Do tariffs violate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity?

[DENNYINMI]

Free trade violates the principle of Catholic teaching when free trade isn’t FAIR. Would the same sales tax slapped on a store front owner in China town, NYC be slapped on the store front owner in a small town in Alaska? Tariffs are benefitting some while hurting others simultaneously…Broad spectrum sweeps of Trumps pen was not strategic, As one farmer put it (a Trump supporter) to paraphrase, Trump took a butcher knife to Trade deals when he should have been using a scalpel.

 

[Socrates92]

What in the world does fair mean, and what does that have to do with subsidiarity?

 

[Socrates92]

They violate both.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Conservative values are much closer to Church teaching than liberal values, so it would, in fact seem a more reliable determiner that Norris is conservative.

Really? How about the death penalty? the enviornment?

If think you are missing the forest because of a coup,e of trees blocking your view.

Conservatives attempt to “conserve” things like the rule of law, keeping alive a strong moral commitment in the political realm, individual human rights (properly understood) and not abandoning traditional values for current whims and fantasies.

The death penalty has always been permitted, in principle, by the Church. The question is whether it is now practically necessary to protect society. That is an open question that conservatives can fall on either side of the debate.

The divide between liberals and conservatives has more to do with whether the death penalty is wrong always and everywhere. i.e., in principle. A conservative would insist that some capital crimes deserve the death penalty but might also permit that there are modern workable options which make the death penalty unnecessary in most or even all cases.

Many liberals are confused on the issue. They will argue that the death penalty is never permissible and insist that even the worst criminals do not deserve the death penalty because it is inhumane. However, mention Trump or Putin or disagree with a liberal about any hot button issue and they will make no qualms about bringing out the noose or guillotine or threaten your livelihood with unspeakable penalties,

Principles, or lack of them, is the main difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals have none and operate within an ever-changing emotional stewpot of political expediency, while conservatives have distinct guiding principles. Even libertarians have a main guiding principle, the non-aggression principle, which condemns wanton aggression or infringements of rights but also permits defensive measures. Liberals just don’t subscribe to principles, just appeal to emotion, wherever that leads.

As to the environment, conservatives are all about conservation that is effective. It is just that liberals are proposing all kinds of measures that are ineffectual but politically expedient for them.

Just look at Canada, for example, imposing a carbon tax while Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord. On the face of it, Canada is taking the environmentally friendly measure, but the US isn’t. Yet in the latest statistics on carbon emissions, the US has substantively reduced theirs, while Canada’s has risen significantly. Who is actually more friendly to the environment?

 

[DENNYINMI]

Principles, or lack of them, is the main difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals have none and operate within an ever-changing emotional stewpot of political expediency, while conservatives have distinct guiding principles. Even libertarians have a main guiding principle, the non-aggression principle, which condemns wanton aggression or infringements of rights but also permits defensive measures. Liberals just don’t subscribe to principles, just appeal to emotion, wherever that leads.

This entire paragraph is filed with “emotion”…What exact principles, and ideologies that liberals expose do you disagree with that are based specifically on “emotion”? Specificity behooves your claim or its nothing but ‘opinion’

 

[HarryStotle]

This entire paragraph is filed with “emotion”…What exact principles, and ideologies that liberals expose do you disagree with that are based specifically on “emotion”? Specificity behooves your claim or its nothing but ‘opinion’

We could start with the differing views of the principle of justice that are espoused (not exposed) by liberals and conservatives.

For a conservative, justice means something like “to each what is their due.”

To a modern liberal it means "equality of outcome;” i.e., that everyone should end up with the same, no matter whether that “same” has been earned or not.

Thus, liberal jurisdictions like the city of Boston or state of California will push for voting rights for convicted criminals and/or illegal immigrants on the pretext that we are all human beings and it would be “unjust” to deprive anyone of their human rights.

Liberals forget completely the fact that for anyone to be granted a “right,” what that implies is that everyone else is responsible for ensuring that such a “right” actually obtains.

So, for example, liberals adamantly claim that women have a right to abortion and abortions ought to be funded by the taxpayer, even for illegal immigrants; completely forgetting that human beings have a responsibility to control their sexual desires and capacity for procreation. “Too difficult,” a liberal will insist. “War on women!” they cry. Purely emotional appeals.

Liberals have been very effective tugging at the heartstrings of compassion and empathy over the past few decades and accusing anyone who disagrees with their entrenched views of fascism, bigotry, inhumanity or worse. In other words, emotional battery has been an effective political tool (or weapon) wielded by the left.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Weapons wielded by the left? If that weapon is mercy, social justice, a recognition of an ever greater divide between ultra wealth and those that have not, the recognition of the fact someone’s life savings can be wiped out with one major medical catastrophe, subsidiarity WITH the recognition some of the countries woes are too great for one state or county to handle, (put epidemics and natural disasters in this category) a distaste for authoritarianism…I’ll take it…hahaha

 

[Theo520]

You might want to check this out:

His analysis seems uninformed

Handelsblatt

All parties recognize the tariffs are a stick to get parties to the negotiating table, not a long term solution. Without them, there is no incentive for our trade partners to lower their barriers.

