8 ms·

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/11/elizabeth-warren-is-not-afraid-of-tariffs-and-supports-rethinking-u-s-trade-policy https://www.salon.com/2018/03/11/elizabeth-w

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/11/elizabeth-warren-is-not-afraid-of-tariffs-and-supports-rethinking-u-s-trade-policy https://www.salon.com/2018/03/11/elizabeth-warren-is-not-afr... "I think that our trade deals have been negotiated for a very, very long time now to benefit large, multinational corporations, not to benefit the American worker," Warren added. In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" she continued, "What I'd like to see us do is rethink all of our trade policy. And, I have to say, when President Trump says he's putting tariffs on the table, I think tariffs are one part of reworking our trade policy overall." It's gonna be a long process, but necessary.

tensor 9y ago
You seem to be assuming that the US will win against the rest of the world. The world isn't entering a trade war, they are still trading like allies do. Is it smart to take on a multi-front war?
- ethanwillis 9y ago
  It's not a multi-front war actually. The EU was HOPING to be exempt from US tariffs [1]. They are in fact now exempt from tarrifs [2]. 1.) https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/03/14/european-union-questions-trumps-tariffs-hopes-exempt/423332002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/03/14/euro... 2.) http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/22/news/economy/steel-aluminum-tariff-exemptions/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/22/news/economy/steel-aluminum-...
  - akmarinov 9y ago
    Until May 1st https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-exemption-from-us-steel-aluminum-tariffs-to-expire-may-1-donald-trump/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-exemption-from-us-steel-...
    - ethanwillis 9y ago
      Right and the point of this is to have an interim period during which negotiations can begin. The EU is aware of this. “Only reasonable that EU seems to be omitted from tariffs based on national security grounds given that EU and US are close allies,” Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen wrote on Twitter. “Rather than threatening to raise tariffs against one another EU and US should work together to solve the real problem of overcapacity.” [1] There's no point in doing tariffs and just permanently exempting half of the world's supply of steel, aluminum, etc. The tariffs are definitely pointed at specific countries and to also put pressure on other countries to act alongside the U.S. 1.) https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/03/14/european-union-questions-trumps-tariffs-hopes-exempt/423332002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/03/14/euro...
OscarCunningham 9y ago
The corporation vs workers comment seems off. Tariffs on X generally help domestic X producers and hurt domestic X consumers. For most values of X, production is done by companies which are mostly owned by a small number of people, whereas consumption is done by a much broader group. So one would generally expect tariffs to help businesses at the expense of workers. And aren't tariffs usually advertised as helping American businesses? To say now that it hurts them seems like a weird change of tack.
- ethanwillis 9y ago
  So if you look into Elizabeth Warren's reasoning more one of the reasons she's pro-tariff is that China is essentially making us trade U.S. tech for market access. [1] I think the thinking is that Tariffs will be one way to keep China from abusing that. In any case I think the assumption you're making is that it hurts consumers because it destroys consumption of cheap foreign goods. But I think what you're missing is that it increases consumption of domestic goods made by domestic workers. Obviously analogies are bad for discussing the actual nuance of matters.. but think Walmart in a small town that funnels profits out of the local economy versus small town businesses generating and circulating wealth locally. 1.) http://www.businessinsider.com/r-senator-warren-in-beijing-says-us-is-waking-up-to-chinese-abuses-2018-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/r-senator-warren-in-beijing-s...
  - valuearb 9y ago
    You are missing that it makes goods cost more and people poorer. We don’t want to produce many of these goods domestically because it’s too expensive. Assembling iPhones in the US would mean more crappy domestic jobs paying near minimum wage. It would also make iPhones more expensive, not just for US consumers, but worldwide. So fewer iPhones are sold. Meaning fewer high paying design and engineering jobs at Apple, at app developers, etc. And more of those jobs in South Korea, at Samsung. Free trade is a wonderful thing that makes everyone better off in the long run. A lawyer who fires his secretary to do his own typing because he can type faster than her is a fool.
    - 9y ago
forapurpose 9y ago
Reading HN, you'd think the Dems support almost everything Trump does. But the issue is what is the U.S., via President Trump, actually doing, not what is one Senator talking about. My impression is that Trump is pushing tariffs in order to increase nationalism through conflict, i.e., to maximize divides at national borders. It's the same reason he's creating problems for immigrants, including legal ones. (I know HN doesn't like politics, but sometimes politics is factually part of the issue; if HN didn't like IP, we couldn't just omit it from a discussion of routing without being dishonest about what was going on.) Warren's comment isn't evidence that it's necessary, or evidence of anything but her opinion. Is there any evidence, such as a broadly accepted economic analysis, that it's 'necessary'? That there is a problem? What problem? How are tariffs the best way to solve the problem?
