Wrong approach. Tariffs are best used to protect new industries and those where we need to stay competitive not apply tariffs on everything.. plus this invites other countries to impose tariffs on all US goods they import.. if we all impose tariffs we are all worse off.
There are ways to encourage domestic production and good factory jobs that are more effective than tariffs which ignore the many ways the global economy has changed in the pat 50+ years. A prime one would be to reduce permitting costs. It's far less sexy, but would be more likely to achieve your goal without the cost that American consumers would bear with your preferred policy.
It will take some amount of time to rebuild & retool US manufacturing. That’s what build back better is aimed at. Adding tariffs before manufacturing has returned will just add to inflation and unaffordable goods for many Americans. One step might be for creation of a curated site of Made-in-America products so that it would be easy to support American manufacturing.
It's got to be obvious if we do an across-the-board tariff that many of them will have a negative effect, full stop. It's a cute and simple idea (how we love cute and simple) but not very well thought out. It's not wise or intelligent to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Yes, tariffs will cause higher prices in the USA. That's OK with me but not with vox populi. Not for a NY minute. Too many make decisions to vote based solely on prices. That's horribly short sighted, but then, we are not known for our long term planning (witness Ashville NC now).
I say Jared is desperate for votes and the 2nd district is full of those whose short-sightedness will go for tariffs -- not based on a deep understanding but rather the simple, easy "fix". Y'all are in for a surprise if any president/congress goes down that path. Economics is not simple. You'll see.
The laws of unintended consequences are just awaiting their opportunity to prove it to you.
Representative Golden. I understand the seeming attractiveness of an embargo such as you describe. Having good, well paying jobs here in Maine of course should be everyone's goal. However, there is little to no evidence that in modern day economies that embargoes significantly grow local industry. Rather, consumers will end up paying higher prices for goods and services. I know constituents implore you to do "something". There are no simple answers and this is one that ill NOT in the long run improve our economy or our society.
Expose companies which ship jobs overseas to maximize profits. A tariff won't bother them when they pay so little to produce what we buy. Buying American needs to be a Patriotic movement . The same with employing Americans. Tariffs will only worsen the problem for those who can't afford the cost of living already.
In 1979, several of my friends worked for Intel in silicon valley. One Saturday, they took me on a tour of the building where they were manufacturing chips. It was a clean room and everyone was wearing white gowns and head coverings. They were also wearing masks. This was their only chip manufacturing facility even though they were adding a second facility in Oregon. That facility has long since closed and most chip manufacturing is done off-shore.
Intel and Amdahl and the other manufacturers didn't move their manufacturing off shore so they could save 10% on their chips. The savings were far greater. And the chip manufacturers wouldn't be moving back on-shore if the Federal government wasn't subsidizing the construction of the chip manufacturing facilities.
Another brief story. In the early 1990's my brother-in-law owned two factories that manufactured clothing for the various brands. They had over one hundred seamstresses between the factories in rural North Carolina and a small town in New York. Walmart came to them and told them they could buy each piece of clothing for way below my brother-in-laws cost. So he declared bankruptcy, lost his business and laid off 100 workers.
This story is hardly unique. Whether it's steel or diapers a 10% tariff isn't going to be enough to encourage someone to spend several hundred thousand dollars on equipment so they can compete against China and dozens of other 3rd world countries.
Since Biden took office almost 800,000 manufacturing jobs have been added in the US. Some of these jobs need to be protected with tariffs perhaps but to charge a 10% tariff on all imported goods is not the only answer and maybe not the answer at all.
How about providing free childcare to manufacturing facilities. Prudential UK has a huge office in Okomos, MI that has a child care facility on site.
Or how about raising the income tax on those making more than $1 million per year to subsidize manufacturing.
We need to look at each industry to determine if a tariff makes sense or whether additional capital would make their production more feasible. For instance, why aren't meatpacking plants more automated? Automobile manufacturing has reduced the amount of man hours to build each vehicle. One cow may be slightly different than the next, but much of the meat packing production could be automated.
