How Best To Protect America?

donald trump  We are only a little over a week into the Trump administration and some of the actions taken by President Trump have many Americans, and people around the world, quite concerned.  Let me say first, I am not surprised by the things President Trump is attempting to do, after all, they are what he said he would do if elected. So the concern I felt during the campaign is now multiplied as he now has the platform to deliver on some, if not all, of his dangerous promises.

Of course his hard-core supporters, those who want nothing more than to punish people who are different from themselves, be it color, faith, or nationality, are most likely very happy with the executive orders the President is signing.

Let me address this first. During the Obama years, there was a never-ending cry against the number and type of executive orders Pres. Obama signed. They were called overreaching and unconstitutional. The same people who continually condemned Pres. Obama’s use of executive orders, are now notably silent as Pres. Trump has spent his first week doing nothing but.

Which brings us to a few of the orders he has signed, which in his view, and that of his supporters, are intended to protect America, but will they in the long run?

Pres. Trump is on a path to all out protectionism. Protectionism is the economic idea, or theory, that if a nation simply protects itself from outside competition, its own economy will grow and prosper. As with all theories, there are those who believe this will work, and those who feel it will have a short-term positive affect, but in the long run will do nothing but punish the citizens of the home nation. In this case America.

During the campaign Donald Trump promised to bring back jobs to America, and to punish American companies who took jobs out of the country with high border taxes to bring their products back in. On a side note, most constitutional scholars say it would be unconstitutional for the President to target individual companies with taxes or tariffs.

The talk of tariffs was ratcheted up this past week, as now President Trump, again spoke of building his border wall with Mexico, and forcing Mexico to pay for it. This caused the Mexican President to cancel a trip to the U.S. for talks with Pres. Trump, who immediately announced that he had decided to cancel the meetings as well.

The Mexican President said, in no uncertain terms, Mexico would not be paying for the building of any wall on the border. Which prompted Pres. Trump to prove him right.

Pres. Trump announced that America would pay to build the wall initially, and force Mexico to pay it back through a border tax of at least 20% on all goods coming in from Mexico. Obviously to anyone with common sense, which leaves out the most die-hard Trump supporter, this means the American consumer will be paying for the wall, not once but twice. First we will pay for the building of the wall through income and other taxes, and then a second time by having to pay the 20% tax on goods coming from Mexico. By the way, Mexico is the second largest trade partner with the U.S..

Do not allow the fact that this proposed border tax is nothing more than a value added tax or “VAT”, which has been floated in the past. It has never gained traction because the American people would be punished for every product they purchased, at every step of its production, along with all the other taxes we must pay. But that is the beauty of Pres. Trump’s proposal, he has found a way to make a segment of America beg to be over taxed, he has tied it to their hatred of immigrants.

The idea of protectionism is, first restrict the amount of products being imported through tariffs and other regulations, thus forcing the home nation’s citizens to purchase only goods from the home nation. This in turn creates a greater demand for manufactured goods, which creates more jobs within the home nation. Now in theory this sounds good, and can have a short-term benefit, that is as long as the home nation can get its manufacturing sector up to speed faster than the incoming goods dwindle. If not, it can create shortages, and rising prices.

These short-term effects can be overcome in time, if the amount of regulation and taxes on the home nation’s manufacturing sector is conducive to growth. Which was another of the Trump promises. Time will tell, though he may have wanted to work on reducing taxes and regulation first.

However, in my opinion, even if these short-term negatives are initially offset with higher productivity, the home nation will still have created a closed market, because no action in the current global market occurs in a vacuum. Are we to believe, that if America imposes a 20% tariff upon Mexico, that Mexico will not also impose a tariff of their own? Are we to believe that this idea of tariffs will end with Mexico? Is it not likely that other countries like China will attempt to fill the gap in inexpensive goods left by Mexico’s exit form the American market? So now we have to impose a tariff on Chinese goods, and then Russian goods. Oh wait, strike that one.

