2 ms·

> United States became extremely self sufficient and eventually produced the cheapest products in the world 100 years ago > a strong manufacturing base if t

> United States became extremely self sufficient and eventually produced the cheapest products in the world 100 years ago > a strong manufacturing base if the US had a strong manufacturing base, your argument would be relevant to today The time when tariffs would have worked would have been around the time that China was trying to build up its manufacturing capabilities, as it would have made it more attractive for US companies to keep their manufacturing onshore instead of offshore. That time is long long gone.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
That would have been a good time, but actually the opposite of what America did (successfully) in the 1800s. Britain had pulled far ahead in manufacturing, and only afterwards did America institute a policy of protectionism. The result was America caught back up and surpassed Britain.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  But today's problem is a different one. American countries have outsourced their production and therefore the supply chains and even the skills needed to perform the work, have dissipated over the past decades. Bringing that back onshore is a herculean effort that some relatively minor tariffs will not fix. For that you would need sustained subsidies and much more aggressive protectionism than 25% tariffs. And a lot of American companies who can't make the switch would go out of business, not to mention the high prices in the meantime when you're supposed to be "lowering prices". Even if I was pro-Trump, I can't see this strategy working economically. And I don't think Trump does either. But it is an effective populist mantra (like Mexico paying for the wall) and the threat of tariffs can be a useful cudgel to get other countries to do your bidding--unless those countries are willing to call your bluff, which you can be sure China will (which makes them not so useful; China is willing to endure much more pain than the US, is much more willing to play the long game, and doesn't have to worry about the votes of its citizens).
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    You're asserting it's a herculean effort to onshore production. I disagree. It seems we simply disagree about its feasibility. America is a huge country full of hardworking people, and we've done it before. It's actually very possible. All the naysaying that comes from the left is so... lame. We already have onshored production (quite a bit) in the post pandemic period.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Naysaying from the US left is one thing. Active dismantling from the current US administration is another: US President Donald Trump has made it plain he’s not a fan of the $53 billion CHIPS and Science Act that funds semiconductor manufacturing and research on American soil – and now it appears he’s decided to make substantial staff cuts at the agencies that administer it. https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/19/trump_layoffs_nist/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/19/trump_layoffs_nist/ Significant cuts to CHIPS staff could hobble the agency's ability to deliver on its mission of distributing funds to subsidize the construction of semiconductor fabs in the USA and funding domestic R&D, all of which is supposed to help the country rely substantially less on foreign factories. Both of those goals had bipartisan support when the CHIPS Act passed, we note.
      - cynicalpeace 2y ago
        There are good and bad parts to the CHIPS Act. Spending $174 billion on bureaucrats to pretend they're innovating is one of the bad parts. Anyways, we were talking about tariffs. If the subject is "orange man bad" we should move that elsewhere.
        defrost 2y ago
        > Spending $50 billion on bureaucrats to pretend they're innovating isn't at all how that money was to be spent. > If the subject is "orange man bad" No, the subject is the actions of the current administration and its impact on fostering US production, specifically semiconductor fabrication.

cynicalpeace 2y ago

That would have been a good time, but actually the opposite of what America did (successfully) in the 1800s. Britain had pulled far ahead in manufacturing, and only afterwards did America institute a policy of protectionism. The result was America caught back up and surpassed Britain.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
But today's problem is a different one. American countries have outsourced their production and therefore the supply chains and even the skills needed to perform the work, have dissipated over the past decades. Bringing that back onshore is a herculean effort that some relatively minor tariffs will not fix. For that you would need sustained subsidies and much more aggressive protectionism than 25% tariffs. And a lot of American companies who can't make the switch would go out of business, not to mention the high prices in the meantime when you're supposed to be "lowering prices". Even if I was pro-Trump, I can't see this strategy working economically. And I don't think Trump does either. But it is an effective populist mantra (like Mexico paying for the wall) and the threat of tariffs can be a useful cudgel to get other countries to do your bidding--unless those countries are willing to call your bluff, which you can be sure China will (which makes them not so useful; China is willing to endure much more pain than the US, is much more willing to play the long game, and doesn't have to worry about the votes of its citizens).
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  You're asserting it's a herculean effort to onshore production. I disagree. It seems we simply disagree about its feasibility. America is a huge country full of hardworking people, and we've done it before. It's actually very possible. All the naysaying that comes from the left is so... lame. We already have onshored production (quite a bit) in the post pandemic period.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Naysaying from the US left is one thing. Active dismantling from the current US administration is another: US President Donald Trump has made it plain he’s not a fan of the $53 billion CHIPS and Science Act that funds semiconductor manufacturing and research on American soil – and now it appears he’s decided to make substantial staff cuts at the agencies that administer it. https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/19/trump_layoffs_nist/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/19/trump_layoffs_nist/ Significant cuts to CHIPS staff could hobble the agency's ability to deliver on its mission of distributing funds to subsidize the construction of semiconductor fabs in the USA and funding domestic R&D, all of which is supposed to help the country rely substantially less on foreign factories. Both of those goals had bipartisan support when the CHIPS Act passed, we note.
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      There are good and bad parts to the CHIPS Act. Spending $174 billion on bureaucrats to pretend they're innovating is one of the bad parts. Anyways, we were talking about tariffs. If the subject is "orange man bad" we should move that elsewhere.
      - defrost 2y ago
        > Spending $50 billion on bureaucrats to pretend they're innovating isn't at all how that money was to be spent. > If the subject is "orange man bad" No, the subject is the actions of the current administration and its impact on fostering US production, specifically semiconductor fabrication.