3 ms·

I too have found the discourse around tariffs lacking. This is a common and blatant logical fallacy I see: - Tariffs are bad. They hurt the country enacting ov

I too have found the discourse around tariffs lacking. This is a common and blatant logical fallacy I see: - Tariffs are bad. They hurt the country enacting overall it in the long run. - It's correct to respond to the US tariffs with tariffs in response. Additionally, people seem to not understand that a country that exports more to the US than it imports stands to lose more when the US/that country have the same level of tariffs. At a large scale, if global trade breaks down the United States will be comparatively (not absolutely) better off because they can support themselves (consumption, food, raw materials). None of this is an endorsement of tariffs. I think the US is in a pretty good spot and things could get a lot worse. Tariffs absolutely will make expensive things more expensive, and it will hurt. But the discussion I've seen online has reduced itself to some sort of weird orthodoxy that doesnt even make sense.

pcthrowaway 2y ago
I think this is only the case if there aren't replacements available from other countries. I feel like China is going to be the biggest winner of this tariff war. Just as an example (from Canada), we had long had a 50% tariff on Chinese EVs which helped U.S. EV manufacturers stay competitive. Now I think we're going to relax that (which IIUC was only implemented to appease our relationship with the U.S. in the first place) and cheaper Chinese EVs should start appearing on the market. Good for Canadians, good for China. Not as good for the U.S.
- drivebyhooting 2y ago
  What’s good for China is not good for Canada in the long run. There are many reasons you can think of. A small and often overlooked one is that a Chinese hegemony would decrease the língua franca status of English.
  - pcthrowaway 2y ago
    Sure, but I don't see much of a difference from importing from China vs. the U.S. in terms of real impact. I don't really care so much for the "lingua franca status of English" (even though it's the only language I speak fluently). While yes, this is one of Canada's main languages (not that we don't have a lot of Cantonese/Mandarin speakers too), China itself would be a good example that one can succeed without speaking the language which has the "lingua franca status" Perhaps it's worth noting that the number of fluent Mandarin/Cantonese speakers in Canada is probably not much lower (as a percentage - ~4% in 2016 and I can imagine it's only increased since then) than the number of fluent English speakers in China (5%) edit: 4% is actually the number of Canadians who spoke Mandarin or Cantonese as a first language in 2016 (which again, is likely higher now). The number of fluent combined Chinese language speakers is almost certainly higher then, even if just a little bit.
    - drivebyhooting 2y ago
      Millions of Chinese learn English in school from a very early age to have access to the global labor market. You have a huge unrecognized privilege in being a native English speaker.
      - pcthrowaway 2y ago
        Not sure why you're making this personal. I do of course realize the privilege in speaking English as a first language, being born in a developed nation, as a white cis-man, and so on. To cling to the idea that English need continue to be the most important global economic language though, is a type of linguistic and economic supremacy I don't care to partake in.
        drivebyhooting 2y ago
        If you were playing a strategy game you would definitely value your country’s language remaining the língua franca. The same logic applies in the real world. It’s not personal. It’s the most impersonal thing possible.
  - dryrun 2y ago
    But keeping with the US is not better both in the short and the long term, for lack of possible trust after what just happened over the course of three months.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
    It's also good for Canada because the local industry will be forced to compete with China with the consumer benefiting.
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  China is quite reliant on food and energy imports (two critical preconditions for everything) and their consumption rates arent great which is not good for an export based economy. They could be a beneficiary if global trade doesnt go nuclear. And it probably wont. If it does they are in big trouble.
lakhim 2y ago
Its not a fallacy but game theory playing out - known as beggar thy neighbour policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  That is very relevant overall and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. But what I'm talking about are people who declare tariffs as an absolute bad and then go on to say enacting them is rational and good. In the beggar thy neighbor policy, the behavior is not considered an absolutely bad thing. This happens with tariffs as well, but people can be even more dogmatic about it.
  - lakhim 2y ago
    Think of it like an invasion - shooting people is probably as close to an absolute bad thing as you can get, but if you're getting shot at its pretty much time to start shooting back
    - nonethewiser 2y ago
      Oh I get that. We have these claims: - Shooting someone is absolutely bad in all scenarios - Its correct to shoot someone if they are trying to shoot you I agree with the second point completely. The problem is if you say that, you should go back and revise the first point, because clearly its not absolutely bad. In the case of tariffs, once you acknowledge that reciprocal tariffs are good, you run into a problem because the US generally has lower tariffs on other countries than other countries have on it.
dragonwriter 2y ago
War is bad. It is correct to respond to aggression initiating war with defensive war. Trade wars are like regular wars, in that respect.
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  OK. So you support the US enacting reciprocal tariffs. edit: lots of evasion from this point below
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    The US is not proposing reciprocal tariffs, it is proposing broad tariffs premised on xenophobic fantasies placing blame for US fentanyl consumption and other US failures on foreign governments.
    - nonethewiser 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - ziddoap 2y ago
        I like how you just ignored everything they said, to try and coerce them into saying "yes", presumably so you can extrapolate that out to some other point you're trying to make.
        nonethewiser 2y ago
        He thinks its xenophobic and sees tariffs that are not reciprocal. I recognize that. It just has no bearing whether or not the US should enact retaliatory tariffs. Does he believe the US should enact tariffs to meet the tariffs other countries already have on the US? He can evade and resort to accusations of xenophobia all he wants but that is the question I'm posing.
        2y ago
BenFranklin100 2y ago
Just about any undergraduate textbook will discuss tariffs and why they are nearly universal regarded as poor policy. See Samuelson for instance. The online discourse is poor because the vast majority of people, even those who are educated, have never cracked open a 1st year Econ textbook.
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  >Just about any undergraduate textbook will discuss tariffs and why they are nearly universal regarded as poor policy. I think its poor because people see tariffs not immediately derided and they swoop in to denigrate them. Please re-read my entire comment.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  I think most people are not thinking on purpose, and just accepting the dogma of one side or the other.

pcthrowaway 2y ago

I think this is only the case if there aren't replacements available from other countries. I feel like China is going to be the biggest winner of this tariff war. Just as an example (from Canada), we had long had a 50% tariff on Chinese EVs which helped U.S. EV manufacturers stay competitive. