US Politics |OT|

[sc94597]

Pyro as Bill said:

sc94597 said:

What? Tariffs are infamously regressive taxes on consumption. They're not direct taxes on production. 

One of the things we discovered after two (arguably many more than two) world wars is that the best way to prevent war is to be economically entangled with your adversaries. It's pretty much the basis of "Pax Americana." Disentangling from the world into Autarky makes total war more likely, not less. 

Are consumption and production linked in any way?

If the US loses steel and aluminium production then we'll all ("the West") pay the price. The scariest prospect is that China and US (Chimerica) come to terms and carve the world up. I don't want to see Australia become the new Poland.

Of course, but the implications and effects of taxes on consumption, production, capital, and resource value are different. Same thing with the various regressive and progressive versions of these taxes. And again for pigouvian vs. revenue accruing taxes. 

Or do you think the Bradford X tax has the same implications and effects as a Land Value Tax? 

If the U.S wanted to protect critical industries economy-wide tariffs isn't the way to do it. Targeted tariffs coupled with investment subsidies and R&D subsidies is the general recommendation. Now which looks more like what Trump is doing? What is he doing to the CHIPs act, for example?