4 ms·
I'm sort of coming around to this perspective, but I think it's a bit rash. I'd like to see something along the lines of "tariffs go up 5% each year, and will
by stickfigure 6y ago
I'm sort of coming around to this perspective, but I think it's a bit rash.
I'd like to see something along the lines of "tariffs go up 5% each year, and will be dropped to zero when China drops the GFC". I don't want huge economic disruption for China or the US, but a slow disentanglement. And a clear carrot that lets them know it's not personal, the CCP just has to let its citizens talk with the peoples it wants to trade with. "Your move" to the CCP, while remaining positive about the Chinese people.
- h0l0cube 6y agoThe only motivation for policy makers to do this, is if it would appease swing voters. Voters need to be at least as interested in the human rights angle as the domestic employment angle, if we are to see tarrifs being used specifically as leverage to improve those global human rights. Otherwise, in spite of gains in redundant manufacturing capacity (great for local employment, and for national security), it's likely there would be a degradation in workers' rights domestically in order to keep costs low. In order to avoid these outcomes, workers' rights and human rights need to be something that most voters believe are important.
- snicker7 6y agoThere isn't a functional difference between a 5% tariff and a 50% tariff for most goods.
- d0gbread 6y agoWhy is that?
- loceng 6y agoThe number may be higher than 5% but it's because exponentially more and more non-Chinese competitors can outcompete more and more based on price the higher the tariffs on Chinese goods are.
- snicker7 6y agoCompetition. In a competitive and rational market, the cheapest good (of comparable quality/availability) will get 100% of the sales.