7 ms·

NO!! Don't you understand?? Yes, we'll suffer for 50 years, BUT in that time the supply chain will be created in the U.S. and our grandkids and their children

NO!! Don't you understand?? Yes, we'll suffer for 50 years, BUT in that time the supply chain will be created in the U.S. and our grandkids and their children will be able to benefit from having all that industry in the U.S. instead of China. And if I'm wrong, I won't be alive to be able to say I'm sorry to my grandkids who are now living in a barren wasteland. The best solutions are the ones you won't be around to see fail. By the way... this strategy will work as long as the entire rest of the world doesn't figure it out, keep their tariffs low, and have the supply chain move to them instead. So PLEASE don't let anyone in the EU, Africa, South America, Canada, Central America, or Indonesia see this comment! We only have to keep this secret for another 49.9 years! P.S. I'm not joking. That's is the strategy he's following.

atomi 8y ago
But isn't the reason these products are made in China because it's inherently both more efficient and cost-effective? You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway?
- HenryBemis 8y ago
  > And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway? I would assume no. If you see the packaging of almost-everything (apart from food/drinks), chances are that they are made in China (and designed in X-Y-Z country).
  - atomi 8y ago
    I think you might be right. Cars, computers, TVs seem to be big imports. But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries. We have domestic rare earth metal resources. Right now, we don't mine it here, because it's too expensive to get rid of the resulting Thorium. If there was only a market for that stuff...
      - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        The USA doesn’t mine it because refining it is economically not competitive compared to Chinese producers who give a damn about pollution laws.
        orf 8y ago
        Not sure if Trump and his appointees do either
        seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Trump is just one president against a well-established Nixonian institution. He might be able to do damage, but we won't get to China-level pollution in just one term.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? In this case yes. This is competition between nation-states we're talking about, viewing the entire relationship through the narrow lens of economic efficiency is missing the forest for one specific tree.
  - atomi 8y ago
    So then these are protectionist policies and not in the spirit of pure capitalism. And these policies are in place for "the good of the nation" as such any policy good for the nation is supposed to be a rational action notwithstanding the effects of unintended or retaliatory consequences. And lastly, we're to "trust" a single man's unilateral tariff power that all will be well. Is that all correct?
  - ravitation 8y ago
    And viewing "this" through the extremely more narrow 19th century lens of competition between nation states completely ignores the entirety of 20th century economic and geopolitical thinking.
    - civilitty 8y ago
      There's no need to bring mercantilism into "this". If you go to France, for example, most people there buy nicer clothes but less often than consumers do in the US so there is a large industry of artisans whose jobs don't depend on the global competitive landscape. Unlike in the US, these artisans make products that almost everyone has access to instead of catering to the rich/super rich. It's not a question of efficiency but desire to support local industries with livable wages - an efficiency of regional wealth distribution if you will. In this sense, France is competing for the money that the industry generates with other nation states but it's not a zero-sum game where France's gain is China's loss. Unfortunately, American consumers are unwilling to pay the higher prices such a culture requires so instead economic nationalists try to push the mercantilist bullshit in the name of protecting domestic industries and national security.
- dqpb 8y ago
  What products are "inherently more efficient and cost-effective" in China?
  - atomi 8y ago
    I think it's mostly that raw materials and labor are likely cheaper in China.
    - chrisjc 8y ago
      It's also cheaper for us not having to deal with waste and pollution. (Although i understand that it's ultimately everyone's problem)
- znpy 8y ago
  > You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? Not "other countries", just China. Now, I'm not an us citizen and I don't like Mr Trump particularly, but consider the following: when you say "less efficient" what are you referring to? Is it technology? USA are certainly not behind China on technology. So what is missing to the equation? It's labor. China is so "efficient" because of its ultra-capitalist-masked-as-communist regime. Also, you're not considering environmental impact (that the US, while not excelling at this, actually do consider). All this (carelessness of environmental impact and no freedom of thought) are basically unfair competition and Donald Trump is right on this initiative. As a left-leaning person I just cannot understand how is it even possible to accept as the norm the fact that a totalitarian regime like China's has got such a nice treatment so far. My 2¢
  - jackewiehose 8y ago
    > Not "other countries", just China. It's not just China. There's also Mexico, Canada, Europe ... I don't know exactly the current state of affairs but Trump certainly doesn't punish China because of its bad working conditions.
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    > Also, you're not considering environmental impact (that the US, while not excelling at this, actually do consider). The US is a bigger polluter (per capita) than China. The current administration at the EPA seems to view environmental considerations as hindrances to industry competitiveness.
    - yellowapple 8y ago