 

[Theo520]

Can’t imagine why anyone would think they violate subsidiarity

Subsidiarity says your citizens (family) are your prime responsibility, thus Govt has a responsibility to manage trade that can harm it’s citizens. Your neighbors are your next concern.

A balanced approach to tariffs and barriers allows both trade and some degree of protection, this benefits both trading partners. When they are imbalanced, one nation is unduly harmed for the benefit of another nation.

This Admin’s goal is to equalized the field on the level of tariffs and other trade barriers, which is definitely in the long term interest of US businesses.

Recent tariff increases are meant to motivate a renegotiation towards parity, not take advantage of our trade partners. Candidly, we have been getting the short end of the stick for a very long time and our trade partners like the good deal they’ve been getting. They are not altruists.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

Tariffs are like taxes the nations Place upon each other to balance their imports and exports. Yes, like all things, they can be used for good and bad. There is a true level of “Relativism” that we need to discern here. Does the tariffs created hurt one side taking away dignity of the civilization or does the tariffs create a balance of imports and exports?

 

[DENNYINMI]

Getting down to the brass tacks they are indeed taxes!~ The battle cry that America is getting the short end of the stick is insanity personified as one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, but through Trumps lens it’s never enough. The economy is looking good, why fix what isn’t broken…The farmers are in the cross hairs of his trade war…who is going to pay for the exorbitant price of soy beans? Trump plans to bail them out for their loss, (12 billion in aid) but as they say they don’t want a pay out, they want trade!~ Who’s to say other countries won’t look out for their own country as well and everyone’s an protectionist. Lovely eh? We all pay extra in the end, from Canadian lumbar to everything we currently import from China…(all that cheap Walmart stuff that put our mom and pop stores out of business won’t be so cheap anymore)…Who’s going to fold, and who’s going to play the game? Who knows when enough is never enough.

 

[Theo520]

Getting down to the brass tacks they are indeed taxes!~ The battle cry that America is getting the short end of the stick is insanity personified as one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, but through Trumps lens it’s never enough. The economy is looking good, why fix what isn’t broken…The farmers are in the cross hairs of his trade war…who is going to pay for the exorbitant price of soy beans? Trump plans to bail them out for their loss, (12 billion in aid) but as they say they don’t want a pay out, they want trade!~ Who’s to say other countries won’t look out for their own country as well and everyone’s an protectionist. Lovely eh? We all pay extra in the end, from Canadian lumbar to everything we currently import from China…(all that cheap Walmart stuff that put our mom and pop stores out of business won’t be so cheap anymore)…Who’s going to fold, and who’s going to play the game? Who knows when enough is never enough.

Why should the US pay twice the tax to export to the EU as they do into the US? The EU is equally wealthy and mature.

We can’t afford our persistent trade deficit, you only imagine we are super wealthy. Also, our recent trade policy has benefited the rich and primarily hurt the middle class and poor in terms of employment prospects.

Trade pre 80’s was balanced, it equally benefited the US as well as other countries, balance is critical in the long term

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

I like the shake up myself. China has played unfair by currency wars. I’m surprised we don’t impose tariffs on countries who violate our environmental, and human dignity laws (child labor). Should we use tariffs correctly, this would bring about a global balance of expectations and allow for greater respect in our import and export trade.

I’m miffed at the EU for targeting specific states that are working to end Planned Parenthood and getting in our way of accomplishing many of the social justice because they are upset at tariffs that create balance.

Brain fart here … is Russia or China better? Both countries are atheists; both violate environmental laws; both violate human dignity laws; so how did we get to do so much business with China and why is it bad to try to get into business with Russia? Seems to me that the EU is the people who have it against Russia and Our ties to the EU is what’s motivating the whole Cold War and stuff. Personally, I think a greater trade with Russia would allow more open dialogue and get us away from bad business with China.

 

[Augustinian]

Brain fart here … is Russia or China better? Both countries are atheists;

The old USSR was atheist, but I think the Russian Federation is now more or less officially Russian Orthodox, no?

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

Honestly, the media doesn’t seem to inform people on this stuff so IDK.

 

[dochawk]

The beloved US President has imposed tarriffs in good imported into the United States as a protectionist measure.

That simply is’t true.

I’m no fan of his, but he goes straight from announcing them to negotiating them away in return for dropping other tariffs.

I recall Larry Kudlow a few months ago, after they were first announced railing against them–although suggesting hopefully that maybe they were a negotiating position. (Kudlow was one of the architects of his tax plan, and is as much of a free-trade economist as I am).

In spite of his strongly worded condemnation, the next thing we knew was that Trump had called Kudlow, and a few days later Kudlow was announced as the new head of the Council of Economic Advisors.

He can’t comment directly, but there is no way he would have taken that spot if these were not about negotiating away tariffs (no trust or belief in Trump required).

