Login
|
Subscribe
Search only accepts letters and numbers.
Friday, May 27, 2022
Home
News
Coronavirus Coverage
State & National Coverage
CDC Coronavirus Microsite
Columns
Brian Howey
Cameron Carter
Linda Chezem
Joshua Claybourn
Jack Colwell
Larry DeBoer
Craig Dunn
Trevor Foughty
Shaw Friedman
Christina Hale
Lee Hamilton
Kelly Hawes
Maureen Hayden
Michael Hicks
Rich James
Terri Jett
David Kitchell
Robert Kraft
Anne Laker
Erin Macey
Morton Marcus
Jay Ruckelshaus
Chris Sautter
Mark Schoeff Jr.
Pete Seat
Curt Smith
Russ Stilwell
Mark Souder
Tony Samuel
Renee Wilmeth
Downloads
HPI Daily Wire
HPI Weekly PDF's
HPI Polling
HPI Poll April 23, 2013
Howey/DePauw Poll November 2, 2012
Howey-Gauge Poll October 28, 2008
Howey/DePauw Poll September 27, 2012
Howey/DePauw Poll May 4, 2012
Howey/DePauw Poll April 5, 2012
Howey-Gauge Poll September 4, 2008
Howey-Gauge Poll April 29, 2008
Member's Archives
2014 Archives - PDF's
2013 Archives - PDF'S
2012 Archives - PDF's
2011 Archives - PDF's
2010 Archives - PDF's
2009 Archives - PDF's
2008 Archives - PDF's
2007 Archives - PDF's
2006 Archives - PDF's
2005 Archives - PDF's
2004 Archives - PDF's
2003 Archives - PDF's
2002 Archives - PDF's
2001 Archives - PDF's
2000 Archives - PDF's
HPI Videos
About
Contact
Subscribe
Morton Marcus: Explaining Trump's tariffs
By MORTON J. MARCUS
Friday, July 27, 2018 7:43 AM
INDIANAPOLIS – I’ve been asked to explain tariffs. It can’t be done in 500 words, but here goes.
Tariffs on imports are not like the property, sales or income taxes. Those taxes are meant to raise money for government spending or redistribution. American tariffs, today, are intended to shape the economic relationships between nations.
America and France produce wine. A tariff by the United States on French wine will, in theory, increase the price of French wine for Americans, resulting in less French wine being bought. Americans then would buy more American wine, increasing the demand for American grapes and the land on which they grow, as well as the wages of those who work in vineyards and the wineries. The Gallo and Christian Bros. would prosper. In time, American wines could become as respectable and competitive as French wines, and the tariffs could be removed, their mission accomplished.
Maybe. But it is also possible Americans will switch to other beverages if the price of French wine rises. The very idea of drinking American wine could drive those with sophisticated palates to British ginger beer.
Tariffs are meant to increase demand for domestic products. But a very large number of unknown conditions lurk behind that simplistic objective.
Who actually feels the burden of the tariff? Does it inevitably get passed on to the consumer? The tariff would reduce shipments into the U.S., suppressing the demand for transportation and warehousing, driving large numbers of firms and workers in those sectors into a desperate dance for business, pushing down rates and wages.
Perhaps consumers avoid the French wine and switch to Dr. Pepper, Mr. Pibb, or some other “soft” drink. Then, with less wine-induced inebriation, auto accidents will fall, insurance rates will decline, some auto repair workers will lose their jobs, hospital admissions and casket sales will not meet their goals, and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union will be re-chartered.
[Please note the word “will” in the paragraph above. That is the hallmark of economists. If the word “may” was used, it would denote uncertainty and, in these times, boldness and assurance are highly valued over the timidity of accepting reality.]
A tariff is essentially a statement of weakness. A tariff on foreign cars says we cannot produce cars at prices or with the quality of those foreign cars. It declares we need for protection for our auto industry from the competition of others.
Tariff advocates want “a level playing field.” What they mean is “We can’t compete on quality or price, so need protection.”
And where does tariff revenue go? To make America more competitive or just into the big congressional money pot?
Imposing or increasing tariffs is a step backward given the technological advances weakening artificial national borders. Just as the U.S. Constitution prohibits tariffs between states, tariffs between nations should be written out of our future.
Mr. Marcus is an economist. His views can be followed on “Who gets what?” wherever podcasts are available. Or reach him atmortonjmarcus@yahoo.com
Submit A Comment
Please fill out the form below to submit a comment.
*
indicates a required field
Comment
*
Your Name
Email
Phone
A comment must be approved by our staff before it will displayed on the website.
Submit
X
Biden on Uvalde massacre: 'Where is our backbone?'
“As a nation we have to ask, when in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby? Where in God's name is our backbone? Why are we willing to live with this carnage? These kinds of mass shootings rarely happen anywhere else in the world. Why?”
-
President Biden
, reacting to the slaughter of 19 kids & 2 teachers in Uvalde, Tex. Democratic Senate nominee
Thomas McDermott Jr.,
said, “
Todd Young
has done nothing since Sandy Hook. Young has done nothing since Pulse, Parkland, Indianapolis, Buffalo, and now Uvalde – and thousands of Americans have lost their lives. As we grieve the loss of our students and teachers in Texas, Todd Young is sitting in his office collecting donation after donation from the NRA to keep the status quo – all while wishing for thoughts and prayers in hollow statements. Senator, it’s time to act or get out of Washington for those – like me – who do want to stop this violence and save our loved ones’ lives.”
HPI Video Feed
Tweets by @hwypol
The HPI Breaking News App
is now available for iOS & Android!
Home
|
Login
|
Subscribe
|
About
|
Contact
© 2022 Howey Politics, All Rights Reserved • Software © 1998 - 2022
1up!
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
##LOC[Cancel]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
##LOC[Cancel]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
##LOC[Cancel]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
##LOC[Cancel]##