Incentives, Deals, and Tariffs
Incentives, deals, and tariffs instituted by government each require a monetary penalty for the purpose of financing such programs. It is important to note that these are penalties and not exchanges. No good or service is rendered that benefits the liable party. When a governing organization places a tariff on Chinese goods for currency manipulation, or environment infractions, or climate crimes, this constitutes a complete dismissal of property rights. The rights of both the consumer and the producer are violated under this arrangement.
It is important to note that the foreign producer has rights just as the domestic consumer has rights. It is also important to note that "protection" from attributes of goods is not a right, unless these attributes include fraud or breach of contract. (A good cannot by its nature force someone against his will.) In fact, the consumer is he who is actually liable for his choices. Whether he purchases electronics, petroleum products, or diamonds, the onus is on he who agrees to pay a price mutually agreed upon by himself and the supplier. One cannot make the argument, for example, that because the Great Barrier Reef is dissolving, the Australian government can legitimize placing a ban on certain ingredients found in sunscreens. Even if it were the case that these ingredients degrade the coral, the right to exclude sunscreens containing them belongs to those who own the reef or profits thereof as defined in a contract. The Australian government can only enforce the contract.
The assumption that consumers or natural systems need governmental protection is a slippery slope. Once property rights are destroyed in the name of consumer protection, or environmental protection, or climate change, or men named George, then the incumbent pragmatism is free to discriminate among goods, services, or people according to subjective whim. Discrimination on the basis of national origin, color, creed, sex, or sexual orientation is illegal. Should we continue to allow governmental discrimination of goods on the basis of national origin, global warming potential, or even "human rights" such as education and healthcare? What effect could reasonably be expected from denying to do business with a nation on the basis that the government not only did not teach the "correct" version of history, but neglected the right to education altogether? This is where we are currently in public discourse thanks to the progressive movement.
It is important to note that the foreign producer has rights just as the domestic consumer has rights. It is also important to note that "protection" from attributes of goods is not a right, unless these attributes include fraud or breach of contract. (A good cannot by its nature force someone against his will.) In fact, the consumer is he who is actually liable for his choices. Whether he purchases electronics, petroleum products, or diamonds, the onus is on he who agrees to pay a price mutually agreed upon by himself and the supplier. One cannot make the argument, for example, that because the Great Barrier Reef is dissolving, the Australian government can legitimize placing a ban on certain ingredients found in sunscreens. Even if it were the case that these ingredients degrade the coral, the right to exclude sunscreens containing them belongs to those who own the reef or profits thereof as defined in a contract. The Australian government can only enforce the contract.
The assumption that consumers or natural systems need governmental protection is a slippery slope. Once property rights are destroyed in the name of consumer protection, or environmental protection, or climate change, or men named George, then the incumbent pragmatism is free to discriminate among goods, services, or people according to subjective whim. Discrimination on the basis of national origin, color, creed, sex, or sexual orientation is illegal. Should we continue to allow governmental discrimination of goods on the basis of national origin, global warming potential, or even "human rights" such as education and healthcare? What effect could reasonably be expected from denying to do business with a nation on the basis that the government not only did not teach the "correct" version of history, but neglected the right to education altogether? This is where we are currently in public discourse thanks to the progressive movement.
I’ve heard of one proposal to do so. That plan involves setting tariffs for each trade partner equal to the total tariffs collected on our products sold to that trade partner, then rebating the revenue from those tariffs to domestic companies in amounts equal to the tariffs they were forced to pay to that trade partner. The idea is to take away any advantage each trade partner would gain by imposing tariffs against U.S. goods, and thus make it unlikely that they would impose such tariffs in the first place.
Airbus, the aerospace firm created by the European common market, has never turned much profit, existing primarily on government subsidies. Without the subsidies, Airbus would not be competitive in the world commercial airline market. What the U.S. government has done, suicidally, is to allow Airbus to compete in our domestic airline market, with the effect being the elimination of all but one American commercial airframe producer.
Airbus is just one example of what our "friends" have done to our domestic economy. Our trade deficits are running nearly a half-trillion a month!
Trade inequity isn't just practiced against the U.S. We do our fair share, but usually against smaller, less powerful economies. There are two truly evil American product cabals that do us no credit. The sugar industry has used its political clout and underhanded dealing to engineer the unlawful subjugation of a sovereign nation (Hawaii) and bar the import of competitive sugar products from smaller nations, driving the cost of sugar in America to more than double the price elsewhere. The peanut producers control who can have a license to grow peanuts in the U.S., and limit those licenses to a small group of wealthy farmers (former President Carter among them). They use their political influence to institute draconian tariffs on peanut crops from southern African states like Namibia, which could move dramatically from one of the poorest African nations to one of the wealthiest if it had access to the American market.
I'm hoping that Trump's focus on working to create a livelier, more equitable trade environment involves the reduction of some of these nationalist, protectionist barriers on both sides, and a consideration for good deals with individual states instead of a global collective.
