archduke

And this way lies madness. What if the people decide the government should discriminate against some group. Under your position, this would be acceptable.

You'v made a giant leap here haven't you?
I didn't repudiate the constitutional rights and freedoms, including equal protection under the law, with my statement. I said that government should try to be responsive.

No, discrimination is against the Constitution. (1st Amendment)

A government should be responsive within the bounds of it's ruling documents, and NEVER exceed them.

I'm all for environmental protection but I also believe in a nation's sovereign right to determine what level is appropriate for them. Using environmental (and labor standards) issues as anti-trade arguments are rarely more than excuses for protectionism.

The problem is that if you want to apply high standards to industry to produce a clean enviroment in your locale, you make the local company bear the cost of the higher standard. The country exporting, with lower standards doesn't have this cost. So, in order to improve your enviroment, you legislate your businesses out of competitiveness. Wholly irational.
A level playing field would require imported products to come from factories with an ISO (or other organization) certification that it meets the standards required of the domestic industry.
Thats fair trade. Fair to your domestic industry and fair to the competitive nation as well. IF they can meet the standards you apply, they can compete. Moreover, if the goal of the local standard is to improve the enviroment - it is immoral to suggest that other people should bear the eventual cost and effects of pollution that you are unwilling to bear.
This is win win. But in the zero sum game of laissez faire trade - the domestic industry is slowly lost and the populace of the exporting country accepts the pollution that you were unwilling to deal with anymore. Then, when the domestic industry no longer exists as competition, the exporting nation often starts to raise prices and profits... You've actual worked to limit competition AND only by affecting your own domestic production and businesses...

If we somehow found a way to halt free trade, I don't believe many those off-shored jobs would be here anyway in the long run. You delay the inevitable while denying consumers both choices and lower prices in the interim

.

Yes, of course we're helpless. We can't possibly enact policies, regulation or standards to "halt free trade". Governments have the ability to enact the standards they want to trade under in any free trade agreement. They just have to ensure all parties are being treated equally.
Right now, the US often treats its domestic industries unfairly by burdening them with costs to achieve standards their competitiors don't have to achieve. Whats interesting is that this tends to end up with less competitive choice in the market place, and has proven to end up moving entire sectors out of your country. (Try and buy a toy manufactured in the US at Wal-Mart. Then try and buy a toy you are positive doesn't contain something toxic. )

As for farm preservation, why should the federal government be involved? Land-use policy is local, where it belongs

.

I think its more about the employment of the people involved in these business then land use. its more about supporting small businesses. However, for strategic security reasons, countries often want to protect some domestic production in some sectors.
What would it be like, for instance if a country depended 100% on imports for food or say oil. Imagine what would happen if unscruplous countries embargoed oil for political purpose for instance?
In the 80's even laissezz faire Reagan leapt to the protection of the domestic semi-condictor industry for reasons of national security...

b

A government should be responsive within the bounds of it's ruling documents, and NEVER exceed them.

Is anything in the Christsmas tree tax unconstitutional?

rickyp wrote:You'v made a giant leap here haven't you?
I didn't repudiate the constitutional rights and freedoms, including equal protection under the law, with my statement. I said that government should try to be responsive.

Not at all. You have claim the position that government is what the people want.

Let us hypothesis another terrorist event in the U.S. that is 10 fold worse then 9/11 and the people wish the government to quarantine all men of middle eastern ethnicity in large camps in the plains states. We have legal precedence, which has never been overturned, that this is not in violation of the Constitution (see Korematsu v. U.S. 1944).

Since the people clearly want middle easterns placed in camps, which is legal under the U.S. Consitution, it is clearly acceptable government action...... at least under your philosophy of government

rickyp wrote:The problem is that if you want to apply high standards to industry to produce a clean enviroment in your locale, you make the local company bear the cost of the higher standard. The country exporting, with lower standards doesn't have this cost. So, in order to improve your enviroment, you legislate your businesses out of competitiveness. Wholly irational.
A level playing field would require imported products to come from factories with an ISO (or other organization) certification that it meets the standards required of the domestic industry.
Thats fair trade. Fair to your domestic industry and fair to the competitive nation as well. IF they can meet the standards you apply, they can compete. Moreover, if the goal of the local standard is to improve the enviroment - it is immoral to suggest that other people should bear the eventual cost and effects of pollution that you are unwilling to bear.
This is win win. But in the zero sum game of laissez faire trade - the domestic industry is slowly lost and the populace of the exporting country accepts the pollution that you were unwilling to deal with anymore. Then, when the domestic industry no longer exists as competition, the exporting nation often starts to raise prices and profits... You've actual worked to limit competition AND only by affecting your own domestic production and businesses...

I know all about the 'race to the bottom' argument:

1) There is no empirical evidence to support it. I wrote a paper on this subject and have all the academic references, just not handy. A quick google search shows this NBER working paper, although even that is restricted. If you're interested, I can send you some research on this question.