- astebbin 9y ago
  >My impression is that Trump is pushing tariffs in order to increase nationalism through conflict That’s not my impression. I perceive the tariffs as a response to the yawning trade deficit between China and the U.S., as well as China’s state-sponsored IP theft from U.s. companies, currency manipulation, technology transfer requirements for foreign companies, Party cell embedding requirements [0], and various other protectionist policies. As for evidence of necessity: the U.S.-China trade gap is hundreds of billions of dollars, on top of all that other stuff. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/command-and-control-chinas-communist-party-extends-reach-into-foreign-companies/2018/01/28/cd49ffa6-fc57-11e7-9b5d-bbf0da31214d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/command-an...
  - tclancy 9y ago
    >yawning trade deficit between China and the U.S. But why does a trade deficit between two specific economies (even the largest ones) mean anything in and of itself? And how would punitive tariffs, which are sure to be responded to in kind, help citizens of the US? If we have a trade deficit with a country, meaning we take in more of their goods than they take in of ours, how is this a good idea? I find it helpful in our current political climate to start by asking, "What if this isn't a completely new paradigm 4D game of political chess but rather idiots doing dumb things?" Given we have seen this particular game played hundreds of times in the past by similarly economically-illiterate ideologues, assuming a different result this time because It's the Future seems hopelessly naive.
walkingolof 9y ago
Most of the stuff imported into the US from China is made by US companies for US customers, seeking better margins, is it fair to say that the stock market has something to do with the current sate of affairs and less of country X trying to prey on country Y ?
AFNobody 9y ago
Tariffs are not an effective strategy (for workers or corporations) if you believe in modern economic theory. It is 100% unnecessary. The lack of political will to maintain a safety net and retrain people is the problem. Tariffs are just going to make that worse when it starts bleeding the economy.
ajr0 9y ago
Economic theory and history [0] day Tariffs are a bad idea. I like Senator Warren but this seems like an idea that will be just as painful as the least time we tried despite the differences in implementation. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_...
- tabtab 9y ago
  "Smoot-Hawley" is not relevant to our current situation because we had a trade surplus when it was passed. And trade penalties should be applied more gradually to avoid shocking markets. I agree China cheats, and we need to do something, else they will cheat more. Economic models suggest that lopsided trade is still overall good for the "loser" side, but that's in aggregate: specific sectors can still end up with a nasty hit, like the rust-belt did.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  Consider that right now, we have a huge tariff on locally produced human labor. How much does that hurt people in this country, and how big does a tariff on imported goods have to be, to be worse?
- pure_ambition 9y ago
  Theory like this deserves a thorough review. The classic example oversimplifies, leaving out many important factors - such as what happens when jobs are moved around, and where a nation's wealth is built. Classic example: America can produce 5 cars a year and 6 apples. Japan can produce 3 cars a year and 2 apples. If America devotes its energy to making all the apples and Japan does the same for making all the cars, Japan could make 10 cars a year and America could make 9 apples - so thus, there will now be 10 cars available versus 8 and 9 apples a year versus 8. So there is more product available for everyone, true, that is an undisputed fact. But several questions remain unanswered: What are the effects to the American people if making cars provided a lot of well-paying jobs to its working class which cannot be replaced? The answer is that many people are out of work; and they cannot go make apples because agriculture is heavily automated. They cannot all go to college because they don't have the money and student loans are very expensive. What happens if America spends more money on importing cars from Japan than it makes from selling apples? Is there not a net drain on American wealth? So I think classic theory about these things overlooks many important topics. It reduces a nation's health to the amount of goods that are producible between its economy and its trade partners; if more goods are produced overall then everything is better. But it does not take into account the effects of job losses or trade deficits. Edit: Might I also add that the American economy was heavily protected by tariffs throughout almost its entire development? Tariffs were significantly higher from the 1800s to the 1900s; it is only in recent decades that they have been consistently lower. Andrew Carnegie's Carnegie Steel for example experienced tremendous benefit from high tariffs on steel; the impact of his fortune can still be seen today in almost all American libraries. While the relevance of this anecdote can be disputed, it serves a valuable purpose if it gets us to question our trade dogmas.
eric-hu 9y ago
Quoting in a readable format for mobile: > "I think that our trade deals have been negotiated for a very, very long time now to benefit large, multinational corporations, not to benefit the American worker," Warren added. In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" she continued, "What I'd like to see us do is rethink all of our trade policy. And, I have to say, when President Trump says he's putting tariffs on the table, I think tariffs are one part of reworking our trade policy overall."

