Tariff Barriers Quotes

When a nation devalues its currency, it, in effect, increases its tariffs.

We had much freer trade in the 19th century. We have much less globalization now than we did then.

Enforcing trade deals is spot on. Acting in the interest of American workers is correct. But large-scale tariffs are a terrible idea.

These agreements should be free trade. They aren’t free trade.

A lot of people believe, and I do at times, that some of our trade agreements are lopsided, and we've got to look at them. But that doesn't mean that we're going to put a tariff on everything.

As history has repeatedly proven, one trade tariff begets another, then another - until you've got a full-blown trade war. No one ever wins, and consumers always get screwed.

One thinks that one is winning when we slap tariffs or introduce barriers to imports from another country, and we think we win. But you lose when you export because the other countries are going to raise tariffs as well. They're going to introduce barriers as well. So you win with one hand and you lose with the other.

Free trade: certainly the interest of nations, but by no means the interest of certain towns and districts, which tariff feeds fat; and the eager interest of the few overpowers the apathetic general conviction of the many.

I believe China is a major trade violator. The Chinese break all the rules. They counterfeit our goods, steal our international property rights, and hack the computers of our industries and government. Something must be done about it.

Import and substituting imports with domestic production are a big opportunity. With a devaluation of the rupee, imports get expensive, and for Indian manufacturers, this creates a huge opportunity.

Ireland has never recovered from Britain's nineteenth century "free trade" rule.

The United States should adopt a protective tariff of such a character as will help the struggling industries of Europe to get on their feet.

This country needs to get a backbone and stand up for its economic interest.

While free trade purists have always rejected regional and plurilateral trading arrangements, the WTO's charter chose to be pragmatic and regarded RTAs and FTAs as building blocks of, rather than barriers to, the multilateral trading system.

The EU has made it very clear that for frictionless trade and no tariffs on goods there is a mechanism for achieving that, but there are consequences. There are trade-offs that will have to happen.

For the past quarter of a century, the predominant idea, which has successfully asserted itself at the polls and shaped the course of the government, has been to preserve the home market for the home industries. The employer and the workman have alike been taught to look at the various economical measures proposed from this point of view, to regard with hostility any step favoring the intrusion of the foreign producer upon their own domain, and rather to demand increasingly rigorous measures of exclusion than to acquiesce in any loosening of the chain that binds the consumer to them.

It has been proved again and again that we cannot, while throwing our markets open to the world, maintain American standards of living and opportunity, and hold our industrial eminence in such unequal competition. There is a luring fallacy in the theory of banished barriers of trade, but preserved American standards require our higher production costs to be reflected in our tariffs on imports.

Manufacturing value chains are global. Many U.S.-made goods have foreign components. Slapping on tariffs will raise prices and slow imports, but it will make us poorer and impede growth.

World leaders need to work together through the rules-based system of the WTO to tackle unfair practices, including the widespread dumping of steel on world markets at less than market price.

If you wish to have free access to the single market, then you have to accept the fundamental rights as well as obligation that come from it.

I ask you to protect the rights and interests of labor generally in the first place, by allowing no free imports from countries which meet you with countervailing duties; and, in the second place, with respect to agricultural produce, to compensate the soil for the burdens from which other classes are free by an equivalent duty. This is my view of what is called "protection.

Well, we don't think for a moment that either the U.S. or Australia are out to damage the New Zealand economy, but if there were a sustained period in which they had a free-trade agreement and New Zealand didn't have that same arrangement with the States, that could be both trade- and investment-distorting.

We have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade.

Exporters monitor economic and political policies to the developing world, but the consequences of that have been to make developing countries far more sensitive to the constant fluctuations. Developing countries are not always allowed to support their farmers in the same way as the U.S. or Europe is. They're not allowed to have tariff barriers. They're forced, more or less, to shrink their social programs. The very poorest people have fewer and fewer entitlements. The consequence of this has been that there's been a chronic increase in the vulnerability of those economies to price shocks.

Evidence points out that if you raise tariffs too much it will increase smuggling.