      The US is a bigger per-capita polluter only because the average Chinese "capita" can't afford to (or otherwise doesn't for some other reason, but knowing Chinese living conditions, I'd bet affordability is the main factor) do/buy/use nearly as many pollution-causing things as the average American "capita". As a specific example, the US is (according to Wikipedia at least) second only to San Marino in vehicles per capita (910 for every 1000 people). China is in 73rd place, with a much more modest 154. Electricity consumption is similarly different, with the US' per-capita electricity consumption being triple that of China's (despite China having almost double the total electricity consumption of the US). If the average Chinese had the same purchasing power as the average American, I can guarantee that China's per-capita pollution would skyrocket to beyond US levels.
s2g 8y ago
> Canada too late.
ljw1001 8y ago
The strategy he’s following is to throw bones to his base and make the people of the country pick up the tab. If you’re applying an economic lens here, you’re solving the wrong problem.
- e40 8y ago
  Which is all the more sad, because his base is so stupid they don't see it does them harm. Depressing!
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  This. If anyone doesn't understand why ljw1001's comment is the correct interpretation, I highly recommend Beuno do Mesquita and Smith's "The Dictator's Handbook". https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845 https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-...
  - unethical_ban 8y ago
    Is the cover for "The Innovators" a rip-off of this cover on purpose, or by coincidence? https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Geniuses-Revolution-Isaacson-2014-10-07/dp/B01K3LCHTM/ https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Geniuses-Revolution-Isaacs...
  - jpao79 8y ago
    Adapted by CGP Grey for people who don't read: The Rules for Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
- aleh 8y ago
  IMHO, the reason is not really to protect US manufacturers. It is about long-running negative balance of trade between US and the rest of the world. Protectionism rhetoric is a sugar-coat for Americans who will have to foot the bill by paying more for imported goods, but honestly, who else should? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Balance_of_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Balance_of_trade
omegaworks 8y ago
>our grandkids and their children will be able to benefit from having all that industry in the U.S. instead of China. When those products were made here, it led to toxic chemical plumes and widespread soil contamination around the factories that produced semiconductors. [1] >I'm sorry to my grandkids who are now living in a barren wasteland. Trichloroethylene contamination produces heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. You are advocating to literally produce a toxic wasteland. [2] 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-of-silicon-valley.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene#Physiological_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene#Physiologica...
- siddarthd2919 8y ago
  So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. The USA has more enforcement over these kind of things. If toxic pollution is your only concern, yes it is better to have those industries in USA.
  - omegaworks 8y ago
    >So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. Show me where I said that. Of course not. You seem to be ok with every country that hopes to participate in the technological economy having their own contaminated region. Step back for a second. Think of the earth like a single-unit closed system. Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two? Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to. You're also making the argument that somehow we'd have the political will to both institute tariffs that protect the industry AND police those industries when they harm our environment. Guess what buddy, those are contradictory ideals. The USA isn't some magical place where we can defy these incentives. Your assertion that we'd be better at managing waste here is especially fantastical considering the present EPA chairman. Scott Pruitt has undermined the protection of our environment at every opportunity. [1] 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemicals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemical...
AngryData 8y ago
I agree with the principle of bringing local jobs back, bolster our own industries to be more self-sufficient, however I think it is being done in the most disruptive and unstabalizing way possible. We should be going for a firm but gentle push, instead of swinging a sledgehammer around our heads and hoping we don't break the wrong skulls.
- squarefoot 8y ago
  To compete with China 25% tariffs are nothing. We're talking about goods costing a fraction of what is made in the western world (if they're still made at all). In the end only common people will be pissed because their full-Chinese cellphone costs $250 instead of $200 compared to the half-Chinese one which still costs $600, and not a single job will be created. To me that's pure propaganda. The irony is that to compete with China it would be also necessary a huge low cost workforce the US alone cannot provide; too bad Trump just built a wall and enacted laws to keep a good part of that workforce unavailable for hire.
- ravitation 8y ago
  Just wondering, but what does a "firm but gentle push" look like that brings "back" local jobs? "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way to solve the issues facing those that are losing jobs in declining domestic industries. It's just the easiest for a (probably) blue-collar worker to engage with and the easiest for a politician to sell, even if it's pure fantasy.
  - abiox 8y ago
    > "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way if so, what is the right way?
    - ravitation 8y ago
      Workers need new jobs, most likely in new industries. That's how it's always worked. But a coal miner learning a new skill/new skills is a lot harder for him than just getting his old coal mining job back... Unfortunately one of those (well maybe both of them) isn't going to happen. This is just as true for steel manufacturing.
carapace 8y ago
> the supply chain will be created in the U.S. Metric or Imperial?
noobermin 8y ago
People seriously overestimate the level of intent in Trump's decisions. The people who advise him might be more mindful but he certainly is not.

atomi 8y ago

But isn't the reason these products are made in China because it's inherently both more efficient and cost-effective? You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway?