I don't think the use of the word "cheap" is appropriate if the Congressman is using it as a synonym for inexpensive. I am glad we treat our workers better than China or Pakistan or VietNam. But to do so requires us to pay workers a living wage. Morally that is essential.
I have spent 45 years as a computer programmer/analyst/consultant working mostly for life insurance companies. They manufacture life insurance, disability income, annuities and other financial instruments. The company I work for has almost 700 employees that are all paid a living wage. We don't consider this manufacturing but why not?
I don't believe an across the board tariff on imported goods is the answer. What about champagne? It is a luxury good and a 10% tariff means nothing the someone who is used to paying over $75 a bottle anyway. Let's not do this.
Dear Jared, Tariffs don't work. As many have already posted, tariffs will increase the cost of goods to US consumers. AND the US will see retaliatory tariffs placed on US goods that are exported. Many multinational US companies use parts engineered in other countries but that are brought back to the US to complete the manufacturing process... seatbelts for example are made in Japan and those made there are used in almost every vehicle made in this country. India manufactures most of the antibiotics that are no longer on patent. A 10% tariff will increase the cost of drugs for people. US citizens at the lower end of the income spectrum pay a greater percentage of their income on goods and services and they will be hurt by this action. The US is better served to support initiatives to persuade foreign manufacturers to build plants here in this country. I would rather encourage more manufacturing here in the US whether it be US incorporated companies or foreign companies. We do need to build chip factories. Almost all the tech companies rely on Taiwan Semiconductor to be the foundry that builds their chips. If China decides to go after Taipai, the adverse ripple effect to US manufacturers will be felt immediately and could cripple many businesses. So instead of tariffs, look to build semiconductor factories here.
This will hurt my business. Our product comes from Mexico. There is no similiar product in my price range in the USA. I have tried to find manufacturers in the USA . I agree with the writer below, apply tariffs where needed to protect US companys who are being undercut with foreign government subsidies.
I am in manufacturing. There are items I source from US suppliers that are competitive. There are others that just are not. 10% increase in cost will only affect the most marginal of sources for me and I can just pass that along to consumers. Instead of this very poor proposal, how about some deeper examination of where the jobs went and why those jobs went there. Do we really want them back? Are the services we produce more valuable than the items we manufacture?
Here are 5 ideas that would jumpstart manufacturing-
Remove and replace the Jones Act with a modern shipping legislation.
Break up the monopolies and oligopolies like Boeing.
Reduce power prices through an all of the above strategy on sourcing and distribution.
Reduce tariffs on intermediate goods- thereby allowing manufacturers to be more competitive.
Have an immigration policy that makes sense. So many people from around the world would add to the labor pool and increase demand domestically. It’s like importing consumers and producers all at once.
I completely disagree. Across the board tariffs are a very bad idea. They will hurt your constituents. You should go on Fox News and tell everyone that across the board tariffs will hurt your constituents. And then you should forget the idea ever came from you. Otherwise they will punish you severely.
Jared has proven that he does not listen to his constituents when he thinks HIS idea is the only right one. Just look at his track record on holding town halls, which he promised to do before he was elected, but hasn't for years. I'm part of a committed group that meets and communicates with his office regularly; he won't engage in dialogue and refuses to consider alternatives. He believes that Robert Lighthizer is the ultimate expert on economics. LOOK HIM UP! He is damned scary and a bit crazy.
Jared doesn't believe all of the Nobel prize winning economists who warn against the tariff scheme that he and 45 support. He is both arrogant and naive. I expect him to change parties after the election, if he wins. I am voting for him ONLY because we need to flip the House to Democrats, and will be holding my nose very hard.
Wrong approach. Tariffs are best used to protect new industries and those where we need to stay competitive not apply tariffs on everything.. plus this invites other countries to impose tariffs on all US goods they import.. if we all impose tariffs we are all worse off.
Precisely.