So as the President wears out ink pens signing executive orders to place tariffs on all imported goods, the world market for our exported goods shrinks comparatively.

This means the companies here at home have only the American citizens to sell to, and the American citizens have only them to buy form, which means no competition, which means higher prices, less goods. As the market shrinks further and further back behind  both the literal wall, as well as the theoretical wall,  and the demand also shrinks, jobs will be cut, and companies will be forced out of business.

And before someone attempts to enlighten me, yes I know America has tariffs in place right now to protect certain important sectors of the economy. We could argue the overall benefit of those as well, but while those tariffs are on certain goods to protect our industries, this so-called border tax is based against an entire nation, and if America expands this type of economical suicide, we will achieve nothing but isolation. We will find ourselves behind an ugly wall, while the rest of the world refuses to trade with us at any level.

There was a time when isolationism, protectionism, nationalism or whatever you want to call it, might have worked in our favor. Those days are gone. That was when we held the upper hand in manufacturing of certain goods and products. We as a nation have been able to become a nation of users, rather than makers, because the rest of the world can make all that we need and at lower cost. So if we take ourselves out of the world market what we will be doing is not only hurting our own economy, but those of nations who depend on our buying their goods.

Let us again look at Mexico, the reason Pres. Trump and his supporters want to build the wall, is because of the illegal immigrants coming here for jobs. What happens when the impact of the 20% tax hits the Mexican economy? There will be even fewer jobs in Mexico, forcing them to look north. (At this point is important to note, a twenty-foot wall will not stop a twenty-two foot ladder, or a tunnel.)  

The best wall we could possibly build against the illegal migration, is a strong economy in Mexico, we will not achieve this with a wall, or with a border tax.

“When goods cannot cross borders, armies will.”   (Frédéric Bastiat)

27 Comments on "How Best To Protect America?"

  1. delacrat says:

    “…rest of the world can make all that we need and at lower cost. “ – frank

    The “lower cost” comes at a high price to the environment and worker safety in the “rest of the world.”

    And if our jobs and paychecks all go to foreign workers, what good is it if they can “make all we need” if we can’t pay for anything.

    “Lower cost” is all well and good only if you don’t pay the price of “lower cost”.

  2. Rick says:

    Of course his hard-core supporters, those who want nothing more than to punish people who are different from themselves, be it color, faith, or nationality, are most likely very happy with the executive orders the President is signing.

    What is the difference between a “hard core” supporter, and anyone else who voted for him? The man carried thirty states, and I doubt that many of his supporters were unclear as to his agenda, since he announced what it was twentyfour-seven.

    … this means the American consumer will be paying for the wall, not once but twice….

    How much has America spent jailing, educating, housing, feeding and caring for the illegal invaders already? At least the wall will stop that insanity.

    We’ll see how “no uncertain” Mexico’s terms are when corporations start pulling out.

    Are we to believe, that if America imposes a 20% tariff upon Mexico, that Mexico will not also impose a tariff of their own?

    We sell little there. Without us, they sink.

    “When goods cannot cross borders, armies will.”

    You mean armies of illegals?

  3. Frank Knotts says:

    Delacrat, the point was the reason we became a nation of users is because we as consumers are able to get what we need at lower cost from imports. Few consumers are as concerned as you may be about those who produce the goods. You may be willing and able to pay higher cost for your views but not everyone is.
    Rick Mexico imports $194 billion from the U.S. Each year. And please save the election class, I have no argument that President Trump won the election, the problem is the blindness of his supporters.

  4. fightingbluehen says:

    How best to protect America?

    Institute a 90 day travel ban for countries who were listed by the former administration as of “particular concern”, until a system of vetting can be devised.

  5. mouse says:

    Dogma based in racial resentment has no antidote in evidence or fact

  6. delacrat says:

    “Institute a 90 day travel ban for countries … – fbh

    That has little to do with trade policy, stay on topic.