HenryBemis 8y ago
> And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway? I would assume no. If you see the packaging of almost-everything (apart from food/drinks), chances are that they are made in China (and designed in X-Y-Z country).
- atomi 8y ago
  I think you might be right. Cars, computers, TVs seem to be big imports. But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries. We have domestic rare earth metal resources. Right now, we don't mine it here, because it's too expensive to get rid of the resulting Thorium. If there was only a market for that stuff...
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      The USA doesn’t mine it because refining it is economically not competitive compared to Chinese producers who give a damn about pollution laws.
      - orf 8y ago
        Not sure if Trump and his appointees do either
        seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Trump is just one president against a well-established Nixonian institution. He might be able to do damage, but we won't get to China-level pollution in just one term.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? In this case yes. This is competition between nation-states we're talking about, viewing the entire relationship through the narrow lens of economic efficiency is missing the forest for one specific tree.
- atomi 8y ago
  So then these are protectionist policies and not in the spirit of pure capitalism. And these policies are in place for "the good of the nation" as such any policy good for the nation is supposed to be a rational action notwithstanding the effects of unintended or retaliatory consequences. And lastly, we're to "trust" a single man's unilateral tariff power that all will be well. Is that all correct?
- ravitation 8y ago
  And viewing "this" through the extremely more narrow 19th century lens of competition between nation states completely ignores the entirety of 20th century economic and geopolitical thinking.
  - civilitty 8y ago
    There's no need to bring mercantilism into "this". If you go to France, for example, most people there buy nicer clothes but less often than consumers do in the US so there is a large industry of artisans whose jobs don't depend on the global competitive landscape. Unlike in the US, these artisans make products that almost everyone has access to instead of catering to the rich/super rich. It's not a question of efficiency but desire to support local industries with livable wages - an efficiency of regional wealth distribution if you will. In this sense, France is competing for the money that the industry generates with other nation states but it's not a zero-sum game where France's gain is China's loss. Unfortunately, American consumers are unwilling to pay the higher prices such a culture requires so instead economic nationalists try to push the mercantilist bullshit in the name of protecting domestic industries and national security.
dqpb 8y ago
What products are "inherently more efficient and cost-effective" in China?
- atomi 8y ago
  I think it's mostly that raw materials and labor are likely cheaper in China.
  - chrisjc 8y ago
    It's also cheaper for us not having to deal with waste and pollution. (Although i understand that it's ultimately everyone's problem)
znpy 8y ago
> You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? Not "other countries", just China. Now, I'm not an us citizen and I don't like Mr Trump particularly, but consider the following: when you say "less efficient" what are you referring to? Is it technology? USA are certainly not behind China on technology. So what is missing to the equation? It's labor. China is so "efficient" because of its ultra-capitalist-masked-as-communist regime. Also, you're not considering environmental impact (that the US, while not excelling at this, actually do consider). All this (carelessness of environmental impact and no freedom of thought) are basically unfair competition and Donald Trump is right on this initiative. As a left-leaning person I just cannot understand how is it even possible to accept as the norm the fact that a totalitarian regime like China's has got such a nice treatment so far. My 2¢
- jackewiehose 8y ago
  > Not "other countries", just China. It's not just China. There's also Mexico, Canada, Europe ... I don't know exactly the current state of affairs but Trump certainly doesn't punish China because of its bad working conditions.
- sangnoir 8y ago
  > Also, you're not considering environmental impact (that the US, while not excelling at this, actually do consider). The US is a bigger polluter (per capita) than China. The current administration at the EPA seems to view environmental considerations as hindrances to industry competitiveness.
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    The US is a bigger per-capita polluter only because the average Chinese "capita" can't afford to (or otherwise doesn't for some other reason, but knowing Chinese living conditions, I'd bet affordability is the main factor) do/buy/use nearly as many pollution-causing things as the average American "capita". As a specific example, the US is (according to Wikipedia at least) second only to San Marino in vehicles per capita (910 for every 1000 people). China is in 73rd place, with a much more modest 154. Electricity consumption is similarly different, with the US' per-capita electricity consumption being triple that of China's (despite China having almost double the total electricity consumption of the US). If the average Chinese had the same purchasing power as the average American, I can guarantee that China's per-capita pollution would skyrocket to beyond US levels.