2) Fair trade is hardly 'fair' to developing nations. Imposing our relatively stringent environmental standards on others is protectionism in disguise. It is immoral to deny development to poor nations that cannot afford our 'wealthy' standards.

Right now, the US often treats its domestic industries unfairly by burdening them with costs to achieve standards their competitiors don't have to achieve. Whats interesting is that this tends to end up with less competitive choice in the market place, and has proven to end up moving entire sectors out of your country.

No argument there. If regulations are put in place to address external costs, then they are economically justified. I believe (via executive order) that new regulations must undergo cost-benefit analysis.

(Try and buy a toy manufactured in the US at Wal-Mart. Then try and buy a toy you are positive doesn't contain something toxic. )

Strawman. Product standards apply both to domestically produced & imported products. It's an enforcement issue, not a trade issue.

I think its more about the employment of the people involved in these business then land use. its more about supporting small businesses. However, for strategic security reasons, countries often want to protect some domestic production in some sectors.
What would it be like, for instance if a country depended 100% on imports for food or say oil. Imagine what would happen if unscruplous countries embargoed oil for political purpose for instance?
In the 80's even laissezz faire Reagan leapt to the protection of the domestic semi-condictor industry for reasons of national security...

Protecting Christmas tree growers is not related to security.

rickyp wrote:b

A government should be responsive within the bounds of it's ruling documents, and NEVER exceed them.

Is anything in the Christsmas tree tax unconstitutional?

You continue to fail in the understanding...

The Government is not acting "unconstitutionally", but is giving a benefit to one portion of business, not afforded to all aspects of that business. To me that is not the fairness that is called for in all are created equal. (don't even begin to get me started on what your definition of equally is!) I would ask you if you thought it was fair to let one business get assistance and tax breaks from the government while another does not. Unfortunately, I can envision your answer. ANY benefits for one business not afforded to all is discriminatory. I feel the same about people. EVERY person should pay the same percentage, and get the same assistance to/from the government

Is discrimination against the Constitution? Yes, it is. Is every business treated the same? No, they are not. So I would have to say yes, there is something unconstitutional in the Christsmas (sic) tree tax.

The tax to one portion of an industry and not all portions do EXCEED the limits of the ruling documents of the US. Please feel free to show me where the Constitution allows taxation to be applied unequally. That is the statement that you did not answer. You questioned the constitutionality. I question the scope of the program within the Constitution. I see a distinct difference.

The tax to one portion of an industry and not all portions do EXCEED the limits of the ruling documents of the US.

Green tree farmers have requested the tax on their own products.
Could artifical manufactures request the same tax? Sure.
They choose not to. (Or, more likely havn't considered it bnecasue business is brisk and they aren't threatened with extinction.

Strawman. Product standards apply both to domestically produced & imported products. It's an enforcement issue, not a trade issue.

You're right that's an enforcement issue.
However, if enviromental standards aren't required in China but are in the US - its more likely that toxic products will be produced. Enforcement of toxic standards on products shipped in is much more difficult than going to the source of production and testing the production technique and finished product as it comes off the line.
Therefore enforcement is much more difficult on imported products like toys, requires more man power and is easily circumvented.

I'll read you link with great interest. Thank you.

Can't say I'm familiar with product safety procedures. I think you make a reasonable argument especially when it comes to tracking the problem to its source. On the other hand, I can imagine that testing product samples may be logistically easier and less costly for imports. They arrive in bulk shipments and at a limited number of entry ports. Regardless, it's somewhat of a wonky debate and I can't find much (that's readable anyway) on the issue.

slo

On the other hand, I can imagine that testing product samples may be logistically easier and less costly for imports. They arrive in bulk shipments and at a limited number of entry ports.

It depends how many manufacturing points there are, and how many different distribution points.
In the case of toys, there are many different points of entry, and many many different shipments. The percentage of imported products actually trested is infintesimally small.
On the other hand, the point of production of a product is usually limited to one or perhaps a few points.
Those points are easy for a small group of inspectors to visit and thoroughly examine, taking product off the line randomly...When manufacturers apply for ISO, UL or Other standards part of the qualification is usually a tour of the manufacturing site to ensure the product quality control is able to consistently delivr the standard of the products tested and certified. And that included repeated sampling during proiduction samples.
Mattel had lead in toys they imported, mostly because they didn't demand the manufacturers ensure that they were lead free. They did this because the chinese factories would have charged more for the products. You can't any level of quality you want from a Chinese factory. You just have to stipulate in the contract, and enforce the standard through inspection, and pay the difference for the quality. Same as anywhere. One of our posters, at one time was employed in China as a manufacturers rep and supported this in a post a couple of years ago. Can't remember who.)
I'm sorry if this is wonkish.
The point I'm making here, is that American factories that used to manufacture products didn't just have higher employment costs, they also had to apply higher standards. Corporations that moved production over seas have often been aware that besides lower cost of labout they were off loading the cost of safety, pollution and endangering product safety. And didn't care, becasue enforcement of product safety in the US is handled by a very small staff who actually inspect a vanishingly small percentage of imported products. Low risk.

