Ready to throw her under the bus?

[Rucker61]

Another false statement. The Constitution does not mandate that tariffs be imposed.

Are you unable to read simple English? That Congress has a power does not mandate that it exercise it. The people who wrote the Constitution knew how to write mandates, and did so, in clear English.

As I read his statement, he said exactly the same thing as you state here, except that he wants Congress to exercise it.

[nynco]

Another false statement. The Constitution does not mandate that tariffs be imposed.

Are you unable to read simple English? That Congress has a power does not mandate that it exercise it. The people who wrote the Constitution knew how to write mandates, and did so, in clear English.

No they mandate that as one of the powers of congress. Congress has instead chosen to abdicate those duties to the WTO and the many other unelected bodies that regulate trade on our behalf.
If you want to read what the founding fathers had to say about tariffs and trade, read away. This is a link to a piece that has Alexander Hamiltons 11 points of trade. Which was the basic frame work that was in place till Reagan and Clintoon dismantled it.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/200...ander-hamilton

[spqrzilla]

No, Rucker, nynco has been making the argument that since Congress has a power, if it does not exercise it, its unconstitutional action and a breach of the congressman's duty. Here and another thread.

Its a looney argument based on fundamental lack of reading comprehension.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Ironically Chunky, I have posted that I agree with you. You won't see this, that is your choice. But putting someone on the ignore list is rather childish.

You always feel so important, dont ya. Relax.. there are some of your posts that I felt like you were trolling - other than those, you aren't more special than many of our in house libs.

[spqrzilla]

No they mandate that as one of the powers of congress. Congress has instead chosen to abdicate those duties to the WTO and the many other unelected bodies that regulate trade on our behalf.

Fundamentally false statement on your part. The Constitution does not "mandate" a power. It creates a power. It in some very narrow places "mandates" action. The latter is not true in Art 1 Section 8 at all.

Basic English reading skills. You lack them.

[nynco]

Most economic studies I'm familiar with show that raising tariffs to protect a non-competitive domestic economy adversely impact the previous export and the economy that imposes those tariffs. I think you also presume that the increase in cost of consumer goods won't have much impact on demand. Americans are used to and demand extremely low prices on consumer goods. Jumping retail prices by 2x or more would hurt the economy, not help it.

Those US companies would also be limited to the US market for their goods, as they could not compete world-wide. No major manufacture wants to let someone else have the BRIC customers.

Lastly, those trade restrictions would likely draw retaliation. Does Boeing want to give up sales to China and India?

The increasing cost of consumer goods will drive manufacture to return back this nation. All forms of long term sustainable economic growth are based on manufacture as written about by countless economic theorist including Adam Smith. An economy based on service is an economy in decline as seen today. All economies based on manufacture are ones that are growing at a healthier rate and economies that don't need massive debt to keep them afloat.

[nynco]

Fundamentally false statement on your part. The Constitution does not "mandate" a power. It creates a power. It in some very narrow places "mandates" action. The latter is not true in Art 1 Section 8 at all.

Basic English reading skills. You lack them.

If congress is giving their constitutional powers over to an un-elected body (WTO) then that is abdicating and shirking the constitutional mandate.

[nynco]

You always feel so important, dont ya. Relax.. there are some of your posts that I felt like you were trolling - other than those, you aren't more special than many of our in house libs.

No Chunky I am not special. I just think that using the ignore list is childish. Esp when people feel the need to announce it to the world.

[Rucker61]

The increasing cost of consumer goods will drive manufacture to return back this nation. All forms of long term sustainable economic growth are based on manufacture as written about by countless economic theorist including Adam Smith. An economy based on service is an economy in decline as seen today. All economies based on manufacture are ones that are growing at a healthier rate and economies that don't need massive debt to keep them afloat.

That presumes that demand will continue to match supply. I don't see that happening. I don't see investors getting the same rate of return on manufacturing in the US for the US market as they would taking that money overseas to service the rest of the world. Look up "effect of tariffs on the economy". The incentive for manufacturing isn't to create jobs. It's to make money, more money than you can investing that capital somewhere else. Manufacture of consumer goods in the US will never come back. Raising tariffs on imports will do more harm to the economy than it will help.

[nynco]

If those investors want to access US markets, then they will have to play by those rules. If they want to invest in other parts of the world and not import into America, then that is their discretion. But the money earned overseas will be subject to US taxes like it was all the way until Reagan. If we make tariffs equal the cost benefits of manufacturing overseas, then there is no benefit to off shoring US manufacturing (like it was for 200 years). Manufacturing will return when those two factors are equal. It will also ensure that US workers are paid better which will then spur more demand for products. Again simple Adam Smith stuff. In fact if you read the whole invisible hand quote by Adam Smith, he talks about just that prior to the that famous line.