tensor 9y ago

You seem to be assuming that the US will win against the rest of the world. The world isn't entering a trade war, they are still trading like allies do. Is it smart to take on a multi-front war?

ethanwillis 9y ago
It's not a multi-front war actually. The EU was HOPING to be exempt from US tariffs [1]. They are in fact now exempt from tarrifs [2]. 1.) https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/03/14/european-union-questions-trumps-tariffs-hopes-exempt/423332002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/03/14/euro... 2.) http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/22/news/economy/steel-aluminum-tariff-exemptions/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/22/news/economy/steel-aluminum-...
- akmarinov 9y ago
  Until May 1st https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-exemption-from-us-steel-aluminum-tariffs-to-expire-may-1-donald-trump/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-exemption-from-us-steel-...
  - ethanwillis 9y ago
    Right and the point of this is to have an interim period during which negotiations can begin. The EU is aware of this. “Only reasonable that EU seems to be omitted from tariffs based on national security grounds given that EU and US are close allies,” Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen wrote on Twitter. “Rather than threatening to raise tariffs against one another EU and US should work together to solve the real problem of overcapacity.” [1] There's no point in doing tariffs and just permanently exempting half of the world's supply of steel, aluminum, etc. The tariffs are definitely pointed at specific countries and to also put pressure on other countries to act alongside the U.S. 1.) https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/03/14/european-union-questions-trumps-tariffs-hopes-exempt/423332002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/03/14/euro...

OscarCunningham 9y ago

The corporation vs workers comment seems off. Tariffs on X generally help domestic X producers and hurt domestic X consumers. For most values of X, production is done by companies which are mostly owned by a small number of people, whereas consumption is done by a much broader group. So one would generally expect tariffs to help businesses at the expense of workers. And aren't tariffs usually advertised as helping American businesses? To say now that it hurts them seems like a weird change of tack.

ethanwillis 9y ago
So if you look into Elizabeth Warren's reasoning more one of the reasons she's pro-tariff is that China is essentially making us trade U.S. tech for market access. [1] I think the thinking is that Tariffs will be one way to keep China from abusing that. In any case I think the assumption you're making is that it hurts consumers because it destroys consumption of cheap foreign goods. But I think what you're missing is that it increases consumption of domestic goods made by domestic workers. Obviously analogies are bad for discussing the actual nuance of matters.. but think Walmart in a small town that funnels profits out of the local economy versus small town businesses generating and circulating wealth locally. 1.) http://www.businessinsider.com/r-senator-warren-in-beijing-says-us-is-waking-up-to-chinese-abuses-2018-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/r-senator-warren-in-beijing-s...
- valuearb 9y ago
  You are missing that it makes goods cost more and people poorer. We don’t want to produce many of these goods domestically because it’s too expensive. Assembling iPhones in the US would mean more crappy domestic jobs paying near minimum wage. It would also make iPhones more expensive, not just for US consumers, but worldwide. So fewer iPhones are sold. Meaning fewer high paying design and engineering jobs at Apple, at app developers, etc. And more of those jobs in South Korea, at Samsung. Free trade is a wonderful thing that makes everyone better off in the long run. A lawyer who fires his secretary to do his own typing because he can type faster than her is a fool.
  - 9y ago

forapurpose 9y ago

Reading HN, you'd think the Dems support almost everything Trump does. But the issue is what is the U.S., via President Trump, actually doing, not what is one Senator talking about. My impression is that Trump is pushing tariffs in order to increase nationalism through conflict, i.e., to maximize divides at national borders. It's the same reason he's creating problems for immigrants, including legal ones. (I know HN doesn't like politics, but sometimes politics is factually part of the issue; if HN didn't like IP, we couldn't just omit it from a discussion of routing without being dishonest about what was going on.) Warren's comment isn't evidence that it's necessary, or evidence of anything but her opinion. Is there any evidence, such as a broadly accepted economic analysis, that it's 'necessary'? That there is a problem? What problem? How are tariffs the best way to solve the problem?