As real incomes rise, their demand for environmental quality rises. This translates into environmental progress under the right conditions --

democracy, effective regulation, and externalities that are largely confined within national borders and are therefore amenable to national regulation.

Increasingly, however, environmental problems spill across borders. Global externalities include climate change and ozone depletion. Economic growth alone will not address such problems, in a system where each country acts individually, due to the free rider problem. Multilateral institutions are needed, and national sovereignty is the obstacle, not the other way around.

This is from the summary of the working paper you linked... I'm not certain that your conclusion that the rush to the bottom doesn't exist is strongly supported. See bolded parts.(Also note that the same people whoi complain abour regulation killing jobs don't beleive that the climate is warming...)
I believe we are seeing China in particular move towards greater worker protections and improving conditions. However, it isn't rushing there as quickly as manufacturers moved jobs out of the US.
In the meantime, in 30 years, US working poor have seen their real income virtually stagnant, and the middle class barely move ahead. A lot of that is because a lot of high value manufacturing has been moved. Yes, a lot of jobs are lost to automation. But the jobs IBM, Dell, Cisco etc. moved...that wasn't due to automation. And they were high pay skilled manufacturing..
I'm not sure what manufacturers are doing moving high tech jobs into areas where national govenrments don't protect their intellectual property... But surely, before they moved the manufacturing they could have demanded laws and enforcement that did this? Laws that cost American companies and your govnernment money to maintain, and enforce.
It would have served as a competitive buffer that would have protected some manufactruing in the US, but also protected technology companies from the loss of IP. Loss that has lead to an erosion of their market share in many cases...
Article in Washington Post about "regulation Killing Jobs" today. Appropos....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

rickyp wrote:

The tax to one portion of an industry and not all portions do EXCEED the limits of the ruling documents of the US.

Green tree farmers have requested the tax on their own products.
Could artifical manufactures request the same tax? Sure.
They choose not to. (Or, more likely havn't considered it bnecasue business is brisk and they aren't threatened with extinction.

You are still not understanding or answering...

Is it the responsibility of the government to tax one portion of society or one aspect of industry more?

Doesn't that lead to favoritism and discrimination?

The evergreen tree industry can raise it's prices and use the money for what it chooses to. That is what should have happened. If the tree industry wants to have a $.15 added charge for an ad campaign, then fine. I will make the choice on what to do with my money.

rickyp wrote:Often the agricultural department serves to facilitate coordinating a wide spread group of farmers into a marketing group. It doesn't cost a lot, and provides enormous benefit to the agricultural category. They can afford to advertise when they organize and set industry standards that help the product category imprive. (Get rid of the shady practices...)
Usually they grow into a self financed cooperative group and quickly leave the umbrella of the government. But until the have the organizational structure, communications and funding in place it doesn't happen. (It can happen in industry groups without government involvement, but hundreds of farmers could have a tougher time with the initial organization than say car dealers...) {lus promoting the product grows the whole category ...and an apples an apple. A trees a tree... Brands aren't usually vital in agriculture.
I'd guess that tree farmers were writing their congressmen and demanding help. And Congress was being responsive.
15 cents on a tree ? A scotch pine goes for $40.

A couple of pages ago Ricky said the above. The funny thing is that there already is a trade group known as the National Christmas Tree Association. The artificial tree people have their own group which is the American Christmas Tree Association. I'm sure there are others as well.

It isn't that the tree farmers were writing their congressmen looking for help. It is more likely that the large tree farmers were using their political clout to make life difficult for the small tree farmers. This is a good example of government / large business working together against small businesses.

rickyp wrote:neal

It would probably cost less to not even collect the tax and just throw some money at the Christmas Tree awareness campaign

.

I beleive the idea is that this will simply be the genesis of an industry marketing association. And why can't the Christmas tree sellers do that all by themselves?Well, the answer is that they are probably focussed on their business, and no single member has the time or resources to accomplish the task. The initial effort would create the marketing association, and the tax would provide the funds for the association to form, pay for expertise and organization, and then get on with the job of confronting the real villain in this. The evil, artificial tree manufactuers trying to put god fearing tree farmers out of business with their vile aluminum creations...
The tax, is really a levy from the marketing association ... There is a certain coercive element to this in that all trees will be taxed, where some libertarian sellers will demand to be let out and not participate in the association... (Of course they'll share in the benefits if the Association some how launches a sucesful marketing scheme that increase purchase of evregreens in December...)

And then Ricky repeated his assertion without any evidence to support it.