Should states enact tariffs on each other?

[Michael Cole]

A semi-serious thread, but a serious subject, that being economics, free trade and law.

Each state has comparative/relative advantages. Geography being the most obvious. Florida has a comparative advantage over California to orange buyers in Illinois, simply because of shipping costs.

Some states may have an absolute advantage in some industries. Nevada is the only state producing lithium. A business in any other state that purchases lithium must buy from Nevada.

So, I'll start with a basic proposal, and we'll see where it goes. The point is to put international trade into a national box, in the hope that some will see the economy from a different perspective.

What would be the result of California putting tariffs on Illinois "exports" demanding it buy oranges from the state?

Would Nevada be wise to manipulate other states by putting surcharges on all the lithium it exports? Both punishing and rewarding states as they reject or accept the offers? I mean, it would be helpful to the state if New Jersey (and the others) made gambling illegal. Globetek, of Northvale, NJ, is a manufacturer of lithium-ion batteries. Nevadans don't need New Jersey to make their batteries. Right?

This is the model Trump has presented us. If international free trade is harmful to the country, then interstate free trade should be as well.

Of course, any sane response will note the silliness of the thread and thus prove the silliness of Trump. The free trade boat isn't coming back to shore, as it shouldn't. There's a reason the conservative position is free international trade; because conservatives are pro-economic growth fueled by the private sector. Trump's vision of isolationism is about as dumb as putting tariffs on lithium in a state that manufactures batteries. Trump's economics are archaic. They are certainly not conservative.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes...this is a silly thread.

Interstate commerce does not equal international commerce.

/thread

 

[daeler]

A semi-serious thread, but a serious subject, that being economics, free trade and law.

Each state has comparative/relative advantages. Geography being the most obvious. Florida has a comparative advantage over California to orange buyers in Illinois, simply because of shipping costs.

Some states may have an absolute advantage in some industries. Nevada is the only state producing lithium. A business in any other state that purchases lithium must buy from Nevada.

So, I'll start with a basic proposal, and we'll see where it goes. The point is to put international trade into a national box, in the hope that some will see the economy from a different perspective.

What would be the result of California putting tariffs on Illinois "exports" demanding it buy oranges from the state?

Would Nevada be wise to manipulate other states by putting surcharges on all the lithium it exports? Both punishing and rewarding states as they reject or accept the offers? I mean, it would be helpful to the state if New Jersey (and the others) made gambling illegal. Globetek, of Northvale, NJ, is a manufacturer of lithium-ion batteries. Nevadans don't need New Jersey to make their batteries. Right?

This is the model Trump has presented us. If international free trade is harmful to the country, then interstate free trade should be as well.

Of course, any sane response will note the silliness of the thread and thus prove the silliness of Trump. The free trade boat isn't coming back to shore, as it shouldn't. There's a reason the conservative position is free international trade; because conservatives are pro-economic growth fueled by the private sector. Trump's vision of isolationism is about as dumb as putting tariffs on lithium in a state that manufactures batteries. Trump's economics are archaic. They are certainly not conservative.

There is a bit of difference between different states or cities in one country and different countries. Just because one is silly doesn't necessarily make the other silly.

Trump's ideas of Tariffs are less than ideal, while Biden used Tariffs to single out specific commodities.

 

[Integrityrespec]

A semi-serious thread, but a serious subject, that being economics, free trade and law.

Each state has comparative/relative advantages. Geography being the most obvious. Florida has a comparative advantage over California to orange buyers in Illinois, simply because of shipping costs.

Some states may have an absolute advantage in some industries. Nevada is the only state producing lithium. A business in any other state that purchases lithium must buy from Nevada.

So, I'll start with a basic proposal, and we'll see where it goes. The point is to put international trade into a national box, in the hope that some will see the economy from a different perspective.

What would be the result of California putting tariffs on Illinois "exports" demanding it buy oranges from the state?

Would Nevada be wise to manipulate other states by putting surcharges on all the lithium it exports? Both punishing and rewarding states as they reject or accept the offers? I mean, it would be helpful to the state if New Jersey (and the others) made gambling illegal. Globetek, of Northvale, NJ, is a manufacturer of lithium-ion batteries. Nevadans don't need New Jersey to make their batteries. Right?

This is the model Trump has presented us. If international free trade is harmful to the country, then interstate free trade should be as well.

