4 ms·

This article illustrates how economically destructive these tariffs are for all involved. Of course those who are politically favored, such as US farmers, will

This article illustrates how economically destructive these tariffs are for all involved. Of course those who are politically favored, such as US farmers, will get a handout, everyone else gets to pound sand. I think a US recession is a given at this point, the only question is if there will also be a global recession. If Trump persists with the threatened tariffs, there will definitely be a reordering of US and global trade, but not in the way he thinks. The US will likely have lower growth and higher inflation, ie "stagflation" and the rest of the world will move to trading with itself and without the US. There will be less competition and a consequent lowering of quality and innovation in areas such as cars. It's a recipe for long term US decline.

gosub100 2y ago
.> everyone else gets to pound sand. Or the factory can build their parts here in one of our 50 great states. Turns out, Canada isn't the only place you can build a violin face rest.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  As with "I coded a Twitter clone in a weekend", this tends to be a lot harder than you might imagine.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  Extend this thinking out globally, where some of the products need factories (or entire supply chains) that take a decade (or more) to establish, and you might realize that there are some issues (at least short-term) with the "simply build it here" mentality.
  - drivebyhooting 2y ago
    I agree. But unless the incentives are changed, the US will continue to deindustrialize. Many here constantly bemoan the financialization of American companies. But that’s all that’s left after gutting the industrial capacity. Think not for one moment that Apple et al can rest on their laurels “designed in California”. China is coming for the value chain lunch.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
      > the US will continue to deindustrialize This is a fiction. The US manufactures more than it ever did, just not the same products and with less staff. The US is second only to China. This is a normal process of seeking out better markets and ceding less profitable ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...
      - drivebyhooting 2y ago
        Semiconductors? Drones? Consumer goods? EVs (soon)? Let’s not even mention that in belligerence it is the “less profitable” industries that carry the war.
- mjewkes 2y ago
  Sure, they can build it here—but protectionism doesn’t deliver long-term success. In the short term, it drives up prices and makes consumers poorer. In the long run, tariffs shield companies from global competition and limit their ability to scale. Without that pressure or opportunity, businesses grow weaker—not stronger. That weakens U.S. industry, not strengthens it.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    > deliver long-term success. Is that Wharton business buzz-speak? Did the millons of jobs lost when manufacturing was moved overseas "deliver long-term success" ? Driving up prices is ok sometimes. It makes sense when the value of the dollar is diluted thanks to inflation. People cannot afford to live anywhere, and judging by the replies, everyone here is fine with that.
- chneu 2y ago
  A lot of that will takes years to get going. Trump will nearly be out of office before manufacturing can ramp up. Add on that trump is quite literally tariffing the materials needed to expand US industry/manufacturing. The US also has a major labor shortage that trump is only making worse. How are ya gonna build a violin face when you can't hire anyone to do it? Like usual, conservatives/Republicans grossly oversimplify how the world works in order to get sound bites and convince fools that 1+1=3.
  - x0x0 2y ago
    > How are ya gonna build a violin face when you can't hire anyone to do it? We're going to use children. The US labor force is shrinking for at least the next 20 years. We're losing 500-900k workers a year until at least 2034, and longer if people have fewer children because of, well... And it's not projected to increase until 2045. All the squealing you hear from business owners? Labor today is likely about as inexpensive as it's going to be for the next 20 years.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - pcthrowaway 2y ago
