I understand tariffs aren't good when taken alone, but what else can you do to put the US on an even playing field? We want to have strict environmental laws, which make manufacturing more expensive and then companies move to where there is no EPA so we lost jobs and new laws are a net negative for the environment.

My opinion is that there should be tariffs to make up for the differences in laws anywhere without similar laws - if you want to pay workers pennies a day no problem, but you're going to pay the difference on the way in. China might let you destroy their local environment but you'll pay for the effects of your pollution on the way in.

Trade deals should come with negotiations that will help us with our global warming problem at the very least - if you want to have a trade deal you'll need to match or beat the regulations we follow or the tariff will reflect an approximation of the difference in cost.

I think that it is a bit problematic that the majority of those for free trade also want policies that discourage domestic manufacturing like an increase in minimum wage and increased environmental regulations.

Paying a price on goods entering the country will not encourage the manufacturing of those goods to come back to the US, it will only reduce the flow of goods coming in, increase the prices consumers pay or reduce selection. Also, dont you think the natural reaction of any country on the other end of such a tariff would be to slap a tariff on our goods and services? So the net result is lower international trade overall. The result of that is that goods have to be manufactured in thousands of places (inefficient) rather than a few place for distribution globally (highly efficient).

I don't think tariffs should be used to keep manufacturing here - but if you get to move your manufacturing to China and pay people less than you would in the US and use a process worse for the environment I think it's really silly not to put something in place to discourage that. If China puts into place labor laws and environmental laws similar to ours, then sure no tariff should be in place.

Otherwise we're just rewarding companies (many of which are American) with access to our market without having to follow any of our laws.

So you would support the state of New York putting tariffs on any goods and services coming from the state of North Dakota because they have lower wages?

What about the state of California putting tariffs in place on any company incorporated in state Delaware because Delaware corporate law doesn't have certain investor protections in place? I could list countless examples of US States that have less stringent regulations but still have free trade and open borders.

My point is that is impossible to harmonize all regulations and even if it was would have no clear universal benefits.

Have you ever wondered why all credit card statement comes from North Dakota? Or why companies are incorporated in Delaware? It's not because they have the strictest regulations. I don't hear Republicans demanding that we erect trade barriers between states to keep jobs where they started in the first place.

The truth is the Chinese population is willing to except regulations that allow awful environmental practices because the manufacturing that harms the environment is a significant opportunity to improve their standard of living. Let's not forget that only a few generations ago they were literally starving to death. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Bringing the Chinese population into the global trading network resulted in one of the most drastic, beneficial, and impressive increases in standard of living ever. Better yet China is now moving to reduce the environmental impact by moving into higher skilled manufacturing.

A tariff is a tax on the local population, not a penalty to the origin country. The tariff is added to the sales price so the origin country is repaid. It makes the price of foreign goods higher for local purchasers to allow the local market to be competitive.

If it doesn't bring manufacturing jobs back (which it won't) it will do nothing, but lower sales. the amount lowered depends on the size of the tariff, and how much that makes the products unaffordable to the locals.

Things aren't so simple. A tax (tariff in this case) negatively affects both sides of a transaction. The effect on our side is then mitigated because the money from that tax lets us reduce other taxes in our own country.

So yes, in the end it does work out to be a penalty to the origin country.

The only local harm relates to marginal utility, but this is offset by the benefits of national security and improvements to the mix of different types of employment.

I agree with you but would argue that the lower demand created by the tarred is the penalty on the origin country.

It really sounds like you're using the "studies have shown" fallacy.

What I see with "free trade" agreements is exploitation and creative accounting. Send your manufacturing one mile across the border to hire cheap labor through "third parties" that have much weaker workers' rights laws, no healthcare, and lax environmental oversight.

Then send those products back to the US and reap tremendous profit, while having your hands clean of any environmental or human exploitation because it was done on another "set of books" across the border. Same amount of damage, but we reap massive profits while keeping our noses clean. What's not to love about that ?