Here are the facts about the Biden Administration tariffs on China, which articulate the very specific reasons for targeting specific products. Your OpEd misrepresents the facts about these tariffs and the ways in which they (targeted) changes improve U.S. interests in green manufacturing and job growth locally. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-action-to-protect-american-workers-and-businesses-from-chinas-unfair-trade-practices/#:~:text=To%20encourage%20China%20to%20eliminate,solar%20cells%2C%20ship%2Dto%2D.
There are ways to encourage domestic production and good factory jobs that are more effective than tariffs which ignore the many ways the global economy has changed in the pat 50+ years. A prime one would be to reduce permitting costs. It's far less sexy, but would be more likely to achieve your goal without the cost that American consumers would bear with your preferred policy.
It will take some amount of time to rebuild & retool US manufacturing. That’s what build back better is aimed at. Adding tariffs before manufacturing has returned will just add to inflation and unaffordable goods for many Americans. One step might be for creation of a curated site of Made-in-America products so that it would be easy to support American manufacturing.
It's got to be obvious if we do an across-the-board tariff that many of them will have a negative effect, full stop. It's a cute and simple idea (how we love cute and simple) but not very well thought out. It's not wise or intelligent to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Yes, tariffs will cause higher prices in the USA. That's OK with me but not with vox populi. Not for a NY minute. Too many make decisions to vote based solely on prices. That's horribly short sighted, but then, we are not known for our long term planning (witness Ashville NC now).
I say Jared is desperate for votes and the 2nd district is full of those whose short-sightedness will go for tariffs -- not based on a deep understanding but rather the simple, easy "fix". Y'all are in for a surprise if any president/congress goes down that path. Economics is not simple. You'll see.
The laws of unintended consequences are just awaiting their opportunity to prove it to you.
You may be right but you needn't be smug.
Representative Golden. I understand the seeming attractiveness of an embargo such as you describe. Having good, well paying jobs here in Maine of course should be everyone's goal. However, there is little to no evidence that in modern day economies that embargoes significantly grow local industry. Rather, consumers will end up paying higher prices for goods and services. I know constituents implore you to do "something". There are no simple answers and this is one that ill NOT in the long run improve our economy or our society.
Expose companies which ship jobs overseas to maximize profits. A tariff won't bother them when they pay so little to produce what we buy. Buying American needs to be a Patriotic movement . The same with employing Americans. Tariffs will only worsen the problem for those who can't afford the cost of living already.
Dear Congressman Golden, I do hope after reading the comments you reconsider your proposal and withdraw it.
In 1979, several of my friends worked for Intel in silicon valley. One Saturday, they took me on a tour of the building where they were manufacturing chips. It was a clean room and everyone was wearing white gowns and head coverings. They were also wearing masks. This was their only chip manufacturing facility even though they were adding a second facility in Oregon. That facility has long since closed and most chip manufacturing is done off-shore.
Intel and Amdahl and the other manufacturers didn't move their manufacturing off shore so they could save 10% on their chips. The savings were far greater. And the chip manufacturers wouldn't be moving back on-shore if the Federal government wasn't subsidizing the construction of the chip manufacturing facilities.
Another brief story. In the early 1990's my brother-in-law owned two factories that manufactured clothing for the various brands. They had over one hundred seamstresses between the factories in rural North Carolina and a small town in New York. Walmart came to them and told them they could buy each piece of clothing for way below my brother-in-laws cost. So he declared bankruptcy, lost his business and laid off 100 workers.
This story is hardly unique. Whether it's steel or diapers a 10% tariff isn't going to be enough to encourage someone to spend several hundred thousand dollars on equipment so they can compete against China and dozens of other 3rd world countries.
Since Biden took office almost 800,000 manufacturing jobs have been added in the US. Some of these jobs need to be protected with tariffs perhaps but to charge a 10% tariff on all imported goods is not the only answer and maybe not the answer at all.
How about providing free childcare to manufacturing facilities. Prudential UK has a huge office in Okomos, MI that has a child care facility on site.
Or how about raising the income tax on those making more than $1 million per year to subsidize manufacturing.