I watched a television program about a new military plane whose fuselage, wings, and cockpit were each manufactured in a different country. On the one hand, taking the best from each is a testament to specialization and division of labor. On the other hand, the inefficiencies of transportation and decentralized design could be the result of some number of egalitarians turning deals for the sake of fair share schemes.
Trump can do us a favor by reducing the corporate tax rate and remove barriers to domestic manufacture. This can allow American manufacturing the best possible conditions in which to grow based on competition and not favors.
However, when dealing with a socialist, collectivist, or dictatorship society the are three choices to be had. 1. Deal with them and put up with their manipulations. 2. Deal with them in the same manner by using tariffs, reprisals, etc. 3. Don't deal with them. This, of course, recognizes that we are talking about governments. If we are talking about corporations or other non-government enterprises, just let them the f@#$ alone. They'll figure it out and wind up doing what's best for them which usually works out well for everyone.0
For dictatorial or dangerous economies, do not seek deals; simply refuse. As a side note, the phrase "dictatorial economy" is probably an oxymoron. By doing business with(in) such nations, we are (1) working with freer elements that hold the proper values, or (2) doing business with people who do not share our most important values and/or do not respect our rights.
Case (1) is China. China imposes tariffs on all imports and ships cheap exports. This provides an artificial bump to GDP. International businesses are securing markets in China while China uses IP rules to take, retain, or develop technologies to receive a competitive advantage. The businesses will withdraw from China as soon as public seizures begin as in Venezuela. "If we are talking about corporations or other non-government enterprises, just let them the f@#$ alone."
Case (2) involves several nations. How do we stand to benefit from those who will nationalize assets, channel them to purposes that undermine our basic values, or visit actual destruction on our property or persons?
Do foreign producers have rights? Sure. Should they be protected by both their own government and ours? Yes. But one must also take into account that there exist very real borders between nations and nations have the right to regulate the people and products coming into their lands. This is not an infringement upon property rights. It is upholding the property and life rights of that nation and its citizens.
"One cannot make the argument, for example, that because the Great Barrier Reef is dissolving, the Australian government can legitimize placing a ban on certain ingredients found in sunscreens."
No, but the government can penalize the use of any such sunscreen within its territorial authority. You're trying to make the argument that any government regulation is a violation of property rights. That's nonsense. The government has the delegated responsibility and authority to protect the property of its citizens - whether individually or collectively (public lands). To make the argument they can not regulate their own lands because it infringes on the property rights of a product manufacturer is patently absurd.
Are there ways in which government has overstepped their bounds and used their powers of regulation to infringe upon property rights? Absolutely. The EPA, the Energy Department, the IRS, and many other agencies are on dubious - if not outright unConstitutional - grounds. But each case must be resolved independently. I would also point out that products do not have rights, therefore discrimination of goods violates no rights.
Your argument is well-meaning, but very poorly articulated.
1. Do I understand correctly that you are arguing against unregulated transfer of property?
2. Government is properly composed of police, military, and courts or -- put another way -- domestic law and order, protection from foreign aggressors, and enforcing contracts, respectively. How can you claim that a government can regulate the use of a product that does not force, defraud, or break a contract?
3. "Independent resolution" is a pragmatist response. What principle do you use to determine what is the proper resolution to each given scenario?
4. How can you say my argument is well-meaning if you disagree with the basic ideas?
In specific, I am arguing that the right of a nation to control its borders, its people, and its property is a compelling interest justifying the regulation of international commerce to some degree (ie through tariffs). Your position - unless I totally misunderstood it - was that there was zero justification for regulation. You attempted to substantiate that position by hearkening back to property rights, but my point was that you failed to take into account the property rights of the importing nation and its citizens. Under your interpretation, there are no such things to be considered as international boundaries and borders.
2. If science shows that a particular compound has harmful effects on a public resource, can they not ban the use of that compound in areas of detrimental effect? I would have to argue that they can. Why ban smoking around fuel stations? Why ban the use of pesticides in national forests? Add examples ad nauseum here... It doesn't mean that all restrictions are justified, however.
I would also point out that there are a whole section of laws which cover informal contracts, also known as societal norms. They cover things like politeness, sociability, getting along with others, etc. which may include implied contracts. Both must be taken into account - not just the explicit ones as you seem to advocate.
3. No. Independent resolution means that you take into account the context of the situation because context often varies from case to case. Courts of law spend a lot of time trying to ascertain the facts of a case before issuing a ruling. They don't do it just to listen to people talk. They do it so that they can establish whether or not the case is materially similar to another case with a known outcome and reasoning, because along with that there is usually guidance as to a ruling. Jumping to conclusions is rarely a good idea in any case (ba dump - cha).
4. You are attempting to argue the pre-eminence of rights and your default position is in defense of (and the pre-eminence of) rights. I would much rather have to justify regulation and how it doesn't infringe on rights to a person like you than have to assert the privilege of a right in the face of legislation as asserted by Progressives like Hillary Clinton. If we had more people like you, we'd have fewer regulations in the first place and we'd all be better off! It never hurts to re-examine one's premises. Only those with an ideological axe to grind refuse to consider alternative positions.