s2g 8y ago

> Canada too late.

ljw1001 8y ago

The strategy he’s following is to throw bones to his base and make the people of the country pick up the tab. If you’re applying an economic lens here, you’re solving the wrong problem.

e40 8y ago
Which is all the more sad, because his base is so stupid they don't see it does them harm. Depressing!
killjoywashere 8y ago
This. If anyone doesn't understand why ljw1001's comment is the correct interpretation, I highly recommend Beuno do Mesquita and Smith's "The Dictator's Handbook". https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845 https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-...
- unethical_ban 8y ago
  Is the cover for "The Innovators" a rip-off of this cover on purpose, or by coincidence? https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Geniuses-Revolution-Isaacson-2014-10-07/dp/B01K3LCHTM/ https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Geniuses-Revolution-Isaacs...
- jpao79 8y ago
  Adapted by CGP Grey for people who don't read: The Rules for Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
aleh 8y ago
IMHO, the reason is not really to protect US manufacturers. It is about long-running negative balance of trade between US and the rest of the world. Protectionism rhetoric is a sugar-coat for Americans who will have to foot the bill by paying more for imported goods, but honestly, who else should? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Balance_of_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Balance_of_trade

omegaworks 8y ago

>our grandkids and their children will be able to benefit from having all that industry in the U.S. instead of China. When those products were made here, it led to toxic chemical plumes and widespread soil contamination around the factories that produced semiconductors. [1] >I'm sorry to my grandkids who are now living in a barren wasteland. Trichloroethylene contamination produces heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. You are advocating to literally produce a toxic wasteland. [2] 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-of-silicon-valley.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene#Physiological_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene#Physiologica...

siddarthd2919 8y ago
So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. The USA has more enforcement over these kind of things. If toxic pollution is your only concern, yes it is better to have those industries in USA.
- omegaworks 8y ago
  >So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. Show me where I said that. Of course not. You seem to be ok with every country that hopes to participate in the technological economy having their own contaminated region. Step back for a second. Think of the earth like a single-unit closed system. Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two? Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to. You're also making the argument that somehow we'd have the political will to both institute tariffs that protect the industry AND police those industries when they harm our environment. Guess what buddy, those are contradictory ideals. The USA isn't some magical place where we can defy these incentives. Your assertion that we'd be better at managing waste here is especially fantastical considering the present EPA chairman. Scott Pruitt has undermined the protection of our environment at every opportunity. [1] 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemicals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemical...

AngryData 8y ago

I agree with the principle of bringing local jobs back, bolster our own industries to be more self-sufficient, however I think it is being done in the most disruptive and unstabalizing way possible. We should be going for a firm but gentle push, instead of swinging a sledgehammer around our heads and hoping we don't break the wrong skulls.

squarefoot 8y ago
To compete with China 25% tariffs are nothing. We're talking about goods costing a fraction of what is made in the western world (if they're still made at all). In the end only common people will be pissed because their full-Chinese cellphone costs $250 instead of $200 compared to the half-Chinese one which still costs $600, and not a single job will be created. To me that's pure propaganda. The irony is that to compete with China it would be also necessary a huge low cost workforce the US alone cannot provide; too bad Trump just built a wall and enacted laws to keep a good part of that workforce unavailable for hire.
ravitation 8y ago
Just wondering, but what does a "firm but gentle push" look like that brings "back" local jobs? "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way to solve the issues facing those that are losing jobs in declining domestic industries. It's just the easiest for a (probably) blue-collar worker to engage with and the easiest for a politician to sell, even if it's pure fantasy.
- abiox 8y ago
  > "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way if so, what is the right way?
  - ravitation 8y ago
    Workers need new jobs, most likely in new industries. That's how it's always worked. But a coal miner learning a new skill/new skills is a lot harder for him than just getting his old coal mining job back... Unfortunately one of those (well maybe both of them) isn't going to happen. This is just as true for steel manufacturing.

carapace 8y ago

> the supply chain will be created in the U.S. Metric or Imperial?

noobermin 8y ago

People seriously overestimate the level of intent in Trump's decisions. The people who advise him might be more mindful but he certainly is not.