  7. Honi Soit says:

    FBH: NO system of vetting has been devised to date? Is that your line?

  8. fightingbluehen says:

    Point taken, delacrat. I think overall, that not much will change concerning trade policy with Mexico other than our bargaining position will be strengthened when the time comes to actually sit down and work out something with Mexico.

  9. mouse says:

    I suppose that destabilizing of the whole nation is a net positive for some folk. Really makes me wonder if some people lack the most basic moral and intellectual development and ability to self reflect and feel embarrassment.

  10. Rick says:

    Muslims don’t just hate the West. They hate each other. How long have they been fighting? 1200, 1300 years? What is their problem? Haven’t they had enough time- more than a millennia- to settle their differences? Are they incapable of living in a civilized manner?

    Until they can demonstrate at least a semblance of civility in their own homelands, they should be kept out as a danger to civilization. With very few exceptions, wherever the Muslim rules, chaos, violence and poverty are the standards of society.

  11. fightingbluehen says:

    I understand your fear of destabilization, mouse.

    Although I am enjoying seeing the liberals freak out over the speed at which Trump is moving ahead with his agenda, I too can understand the risk of radical actions.

    I don’t consider myself to be a right winger. I am a conservative person, and being conservative, I tend to like gradual, deliberate, but thought out action….That being said, I don’t see Trump destabilizing anything as of yet……The destabilizing factor in my opinion are the protests, and the way in which media are covering them.

  12. delacrat says:

    Muslims don’t just hate……blah, blah, blah” – rick

    Frank’s post is about trade policy, not Muslims. Stay on topic.

  13. mouse says:

    Every ill is related to resentment towards Muslims and blacks in that bubble. And sex of course.

  14. Honi Soit says:

    @Frank: “During the campaign Donald Trump promised to bring back jobs to America, and to punish American companies who took jobs out of the country….”

    Most jobs in the USA were not lost because they were shifted abroad. Most have been lost as a result of increased productivity through advances in technology and robotics. These jobs aren’t coming back–no matter what Trump promises and his supporters hope. They will continue to disappear.

  15. Rick says:

    Every ill is related to resentment towards Muslims and blacks in that bubble.

    There hasn’t been a religious war going on in the Middle East for 1200 years?

  16. fightingbluehen says:

    Relating to my earlier comment; I have a feeling that a responsible person will eventually have a talk with the media leadership and colluding community organizers concerning the protests at the airports.

    There is needless attention being drawn to a minimal situation were relatively few people were detained because of the vetting process instituted by the new administration.

    The constant coverage along with the anti Islamic spin that the media is conveying, could encourage jihadism..The media did a similar thing with the non-issue, obscure Islamic satire internet video used as a scape goat by the last administration, that subsequently caused riots and death, after the video was needlessly highlighted.

  17. delacrat says:

    “Most [jobs] have been lost as a result of increased productivity through advances in technology and robotics.” – honi soit

    Assuming for the sake of argument, that is true, then that is all the more reason to keep what jobs we still have here from going overseas.

  18. Fish Bites says:

    “There hasn’t been a religious war going on in the Middle East for 1200 years?”

    No, there hasn’t.

    Perhaps you can point to the longest stretch of years that the US has not been at war. But if you are suggesting that Europe has been some kind of model of stability for 1200 years, or that Catholics and Protestants have been peacefully coexisting over a time span of hundreds of years, then you are more profoundly ignorant of history than can be helped. The only thing Europeans have ever agreed upon is the enthusiastic killing of Jews.

  19. Rick says:

    “There hasn’t been a religious war going on in the Middle East for 1200 years?”

    No, there hasn’t.

    What do you mean, “no there hasn’t?” The Shia-Sunni schism has existed since the death of Mohammed.

    …that Catholics and Protestants have been peacefully coexisting over a time span of hundreds of years, then you are more profoundly ignorant of history than can be helped….