We need to look at each industry to determine if a tariff makes sense or whether additional capital would make their production more feasible. For instance, why aren't meatpacking plants more automated? Automobile manufacturing has reduced the amount of man hours to build each vehicle. One cow may be slightly different than the next, but much of the meat packing production could be automated.
I don't think the use of the word "cheap" is appropriate if the Congressman is using it as a synonym for inexpensive. I am glad we treat our workers better than China or Pakistan or VietNam. But to do so requires us to pay workers a living wage. Morally that is essential.
I have spent 45 years as a computer programmer/analyst/consultant working mostly for life insurance companies. They manufacture life insurance, disability income, annuities and other financial instruments. The company I work for has almost 700 employees that are all paid a living wage. We don't consider this manufacturing but why not?
I don't believe an across the board tariff on imported goods is the answer. What about champagne? It is a luxury good and a 10% tariff means nothing the someone who is used to paying over $75 a bottle anyway. Let's not do this.
We should all begin by buying USA made products whenever possible. The cheapest foreign products should not be our first choice.
Dear Jared, Tariffs don't work. As many have already posted, tariffs will increase the cost of goods to US consumers. AND the US will see retaliatory tariffs placed on US goods that are exported. Many multinational US companies use parts engineered in other countries but that are brought back to the US to complete the manufacturing process... seatbelts for example are made in Japan and those made there are used in almost every vehicle made in this country. India manufactures most of the antibiotics that are no longer on patent. A 10% tariff will increase the cost of drugs for people. US citizens at the lower end of the income spectrum pay a greater percentage of their income on goods and services and they will be hurt by this action. The US is better served to support initiatives to persuade foreign manufacturers to build plants here in this country. I would rather encourage more manufacturing here in the US whether it be US incorporated companies or foreign companies. We do need to build chip factories. Almost all the tech companies rely on Taiwan Semiconductor to be the foundry that builds their chips. If China decides to go after Taipai, the adverse ripple effect to US manufacturers will be felt immediately and could cripple many businesses. So instead of tariffs, look to build semiconductor factories here.
This will hurt my business. Our product comes from Mexico. There is no similiar product in my price range in the USA. I have tried to find manufacturers in the USA . I agree with the writer below, apply tariffs where needed to protect US companys who are being undercut with foreign government subsidies.
Mr. Representative Golden,
I am in manufacturing. There are items I source from US suppliers that are competitive. There are others that just are not. 10% increase in cost will only affect the most marginal of sources for me and I can just pass that along to consumers. Instead of this very poor proposal, how about some deeper examination of where the jobs went and why those jobs went there. Do we really want them back? Are the services we produce more valuable than the items we manufacture?
Here are 5 ideas that would jumpstart manufacturing-
Remove and replace the Jones Act with a modern shipping legislation.
Break up the monopolies and oligopolies like Boeing.
Reduce power prices through an all of the above strategy on sourcing and distribution.
Reduce tariffs on intermediate goods- thereby allowing manufacturers to be more competitive.
Have an immigration policy that makes sense. So many people from around the world would add to the labor pool and increase demand domestically. It’s like importing consumers and producers all at once.
Let’s be clear, tariffs are another form of hidden taxation passed onto consumers
I completely disagree. Across the board tariffs are a very bad idea. They will hurt your constituents. You should go on Fox News and tell everyone that across the board tariffs will hurt your constituents. And then you should forget the idea ever came from you. Otherwise they will punish you severely.
Jared has proven that he does not listen to his constituents when he thinks HIS idea is the only right one. Just look at his track record on holding town halls, which he promised to do before he was elected, but hasn't for years. I'm part of a committed group that meets and communicates with his office regularly; he won't engage in dialogue and refuses to consider alternatives. He believes that Robert Lighthizer is the ultimate expert on economics. LOOK HIM UP! He is damned scary and a bit crazy.
Jared doesn't believe all of the Nobel prize winning economists who warn against the tariff scheme that he and 45 support. He is both arrogant and naive. I expect him to change parties after the election, if he wins. I am voting for him ONLY because we need to flip the House to Democrats, and will be holding my nose very hard.