4 ms·

>Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public) Tariffs are imposing taxes on the very businesses we're supposedly trying to save!

adventured 8y ago
Over time tariffs will spur increased domestic replacement manufacturing vs Chinese imports. If the US were primarily harming itself with tariffs, other nations wouldn't be reacting the way they are. They all know the game is up and they're all desperately looking to hold onto their advantages. US manufacturing costs are nearly on par with China at this point because of the vast inflation in costs that have occurred in China over the last 20 years, including in wages. That's particularly the case when you account for the cost of foreign transport/distribution. Chinese manufacturing will only get more expensive over the coming decade, increasing US price competitiveness (whereas there was previously a vast gap between the two, eg just as recently as 2005). It's ideal to begin competing with China using the same tactics they've been using to compete with everyone else for decades. China is no longer a tiny developing economy, they're an economic superpower and still rapidly expanding. The US should spur domestic manufacturing, by increasing the cost of Chinese products. Over time, the net benefit will be to increase domestic manufacturing and reduce Chinese imports. Worst case scenario, the US redirects trade to other developing nations, such as Vietnam, and away from China. That's also a dramatic benefit to the US, as Vietnam can never be a superpower rival.
- jayd16 8y ago
  >If the US were primarily harming itself with tariffs, other nations wouldn't be reacting the way they are. Invalid argument. You could easily have a policy that harms yourself and others.
- scroogly 8y ago
  >They all know the game is up and they're all desperately looking to hold onto their advantages. Don't knock it, that game made the US the richest country in the world. And yes, that game does look just about done right now.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    > that game made the US the richest country i think we're going through a process of reexamining the relevance of that notion. we've quite possibly optimized for the wrong variable. people in the middle class feel a weaker grip on their long-term stability. the inequality between the richest and poorest in the US is extreme. the social safety net is full of holes. a huge fraction of the US population has less than $1000 set aside for an emergency. health care expenses are simply unmanageable for many many people. and educating the next generation is also so expensive that many students can't pay back their loans.
elihu 8y ago
Something that bothers me about the whole free trade versus protectionism debate is that in any other context it's generally accepted that taxes harm the economy but that harm is offset by the services that government provides, and the argument is mostly over whether those government services are important enough to be worth the economic harm and whether there is a less harmful way to raise that revenue. However, we don't seem to talk about tariffs the same way we talk about other taxes. Trade policies are considered good if they're good for the economy and bad if they're bad for the economy. The revenue aspects tend to get swept under the rug. I wonder if this is just an example of successful marketing by large corporations (who are the ones who bear most of the cost of tariffs and trade barriers); that they've managed to get people who are otherwise fine with taxing corporations to be opposed to taxes when trade is involved. That said, I agree with Bunnie that imposing tariffs on components but not finished goods is dumb, and will hurt hobbyists and companies that assemble electronics in the United States.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > Trade policies are considered good if they're good for the economy and bad if they're bad for the economy. are you talking about increasing GDP or some other meaning of "good for the economy"? what i see is people talking about tariffs as good for a certain sector's workers or bad for consumers or safeguarding US military capabilities or something like that.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - elihu 8y ago
    I don't mean anything specific by "good for the economy", I just mean good for general prosperity, on average. (I realize that trade policies are often have winners and losers, and reasonable people will disagree on what's "good for the economy" depending on what part of the economy they care most about.)

adventured 8y ago

Over time tariffs will spur increased domestic replacement manufacturing vs Chinese imports. If the US were primarily harming itself with tariffs, other nations wouldn't be reacting the way they are. They all know the game is up and they're all desperately looking to hold onto their advantages. US manufacturing costs are nearly on par with China at this point because of the vast inflation in costs that have occurred in China over the last 20 years, including in wages. That's particularly the case when you account for the cost of foreign transport/distribution. Chinese manufacturing will only get more expensive over the coming decade, increasing US price competitiveness (whereas there was previously a vast gap between the two, eg just as recently as 2005). It's ideal to begin competing with China using the same tactics they've been using to compete with everyone else for decades. China is no longer a tiny developing economy, they're an economic superpower and still rapidly expanding. The US should spur domestic manufacturing, by increasing the cost of Chinese products. Over time, the net benefit will be to increase domestic manufacturing and reduce Chinese imports. Worst case scenario, the US redirects trade to other developing nations, such as Vietnam, and away from China. That's also a dramatic benefit to the US, as Vietnam can never be a superpower rival.

jayd16 8y ago
>If the US were primarily harming itself with tariffs, other nations wouldn't be reacting the way they are. Invalid argument. You could easily have a policy that harms yourself and others.
scroogly 8y ago
>They all know the game is up and they're all desperately looking to hold onto their advantages. Don't knock it, that game made the US the richest country in the world. And yes, that game does look just about done right now.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > that game made the US the richest country i think we're going through a process of reexamining the relevance of that notion. we've quite possibly optimized for the wrong variable. people in the middle class feel a weaker grip on their long-term stability. the inequality between the richest and poorest in the US is extreme. the social safety net is full of holes. a huge fraction of the US population has less than $1000 set aside for an emergency. health care expenses are simply unmanageable for many many people. and educating the next generation is also so expensive that many students can't pay back their loans.

elihu 8y ago

Something that bothers me about the whole free trade versus protectionism debate is that in any other context it's generally accepted that taxes harm the economy but that harm is offset by the services that government provides, and the argument is mostly over whether those government services are important enough to be worth the economic harm and whether there is a less harmful way to raise that revenue. However, we don't seem to talk about tariffs the same way we talk about other taxes. Trade policies are considered good if they're good for the economy and bad if they're bad for the economy. The revenue aspects tend to get swept under the rug. I wonder if this is just an example of successful marketing by large corporations (who are the ones who bear most of the cost of tariffs and trade barriers); that they've managed to get people who are otherwise fine with taxing corporations to be opposed to taxes when trade is involved. That said, I agree with Bunnie that imposing tariffs on components but not finished goods is dumb, and will hurt hobbyists and companies that assemble electronics in the United States.

HillaryBriss 8y ago
> Trade policies are considered good if they're good for the economy and bad if they're bad for the economy. are you talking about increasing GDP or some other meaning of "good for the economy"? what i see is people talking about tariffs as good for a certain sector's workers or bad for consumers or safeguarding US military capabilities or something like that.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- elihu 8y ago
  I don't mean anything specific by "good for the economy", I just mean good for general prosperity, on average. (I realize that trade policies are often have winners and losers, and reasonable people will disagree on what's "good for the economy" depending on what part of the economy they care most about.)