Of course, any sane response will note the silliness of the thread and thus prove the silliness of Trump. The free trade boat isn't coming back to shore, as it shouldn't. There's a reason the conservative position is free international trade; because conservatives are pro-economic growth fueled by the private sector. Trump's vision of isolationism is about as dumb as putting tariffs on lithium in a state that manufactures batteries. Trump's economics are archaic. They are certainly not conservative.

They'd probably end up cancelling each other out.

 

[Michael Cole]

Yes...this is a silly thread.

Thus proving the silliness of Trump.

Interstate commerce does not equal international commerce.

I don't expect you to use your brain. Trade equals trade. There is no theoretical difference between trading partners, whether they be nations or states.

/thread

/stupid.

It's a theoretical argument, Mycroft. Thank you for showing me you're way out in front of your skis. Not that I expected anything intellectual.

Do you ski, Mycroft? I have a bonus question!!!

This is a live shot from Mt. Rose-Ski Tahoe.



Decent crowd for a Monday afternoon. That resort is in Nevada.

This is Palisades Tahoe (Squaw Valley.)



Kinda dead. That resort is in California. So, the question is, since the Palisades are hurting for business compared to Mt. Rose, should California put tariffs on out of state skiing?

And here's the extra points question. No, no, not person woman man camera TV.

This is Heavenly Valley.



Nobody there at all. Heavenly Valley is in both Nevada and California. So, would tariffs be masturbatory?



You're a hoot.

/Mycroft

 

[Showtime586]

Thus proving the silliness of Trump.


I don't expect you to use your brain. Trade equals trade. There is no theoretical difference between trading partners, whether they be nations or states.


/stupid.

It's a theoretical argument, Mycroft. Thank you for showing me you're way out in front of your skis. Not that I expected anything intellectual.

Do you ski, Mycroft? I have a bonus question!!!

This is a live shot from Mt. Rose-Ski Tahoe.

View attachment 67554301

Decent crowd for a Monday afternoon. That resort is in Nevada.

This is Palisades Tahoe (Squaw Valley.)

View attachment 67554302

Kinda dead. That resort is in California. So, the question is, since the Palisades are hurting for business compared to Mt. Rose, should California put tariffs on out of state skiing?

And here's the extra points question. No, no, not person woman man camera TV.

This is Heavenly Valley.

View attachment 67554303

Nobody there at all. Heavenly Valley is in both Nevada and California. So, would tariffs be masturbatory?



You're a hoot.

/Mycroft

Skiing requires two hands to hold the poles. Mycroft only has one available hand. The other is always polishing his many statues of Trump.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just FYI ya'll.

US Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 2: "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except
what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."

WW

 

[Michael Cole]

There is a bit of difference between different states or cities in one country and different countries. Just because one is silly doesn't necessarily make the other silly.

The differences are in the laws of the respective countries. This, I agree, can be legitimate targets for punitive action. But theoretically, economically speaking, there is no difference between the advantages each hold.

If I own a furniture company, I will purchase wood as cheaply as possible (within quality requirements.) It makes no difference economically where I get the wood from.

Trump's ideas of Tariffs are less than ideal, while Biden used Tariffs to single out specific commodities.

Trump is using tariffs as threats. I'm not really sure what he's doing. It won't grow the economy. Isolationism will shrink the economy.

 

[Michael Cole]

Just FYI ya'll.

US Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 2: "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except
what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."

WW

Acknowledged, but the comparison is theoretical.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Acknowledged, but the comparison is theoretical.

...and in other words - silly. (theoretically anyway)

 

[Bighorn66]

Yes...this is a silly thread.

Interstate commerce does not equal international commerce.

/thread

Yeah. That’s a constitutional issue—ruled on once already.

 

[Michael Cole]

...and in other words - silly. (theoretically anyway)

No, theoretical as in economic theory.

 

[Questerr]

Yes...this is a silly thread.

Interstate commerce does not equal international commerce.

/thread

Pray tell, what is the real-world practical difference?

 

[EdwinWillers]

Acknowledged, but the comparison is theoretical.

I'm curious how a state would go about enacting tariffs against another state anyway? I mean - practically speaking. Does any state, for example, have border controls on all the entrance points to their state? And wouldn''t they need that to enact tariffs against... anyone?

 

[Ikari]

Interstate commerce is controlled by the federal government, States cannot just impose tariffs on other States.

 

[EdwinWillers]

No, theoretical as in economic theory.

Meaning, would it be economically feasible for a state to do that?

 

[Jay59]

Should states enact tariffs on each other?

Unconstitutional.

The Constitution is set up to prevent it.

A semi-serious thread, but a serious subject, that being economics, free trade and law.

