3 ms·
They're clearly thinking much bigger, like returning to a model where tariffs are the primary mode of funding the government, and nuking whole sectors/devaluing
by emodendroket 2y ago
They're clearly thinking much bigger, like returning to a model where tariffs are the primary mode of funding the government, and nuking whole sectors/devaluing the dollar to make US exports more competitive with a desperate potential workforce. Not a particularly compelling plan in my view but it has its own internal logic.
- chii 2y agowhy would tariffs make US exports more competitive? It would make other countries under tariff to retaliate, which makes US exports less valuable. Unless, of course, the US has some sort of monopoly on an export that others have no choice but to take. I dont think the US has such a resource.
- disgruntledphd2 2y agoThe US does have such a monopoly, in tech. But because that's services rather than goods, it seems to be ignored.
- toxicunderGroov 2y agoI propose ASML raised prices for US customers by 30%, and maybe give China some freebies to thank them for the panda's.
- emodendroket 2y agoSupposing they did, is there somewhere else their customers are going to buy from?
- chii 2y agoWell, you'd be glad to know that ASML is majority owned by institutional investors and a large fraction of that are US based.
- emodendroket 2y agoImport substitution industrialization is a pretty well established method to foster industries and frankly works really well for developing states (or did until the entire international system started conspiring to turn you into a pariah state for trying it). You can't export something you're not making in the first place. But it is quite unusual for a fully developed, post-industrial economy to try and move back down the value chain and manufacture more stuff again so who knows what happens when we try that.
- Aloha 2y agoBut a 25% tariff isnt going to do that, its just going to make things much more expensive - its another thing if you're trying to do cost adjustment tariffs - and just price in all the externalities (labor cost, regulatory regime, environmental rules, and human rights costs) that US manufacturing must bear - and make it a level playing field - thats not what this is.
- emodendroket 2y ago> labor cost, regulatory regime, environmental rules, and human rights costs These don't strike you as themes they're interested in? They're kneecapping or eliminating regulators and driving up unemployment. Their deportation drives, it's true, are a bit contradictory here, but those have other motivations.
- Aloha 2y agoNot particularly, no. I do think they want to create more manufacturing jobs, which in general are a better quality than service ones however.
- emodendroket 2y agoIn what sense are they “better”?
- 2y ago
- Aloha 2y agoThe issue with trying to do this is tariffs are both extremely regressive and wont generate enough revenue to move the needle. It'd be one thing if we were combining tariffs with a UBI - that can balance out most of the regressive effects of it, but we're not doing that.
- emodendroket 2y agoI don't think they care about it being regressive. Perhaps they even consider that a benefit.