All "protective" tariffs would do is compel our trade partners to do the same, and they might not be symmetrical about it either, Mexico is case in point. Domestic prices would skyrocket, and shortages would be certain; the US economy is too broad, too deep, to "go it alone". We pulled it off 200 years ago because if a trade partner resisted, we invaded.
Who cares, the vast majority of our trade imbalances are not in our favour. What do we care if we put up a tariff on China and then they do the same? Its not like the trade imbalance is in our favour. Every company in the world is tapping into the U.S. consumer, and no company wants to be situated in the U.S.
Our coffin started being built in 1913, sealed in 1971 and only now are we putting the final nails into it. This is all democratic President Wilsons fault and his democratic majority of congress that passed the federal reserve act of 1913.
lbj tanked the economy with his "guns and butter" war policies in the 70s. george bush tanked the economy with his guns and butter policies. financing needless wars with borrowed money seems to be a common thread.
It was Guns Or Butter. Remember the cheese distributions? That was actually cynical. Lets feed the ant farm masses rat food. Cabals as fox hole diplomacy.
no it was guns and butter. the thinking was that it was possible to run both a war and government spending programs at the same time by borrowing the money. "The old 1960s slogan "guns and butter" is suddenly everywhere. A feature story in The New York Times was headlined, "Bush Can Have Both Guns and Butter, at Least for Now." A Wall Street Journal column by Holman Jenkins was titled, "An Oldie but Goodie: Guns Plus Butter." Columnist Pat Buchanan writes, "LBJ cut taxes and embraced a guns-and-butter budget. ... Bush is traveling the same road."
We are at the stage where it has to be less guns and less butter. There was a saying back then, neither a borrower nor a spender be. My grandmother was right.