Each state has comparative/relative advantages. Geography being the most obvious. Florida has a comparative advantage over California to orange buyers in Illinois, simply because of shipping costs.

Some states may have an absolute advantage in some induShould states enact tariffs on each other?stries. Nevada is the only state producing lithium. A business in any other state that purchases lithium must buy from Nevada.

So, I'll start with a basic proposal, and we'll see where it goes. The point is to put international trade into a national box, in the hope that some will see the economy from a different perspective.

What would be the result of California putting tariffs on Illinois "exports" demanding it buy oranges from the state?

Would Nevada be wise to manipulate other states by putting surcharges on all the lithium it exports? Both punishing and rewarding states as they reject or accept the offers? I mean, it would be helpful to the state if New Jersey (and the others) made gambling illegal. Globetek, of Northvale, NJ, is a manufacturer of lithium-ion batteries. Nevadans don't need New Jersey to make their batteries. Right?

This is the model Trump has presented us. If international free trade is harmful to the country, then interstate free trade should be as well.

Of course, any sane response will note the silliness of the thread and thus prove the silliness of Trump. The free trade boat isn't coming back to shore, as it shouldn't. There's a reason the conservative position is free international trade; because conservatives are pro-economic growth fueled by the private sector. Trump's vision of isolationism is about as dumb as putting tariffs on lithium in a state that manufactures batteries. Trump's economics are archaic. They are certainly not conservative.

Tariffs between states happened during the Articles of Confederation.

It's one of the main reasons the Articles were discarded.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm curious how a state would go about enacting tariffs against another state anyway? I mean - practically speaking. Does any state, for example, have border controls on all the entrance points to their state? And wouldn''t they need that to enact tariffs against... anyone?

Just like taxes, tariffs would apply at point of order, not based on truck inspection.

WW

 

[EdwinWillers]

Just like taxes, tariffs would apply at point of order, not based on truck inspection.

WW

Ah - good point. Hadn't thought of that.

 

[Michael Cole]

Meaning, would it be economically feasible for a state to do that?

No. I'm viewing the states in the same manner we view countries. We can cut the entities down as far as you'd like, which is kinda the point. Carson City has a comparative advantage in retail gasoline over Washoe County because of taxes. I'm sure it works to bring gas sales from those who commute and those who live in southern Washoe County. We can cut it down to the individual, and the economics remains the same.

The point is free trade. Here, this should help.

Trump wants Canada to be the 51st state. Imagine it is and expand that thought to the other 50.

It's a simple free trade argument that has been the way of international commerce for at least 50 years. Putting tariffs on other states would be destructive, and the same effect occurs internationally.

 

[EdwinWillers]

No. I'm viewing the states in the same manner we view countries. We can cut the entities down as far as you'd like, which is kinda the point. Carson City has a comparative advantage in retail gasoline over Washoe County because of taxes. I'm sure it works to bring gas sales from those who commute and those who live in southern Washoe County. We can cut it down to the individual, and the economics remains the same.

The point is free trade. Here, this should help.

Trump wants Canada to be the 51st state. Imagine it is and expand that thought to the other 50.

It's a simple free trade argument that has been the way of international commerce for at least 50 years. Putting tariffs on other states would be destructive, and the same effect occurs internationally.

Hmm... ok, I guess. That said, Canada is not going to become our 51st state, even hypothetically. Regardless, the state-to-state tariff hypothetical a moot point anyway, as numerous others have already pointed out.

 

[Jessie C]

NO, for too many reasons to mention....

 

[Michael Cole]

I'm curious how a state would go about enacting tariffs against another state anyway?

They can't. Imagine that they could.

I mean - practically speaking. Does any state, for example, have border controls on all the entrance points to their state?

Kinda. California has bug stations on major highways. They only inspect commercial trucks that I've seen, but they do smile as they wave you through in a personal vehicle.

And wouldn''t they need that to enact tariffs against... anyone?

I'm just asking you to see Trump's economic policy regarding tariffs from another perspective. The states compete with each other legislatively, mostly through tax law and incentives. This works to attract businesses, which (typically) results in economic growth. Trump claims tariffs also attract business. Thus, if this is true, states enacting tariffs on each other should also bring business to the individual states. Do you think it would?

 

[Michael Cole]

Hmm... ok, I guess. That said, Canada is not going to become our 51st state, even hypothetically. Regardless, the state-to-state tariff hypothetical a moot point anyway, as numerous others have already pointed out.

The point is not moot. That the law prevents this doesn't alter the hypothetical.