Except that over time, wages across the boarder rise. We have seen that in mexico and china. We saw that here in the US when textile manufacturing moved from New York and Boston to North Carolina. All of these same arguments against free trade were used early in american history with interstate commerce. North Carolina allowed child labor in textile mills and had low wages. Are you telling me New York is worse off because Investment Banks replaced the Textile District in Manhattan? I don't think so. America needs to continue to increase sophistication of the economy by moving to higher skill services and products and protect our fellow citizens harmed by the transition. The answer isnt to start a trade war with mexico and china in the hopes the we can go back to having child labor in textile mills and family farms.

do you realize you just made a pro child-labor argument ? You're saying exploitation of children was justified because NYC became a great city with investment banks and expensive rent. The same argument could be used to justify slavery: "Oh look how well it helps the cities where all the money is stored! We can't possibly have equality for all because that would reduce the massive profits of the few!"

Exploitation is not ok, even in the short run, even if it produces a good outcome for the few who benefit from it. The massive profits made off the backs of mexican workers aren't going to mexicans, they are being exported back to the shareholders of the US companies who sent their manufacturing there.

> America needs to continue to increase sophistication of the economy by moving to higher skill services

Therein lies the inequality. Notice you said America needs to. We need to maintain that differential so that the exploitation keeps working. Because shareholders can't reap massive profits if everyone increases their sophistication. You have to keep the slaves in their proverbial cage, lest they run away.

You are drawing the literal opposition conclusion of my argument. The fact that North Carolina allowed child labor was part of how they pulled manufacturing out of the north east, but over time, as the benefits of the economic growth produced wealth, it was able to eliminate awful practices like child labor.

My argument is that trade with the developing world will pull them out of poverty, decreasing global inequality, and as the population becomes wealthy, they will demand more labor, environmental and social protections. This is supported by the history of the developed worlds progress over the last 30 years.

I am not suggesting we preserve a differential between regions or countries. I am suggesting that free trade tends to create equilibrium over time as wages converge. I am also suggesting that tariffs and trade barriers preserve economic disparity as it keeps assets, labor, capital and knowledge locked behind these barriers.

I think a cursory reading of history supports this argument first with the development of the American economy and now the global economy.

Last point: China is now experiencing outsourcing of textile and furniture manufacturing to Vietnam and other counties because wages have become too high.

> it was able to eliminate awful practices like child labor.

I dont see how the free market eliminated child labor. I see government regulation as eliminating child labor.

I agree with you on the principle that putting more dollars in poor economies is a good thing. But I cannot reconcile that with the fact that those economies are attractive to businesses primarily for the purpose of circumventing rules and established practices that help us (healthcare and environment, for example).

I was watching videos on youtube about the Bangladesh shipbreaking industry. All these western corporations used the ships to make money, then circumvent all environmental regulation by disposing / selling them to Bangladesh for scrap where the toxins go into the sea, workers paid $2/day have no safety gear for dealing with chemical/fall/crushing/burning hazards, and the handful who own the companies reap tremendous profits selling the scrap steel. Everyone wins...except for the poor, who risked/reduced their lives for the awesome consolation of a few bucks (not even considering any marine life that once lived nearby).

My argument is not that free markets solve all problems. I freely accept that only government can solve collective action problems like global warming, create universal education and health care, prevent the race to the bottom tendencies of competitive commerce that incentivized bad practices like child labor and environmental pollution; but you will never be able to strengthen divergent regulatory systems unless you have unified economic relationships. Globalization that creates greater interconnected economic systems will result in improved safety standards in all of these markets. We are seeing that play out in the developing world; but this is not an immediate process - it takes generations. It takes the local population fighting for better systems. It takes the pressure from trading partners like the U.S. demanding that employee protections be put into place. Isolating ourselves behind a wall of tariffs is not going to help these ship workers in Bangladesh.

You are right, but the manufacturing workers see hypocrisy. We have lots of tarrifs in the form of licensing and visa requirements for doctors and lawyers and software engineers. We also have tarrifs on poor people / welfare with visa requirements (except Mexico in practice). Either remove visa requirements on high skill labor, or add tarrifs for external goods. Let usa join European Union if you are not ready to have a global Union.

I suspect your average Congressman has never read a single one of those studies but have gotten letters from donors telling them that they want free trade deals.

It's pretty hard to convince someone in Pennsylvania that free trade deals are good for them when the only factory in town just shut down because China flooded the marked with unbelievably cheap steel.

I'm not really arguing the relative merit of free trade in terms of local effects. I'm questioning your premise that, in order to oppose tariffs, one must be somehow bought by corporate interests.