    You suffer from a classic “liberal” problem; we live today not 200 years ago.

    Christianity underwent a reformation. Islam did not.

    Yes, Christian sects fought in Europe, even a late as the 70’s, in Northern Ireland (although the roots were as much economic as religious).

    But we live today. Islam has been conflict with itself since the death of Mohammed. And it is still in conflict, not only internally, but with the West. Remember, Islam means “submit.” And that’s what they seek- submission and world hegemony.

  20. Frank Knotts says:

    Rick is once again speaking of that which he refuses to educate himself about. If Rick would take the time to r was the Quran he would know that Islam does not simply mean submit, it means submit to God. A theme among all religions.

  21. Rick says:

    it means submit to God. A theme among all religions.

    Christianity does not require submission. It asks for belief. Big difference.

    When in the past hundred years have Christians tried to force their religion on non-believers? When, in the past hundred years, have Christians beheaded or otherwise gruesomely murdered “non-believers?” Muslims do it now- today. And they did it yesterday and they’ll do it tomorrow.

    Rick is once again speaking of that which he refuses to educate himself about…

    Are you “educated” enough to know that Islamic Law- Sharia- is a form of government?

    Don’t you believe in the separation of church and state? Aren’t you against a religious test for holding representative office? Don’t you believe in LGBT rights? Don’t you believe in “tolerance” for those with different religious or social viewpoints? Don’t you prefer due process and a jury trial to the edicts of an insane cleric?

    The theocrats of Islam- the lawmakers and adjudicators- do not.

    You are “educated” in theory; but the world is real. We live today, not hundreds of years ago.

    The Muslim world is, generally, insane. It is backward, it is violent and stuck in the 10th Century. Please quit theorizing and face contemporary facts.

    Try defending Christians- in the Islamic world, they need all the help they can get.

  22. delacrat says:

    “You suffer from a classic “liberal” problem; we live today not 200 years ago.” – rick

    Everybody lives “today not 200 years ago”. It’s impossible to live at any other time other than today. why is living today a classic “liberal” problem ?

    Do you ever think about the gobbledygook you post ?

  23. mouse says:

    We are at war with Mexico, we have always been at war with Mexico

  24. Rick says:

    Everybody lives “today not 200 years ago”. It’s impossible to live at any other time other than today.

    The general theme among “liberals” (actually, lockstep conformists) is the “well, Christians were violent too” when responding to reports of Islamofascist atrocities.

    Christianity underwent a reformation. The Crusades were 800 years ago. Other than the Northern Ireland conflict, as I had noted above, there has been little in the way of religious war in the West for decades if not centuries.

    In the Islamic world, there was no reformation. The same insane tenets from 1000 years ago are prevalent today; stoning, beheading and torture. In most of the Islamic world, women are chattel and non-believes are marked for discrimination (if they’re lucky) or death. There are no women’s rights, no abortion, no free speech, no LGBT protections and no religious tolerance.

    So naturally, the hate-America left aligns with the Islamofascists.

    So when I urge Frank and the rest of the appeasers to avoid “living in the past,” I was (as most people with half a brain clearly understood) speaking figuratively. The Muslim fanatics kill people who refuse to submit to their insane ideology and dogma today.

    Get it?

  25. mouse says:

    I worry every day that Sharia law will be instituted in Sussex county and I will be executed for my carnal crimes

  26. delacrat says:

    If Sharia law comes to Sussex county, ….no more abortions for Rick.

  27. Rick says:

    If Sharia law comes to Sussex county, ….no more abortions for Rick.

    What does that mean? Your inability to be clever is indicative of a short attention span.

    Of course if Sharia were to come to America, there’d be no more abortion. Nor would women drive or go to school. They would be property, and adultry would be a stoning offense. The “woman’s movement” would be on its knees in front of a sword-wielding fanatic and heads would roll.

    Islam is the “religion of peace.” As long as it’s their “peace.” Submit or die.

Got something to say? Go for it!