astebbin 9y ago
>My impression is that Trump is pushing tariffs in order to increase nationalism through conflict That’s not my impression. I perceive the tariffs as a response to the yawning trade deficit between China and the U.S., as well as China’s state-sponsored IP theft from U.s. companies, currency manipulation, technology transfer requirements for foreign companies, Party cell embedding requirements [0], and various other protectionist policies. As for evidence of necessity: the U.S.-China trade gap is hundreds of billions of dollars, on top of all that other stuff. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/command-and-control-chinas-communist-party-extends-reach-into-foreign-companies/2018/01/28/cd49ffa6-fc57-11e7-9b5d-bbf0da31214d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/command-an...
- tclancy 9y ago
  >yawning trade deficit between China and the U.S. But why does a trade deficit between two specific economies (even the largest ones) mean anything in and of itself? And how would punitive tariffs, which are sure to be responded to in kind, help citizens of the US? If we have a trade deficit with a country, meaning we take in more of their goods than they take in of ours, how is this a good idea? I find it helpful in our current political climate to start by asking, "What if this isn't a completely new paradigm 4D game of political chess but rather idiots doing dumb things?" Given we have seen this particular game played hundreds of times in the past by similarly economically-illiterate ideologues, assuming a different result this time because It's the Future seems hopelessly naive.

walkingolof 9y ago

Most of the stuff imported into the US from China is made by US companies for US customers, seeking better margins, is it fair to say that the stock market has something to do with the current sate of affairs and less of country X trying to prey on country Y ?

AFNobody 9y ago

Tariffs are not an effective strategy (for workers or corporations) if you believe in modern economic theory. It is 100% unnecessary. The lack of political will to maintain a safety net and retrain people is the problem. Tariffs are just going to make that worse when it starts bleeding the economy.

ajr0 9y ago

Economic theory and history [0] day Tariffs are a bad idea. I like Senator Warren but this seems like an idea that will be just as painful as the least time we tried despite the differences in implementation. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_...

tabtab 9y ago
"Smoot-Hawley" is not relevant to our current situation because we had a trade surplus when it was passed. And trade penalties should be applied more gradually to avoid shocking markets. I agree China cheats, and we need to do something, else they will cheat more. Economic models suggest that lopsided trade is still overall good for the "loser" side, but that's in aggregate: specific sectors can still end up with a nasty hit, like the rust-belt did.
SamReidHughes 9y ago
Consider that right now, we have a huge tariff on locally produced human labor. How much does that hurt people in this country, and how big does a tariff on imported goods have to be, to be worse?
pure_ambition 9y ago
Theory like this deserves a thorough review. The classic example oversimplifies, leaving out many important factors - such as what happens when jobs are moved around, and where a nation's wealth is built. Classic example: America can produce 5 cars a year and 6 apples. Japan can produce 3 cars a year and 2 apples. If America devotes its energy to making all the apples and Japan does the same for making all the cars, Japan could make 10 cars a year and America could make 9 apples - so thus, there will now be 10 cars available versus 8 and 9 apples a year versus 8. So there is more product available for everyone, true, that is an undisputed fact. But several questions remain unanswered: What are the effects to the American people if making cars provided a lot of well-paying jobs to its working class which cannot be replaced? The answer is that many people are out of work; and they cannot go make apples because agriculture is heavily automated. They cannot all go to college because they don't have the money and student loans are very expensive. What happens if America spends more money on importing cars from Japan than it makes from selling apples? Is there not a net drain on American wealth? So I think classic theory about these things overlooks many important topics. It reduces a nation's health to the amount of goods that are producible between its economy and its trade partners; if more goods are produced overall then everything is better. But it does not take into account the effects of job losses or trade deficits. Edit: Might I also add that the American economy was heavily protected by tariffs throughout almost its entire development? Tariffs were significantly higher from the 1800s to the 1900s; it is only in recent decades that they have been consistently lower. Andrew Carnegie's Carnegie Steel for example experienced tremendous benefit from high tariffs on steel; the impact of his fortune can still be seen today in almost all American libraries. While the relevance of this anecdote can be disputed, it serves a valuable purpose if it gets us to question our trade dogmas.

eric-hu 9y ago

Quoting in a readable format for mobile: > "I think that our trade deals have been negotiated for a very, very long time now to benefit large, multinational corporations, not to benefit the American worker," Warren added. In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" she continued, "What I'd like to see us do is rethink all of our trade policy. And, I have to say, when President Trump says he's putting tariffs on the table, I think tariffs are one part of reworking our trade policy overall."