In today's Mises Daily, there is an article by Gary North on Merchantilism: http://mises.org/daily/6098/Free-Trade-The-Litmus-Test-of-Economics
Towards the end, he makes a statement that confuses me. He says, "Anyone who promotes a tariff is a mercantilist, unless he is also calling for the abolition of the federal income tax and any national sales tax."
I am confused because I thought anyone that advocates tariffs is a mercantilist, period. So, my question is: what is a person that advocates tariffs and the abolition of the federal income tax and any national sales tax, and why?
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
I believe that North is simply establishing a distinction between levying tariffs for the sake of revenue in the place of presumably less market-friendly taxes like income or sales taxes as opposed to protecting export industries. I understand why the point can be confusing, though; couldn't someone advocate the abolition of every tax except tarrifs and still be a consistent mercantilist, i.e. impose import restrictions, subsidize domestic exporting firms, establish cartels, etc.?
I think the author is trying to say that you are a mercantilist if you advocate tariffs EXCEPT when advocating the use of tariffs as a means to get rid of the income, sales and other taxes. This is a reference to the Pre-16th Ammendment USA when the only mechanism the Federal Government had to raise money was a general tariff. And because of that constraint, the Federal Government was quite small. Lincoln actually started the War of Northern Aggression by enacting a tariff and using troops to protect the Ft Sumpter tariff collection office.
"...promotes a tariff,... is also calling for the abolition of the federal income tax and any national sales tax."
...is basically Ron Paul's position. I'm sure the author was just covering his bases.
"...promotes a tariff,... is also calling for the abolition of the federal income tax and any national sales tax." ...is basically Ron Paul's position. I'm sure the author was just covering his bases. I cannot recall Ron Paul ever advocating tariffs, ever. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul21.html Not saying that he would be absolutely opposed to tariffs if government spending was cut drastically and, as Bogart pointed out, as replacements for any income tax or sales tax on the federal level, because it may help stifle the growth of government. However, Ron Paul has always seemed to have a very powerful grasp on the concepts of free markets and economics, and has also seemed to always advocate for free markets without compromise. The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds. | Post Points: 20
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul21.html
Not saying that he would be absolutely opposed to tariffs if government spending was cut drastically and, as Bogart pointed out, as replacements for any income tax or sales tax on the federal level, because it may help stifle the growth of government. However, Ron Paul has always seemed to have a very powerful grasp on the concepts of free markets and economics, and has also seemed to always advocate for free markets without compromise.
"Not saying that he would be absolutely opposed to tariffs if government spending was cut drastically and, as Bogart pointed out, as replacements for any income tax or sales tax on the federal level, because it may help stifle the growth of government. However, Ron Paul has always seemed to have a very powerful grasp on the concepts of free markets and economics, and has also seemed to always advocate for free markets without compromise."
Discovering the problem with the minarchist vision you are.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
So I am a "minarchist vision" because I don't recall Ron Paul advocating tariffs, ever, or is it because I have the impression that Ron Paul understands and believes in free markets?
I do not advocate taxes (income, sales, or otherwise) nor tariffs, price controls, or quotas. I don't believe the existence of the state is moral or legitimate because the state is, by definition, the use or threat of use of force, which I reject.
Or do I misunderstand what you are trying to say, @Andrew Cain?
I think he meant, "You are discovering the problem with the minarchist vision."
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Ah, I see. If that's the case, I apologize for misunderstanding you Andrew Cain. Yes, I have to say, when I first heard about Ron Paul, I liked his ideas. I was what one might call a constitutionalist, or more generally, a minarchist. He got me interested in history, politics, and most importantly, economics. Of course, upon reading his books, and the books and authors he recommended, I began to see the true problem with government. That's why I think, like others do, I'm sure, he is truly a voluntarist, ancap, or whatever name you'd like to call it. However, because the term "anarchy" turns so many people off automatically, I think he advocates free markets and tries to point people in the right direction so that they might discover it on their own. And his adherence to the Constitution, at least as I see it, is honoring his oath of office, and quite possibly quietly pointing out that government can't even stay within very simple boundaries, to highlight the hypocrisy of government and their army of bureaucrats.
But yes, maybe the Gary North was trying to say that a mercantilist advocates tariffs for economic reasons. If that's the case, I suppose I'm not confused about that statement. I did really enjoy that piece!