a vote in the destiny of nations, and you are seriously threatening the future of our country.

Since you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, that's probably true. Thank god we're not ruled by the drooling mob (for the time being).

I have every idea what you are talking about. I think it's silly. But, regardless of who is right and wrong about the effects of tariffs, it's utterly beside the point. I can concede the point to you even though I think you are wrong, and the larger issue is more important: America should maintain it's domestic manufacturing and base materials industries. The ability to produce strategic resources and build shit -- you know, like warships and fighters -- is more important than whether or not a small urban class of hucksters and merchants can make some extra shekels by destroying the future of our nation.