Re: Re: Re: Re: neomercantilism, trade

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxx>]

> At 07:51 PM 08/27/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >If a tariff is a tax then what were really seeing is a global
shifting
> >of the tax burden away from capitalists, but states have yet to
seek
> >compensatory increases in taxes on wages or other income.
>
> since when are tariffs taxes on capital's income? they raise the
price of
> imports, helping domestic producers, which includes both employers &
> workers. (This is why protectionism is often a reason for
cross-class
> alliances.) They only way they hurt domestic capital is by limiting
capital
> mobility (what's the point of producing with low wages &
environmental
> restrictions in the maquiladora if the cost advantage is lost to the
tariff?).
>
> Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine


===============
Well the tariff bill is paid by capital which overwhelmingly factors
it into it's labor costs and markup price[s]. So it's diffused through
the economy to consumers. So indirectly everyone who buys a tariff
addled commodity pays the tax, after capital [which has the power to
transform it's cost into a cost to others that may not have a
reciprocal power] pays the bill.

I was thinking in terms of the cost to the firm exporting into another
market as paying the tariff/tax, not it's [domestic] competitors. Yes
they may try passing the cost of the tariff onto their buyers if they
have sufficient pricing power, but they're under no legal obligation
to, nor are the buyers of their product obligated to continue to
purchase their product. Yes to the cross-class collective action
explanation. But they're just shifting a tax burden and if it's easier
for the state to collect the tax from 'foreigners' rather than risk
political instability by taxing it's own citizens, then it would
appear to be rational to do so since, no taxes no state...the
anarcho-capitalist dream.

Happy to be wrong in order to get more info,

Ian