    I think he's banking on not being out of office in 4 years. Also I don't think he's making the labour market worse, haven't deportations been roughly at the same level as past administrations when we actually drill down into the numbers? What he is doing differently is targeting protestors of U.S. foreign (and probably soon domestic) policy with his deportations, which is simply abhorrent, not to mention possibly illegal. But it remains to be seen if these measures will actually harm the economy, or (by suppressing criticism) actually strengthen his administration. It's a move out of the fascist playbook, and fascist economics aren't necessarily bad for the economy (except when they're overthrown or defeated). I highly doubt we'll see the U.S. defeated in conventional warfare any time soon, so if he manages to extend his seat as fuhrer, I think his deposal will only be possible internally.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  > Or the factory can build their parts here in one of our 50 great states. Then the ⅔ they sell outside the USA would be subject to the retaliatory tariffs likely to come in response to Trump's tariffs. They'd also lose at least some of their existing 10 employees who wouldn't want to move, so they'd need to train more — quality would suffer. It's more likely they'll find ways to avoid the USA — the European nylon supplier mentioned in the article might reduce their minimum order size, or maybe they could find another business to split the minimum order. The Canadian packaging producer is probably trying to find a Canadian paper supplier.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    Or maybe a US start-up will fill the need? Why do you rule that out, when everything else you said was conjecture?
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      One could, but they'll have even greater issues finding and training staff, and without a reputation they're less competitive with the cheaper Chinese products.
- morkalork 2y ago
  Hello investors! I have an opportunity here and would like to build a factory in the USA. The market is tiny, the product is bespoke, and the MSRP is also tiny. We'd be looking at employing around 10 people (as per the fine article). Also the economic conditions may disappear tonight, tomorrow or next few years. Any time, really. Oh, not interested in investing? Quelle surprise..
- mikestew 2y ago
  Just pick up a manufacturing process and tooling and move it to another country? To sell $35USD violin shoulder rests to a niche market? I just can't think of a polite way to ask how hard you thought about this before posting.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    If they're $35 items they weren't that valuable in the first place. Easily can be retooled here. Nice try to turn it into an ad hominem though, I didn't even notice:)
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  Yes, and those new factories can employ some of the people unemployed from more valuable industries as a result of the retaliatory tariffs, but the net result of broad tariffs is to constrict both the global and domestic production possibilities curve and the aggregate value created, both globally and locally.
- rwmj 2y ago
  How would they get US visas for all of their staff? How much will it cost to move their factory? How will this new factory in the US avoid retaliatory tariffs from the other countries they want to sell into?
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  Besides the time and cost to do that, which may make it uneconomic, there is also the fact that their inputs would be subject to tariffs in the US and exports to other countries from the US would be subject to retaliatory tariffs. Your point is basically Trump propaganda at this point. Tariffs have historically had unintended consequences. For instance the tariffs on LCD screens basically killed the laptop industry in the US. Maybe, just maybe, after 20 years of tariffs it might come true, for a limited selection of products, but consumers would be paying higher prices in the meantime, which may destroy the market.
dehrmann 2y ago
> such as US farmers The foreign strategy of punishing industries in regions that voted for Trump makes sense. So does subsidizing US farmers because we want to overproduce food to ensure supply stability. A key job of government is to step when when markets would/will fail, and markets don't like over-producing.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  > So does subsidizing US farmers because we want to overproduce food to ensure supply stability. The US already does this, I'm talking about payments for losses due to tariffs.