So far, he seems to be succeeding, at least with regard to China (though that will go back and forth for years) and Germany.

hawk, displaced Economics professor

 

[DENNYINMI]

If you believe the middle class ‘has’ been hurt in the past (true) you haven’t seen anything yet. He may help save a few steel jobs but with the tariffs we will now be paying extra for things made with steel…as usual the middle class will feel the squeeze the most. I’m not going to argue with someone whether or not the U.S. is a wealthy nation and has gotten a lot of that wealth off of cheap labor and taking good manufacturing jobs overseas, only to be rewarded with tax breaks and a roll back on the penalty to bring it on home…No doubt about it. We are a wealthy nation. Out of 189 countries we rank 13th in wealth according to Global Finance Magazine in 2016…No sir, I don’t feel bad for U.S companies as far as being taken advantage of. They’ve had no mercy paying pennies on the dollar to overseas workers instead of fair wage to U,S, laborers which is another can of worms. BTW, Catholic teaching talks about tariffs and fair trade…tariffs can be considered when the economies of the countries involved are economically similar, how far down that list of 189 countries do we wish to trade with??? Or perhaps we can pillage them for their natural resources and call it a day. Oh. That’s right. We’ve done that already…no sir, no mercy here.

 

[DENNYINMI]

ps: EVERYTHING we need is in North America…and that includes Mexico folks…hahaha…too bad between Mexico and Canada we don’t manufacture all we need here and then deal with the who what and where of exports…making enemies with Mexico maybe not such a smart idea, eh? hahaha…instead of building that wall, fervent manufacturing would keep persons at home killing two birds with one stone. Oh well. speaking of the wall…who’s going to pay for that? haha…I know, I know…wrong thread, hahaha

 

[Theo520]

If you believe the middle class ‘has’ been hurt in the past (true) you haven’t seen anything yet. He may help save a few steel jobs but with the tariffs we will now be paying extra for things made with steel…as usual the middle class will feel the squeeze the most. I’m not going to argue with someone whether or not the U.S. is a wealthy nation and has gotten a lot of that wealth off of cheap labor and taking good manufacturing jobs overseas, only to be rewarded with tax breaks and a roll back on the penalty to bring it on home…No doubt about it. We are a wealthy nation. Out of 189 countries we rank 13th in wealth according to Global Finance Magazine in 2016…No sir, I don’t feel bad for U.S companies as far as being taken advantage of. They’ve had no mercy paying pennies on the dollar to overseas workers instead of fair wage to U,S, laborers which is another can of worms. BTW, Catholic teaching talks about tariffs and fair trade…tariffs can be considered when the economies of the countries involved are economically similar, how far down that list of 189 countries do we wish to trade with??? Or perhaps we can pillage them for their natural resources and call it a day. Oh. That’s right. We’ve done that already…no sir, no mercy here.

You seem stuck with a short term analysis paralysis. The steel tariff isn’t meant to be permanent, it’s meant to initiate negotiations that improve our current imbalanced trade deals. And so what if some products increase in price. Jobs are already being added with US producers of steel and Aluminum.

You really shouldn’t lump all companies together in your analysis. Your logic is also contradictory, if a nominal increase in material costs will sink a US manufacturer, then you should understand why they have been forced to buy offshore to remain competitive.

Your idea of giving “poor countries” a free ride on barriers without reciprocity is economic suicide. Foreign competitors set up shop where they can get the best tariff deal. With NAFTA many foreign producers set up small shops in Mexico to do some value add and then re-export to the US at reduced duties. The garment industry is all about producing low cost and then finishing where they can take advantage of tariffs.

What’s wrong with buying resources from foreign sources? That’s how most basic resources are usually traded, they are commodities… We ship coal, trona, and soybeans while other countries ship us wood etc that’s processed further at the point of use.

I urge you to read up on the theory of balanced trade, it’s a solution that benefits both countries, regardless of whether you deem that are sufficiently similar.

And Catholic teaching does not indicate that we shouldn’t have tariffs with some countries. You made that up. Getting the cheapest price at Walmart is not practicing subsidiarity

 

[DENNYINMI]

You seem stuck with a short term analysis paralysis. The steel tariff isn’t meant to be permanent, it’s meant to initiate negotiations that improve our current imbalanced trade deals. And so what if some products increase in price. Jobs are already being added with US producers of steel and Aluminum.

I got the memo, no short term analysis. His tariff is the art of the Deal and he doesn’t want tariffs, its a strategy to due away with them…However this is also a thread of candid discussion and lets just say I voted like the others that contributed to it. I disagree with it and gave my reasons…haha “Let each one examine his conscience,…Is he prepared to support out of his own pocket works and undertakings in favor of the most destitute? … Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded?” Pope Paul VI
I’ve made nothing up. Core Catholic social teaching on economics is so laden with preferential treatment for the poor, and governmental responsibility in dealing with nations of lesser wealth within guidelines of fair trading practice’s that I would need months to copy and paste them.