gosub100 2y ago

.> everyone else gets to pound sand. Or the factory can build their parts here in one of our 50 great states. Turns out, Canada isn't the only place you can build a violin face rest.

ceejayoz 2y ago
As with "I coded a Twitter clone in a weekend", this tends to be a lot harder than you might imagine.
ziddoap 2y ago
Extend this thinking out globally, where some of the products need factories (or entire supply chains) that take a decade (or more) to establish, and you might realize that there are some issues (at least short-term) with the "simply build it here" mentality.
- drivebyhooting 2y ago
  I agree. But unless the incentives are changed, the US will continue to deindustrialize. Many here constantly bemoan the financialization of American companies. But that’s all that’s left after gutting the industrial capacity. Think not for one moment that Apple et al can rest on their laurels “designed in California”. China is coming for the value chain lunch.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
    > the US will continue to deindustrialize This is a fiction. The US manufactures more than it ever did, just not the same products and with less staff. The US is second only to China. This is a normal process of seeking out better markets and ceding less profitable ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...
    - drivebyhooting 2y ago
      Semiconductors? Drones? Consumer goods? EVs (soon)? Let’s not even mention that in belligerence it is the “less profitable” industries that carry the war.
mjewkes 2y ago
Sure, they can build it here—but protectionism doesn’t deliver long-term success. In the short term, it drives up prices and makes consumers poorer. In the long run, tariffs shield companies from global competition and limit their ability to scale. Without that pressure or opportunity, businesses grow weaker—not stronger. That weakens U.S. industry, not strengthens it.
- gosub100 2y ago
  > deliver long-term success. Is that Wharton business buzz-speak? Did the millons of jobs lost when manufacturing was moved overseas "deliver long-term success" ? Driving up prices is ok sometimes. It makes sense when the value of the dollar is diluted thanks to inflation. People cannot afford to live anywhere, and judging by the replies, everyone here is fine with that.
chneu 2y ago
A lot of that will takes years to get going. Trump will nearly be out of office before manufacturing can ramp up. Add on that trump is quite literally tariffing the materials needed to expand US industry/manufacturing. The US also has a major labor shortage that trump is only making worse. How are ya gonna build a violin face when you can't hire anyone to do it? Like usual, conservatives/Republicans grossly oversimplify how the world works in order to get sound bites and convince fools that 1+1=3.
- x0x0 2y ago
  > How are ya gonna build a violin face when you can't hire anyone to do it? We're going to use children. The US labor force is shrinking for at least the next 20 years. We're losing 500-900k workers a year until at least 2034, and longer if people have fewer children because of, well... And it's not projected to increase until 2045. All the squealing you hear from business owners? Labor today is likely about as inexpensive as it's going to be for the next 20 years.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  I think he's banking on not being out of office in 4 years. Also I don't think he's making the labour market worse, haven't deportations been roughly at the same level as past administrations when we actually drill down into the numbers? What he is doing differently is targeting protestors of U.S. foreign (and probably soon domestic) policy with his deportations, which is simply abhorrent, not to mention possibly illegal. But it remains to be seen if these measures will actually harm the economy, or (by suppressing criticism) actually strengthen his administration. It's a move out of the fascist playbook, and fascist economics aren't necessarily bad for the economy (except when they're overthrown or defeated). I highly doubt we'll see the U.S. defeated in conventional warfare any time soon, so if he manages to extend his seat as fuhrer, I think his deposal will only be possible internally.
Symbiote 2y ago
> Or the factory can build their parts here in one of our 50 great states. Then the ⅔ they sell outside the USA would be subject to the retaliatory tariffs likely to come in response to Trump's tariffs. They'd also lose at least some of their existing 10 employees who wouldn't want to move, so they'd need to train more — quality would suffer. It's more likely they'll find ways to avoid the USA — the European nylon supplier mentioned in the article might reduce their minimum order size, or maybe they could find another business to split the minimum order. The Canadian packaging producer is probably trying to find a Canadian paper supplier.
- gosub100 2y ago
  Or maybe a US start-up will fill the need? Why do you rule that out, when everything else you said was conjecture?
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    One could, but they'll have even greater issues finding and training staff, and without a reputation they're less competitive with the cheaper Chinese products.
morkalork 2y ago
Hello investors! I have an opportunity here and would like to build a factory in the USA. The market is tiny, the product is bespoke, and the MSRP is also tiny. We'd be looking at employing around 10 people (as per the fine article). Also the economic conditions may disappear tonight, tomorrow or next few years. Any time, really. Oh, not interested in investing? Quelle surprise..
mikestew 2y ago
Just pick up a manufacturing process and tooling and move it to another country? To sell $35USD violin shoulder rests to a niche market? I just can't think of a polite way to ask how hard you thought about this before posting.
- gosub100 2y ago
  If they're $35 items they weren't that valuable in the first place. Easily can be retooled here. Nice try to turn it into an ad hominem though, I didn't even notice:)
dragonwriter 2y ago
Yes, and those new factories can employ some of the people unemployed from more valuable industries as a result of the retaliatory tariffs, but the net result of broad tariffs is to constrict both the global and domestic production possibilities curve and the aggregate value created, both globally and locally.
rwmj 2y ago
How would they get US visas for all of their staff? How much will it cost to move their factory? How will this new factory in the US avoid retaliatory tariffs from the other countries they want to sell into?
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Besides the time and cost to do that, which may make it uneconomic, there is also the fact that their inputs would be subject to tariffs in the US and exports to other countries from the US would be subject to retaliatory tariffs. Your point is basically Trump propaganda at this point. Tariffs have historically had unintended consequences. For instance the tariffs on LCD screens basically killed the laptop industry in the US. Maybe, just maybe, after 20 years of tariffs it might come true, for a limited selection of products, but consumers would be paying higher prices in the meantime, which may destroy the market.

dehrmann 2y ago

> such as US farmers The foreign strategy of punishing industries in regions that voted for Trump makes sense. So does subsidizing US farmers because we want to overproduce food to ensure supply stability. A key job of government is to step when when markets would/will fail, and markets don't like over-producing.

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
> So does subsidizing US farmers because we want to overproduce food to ensure supply stability. The US already does this, I'm talking about payments for losses due to tariffs.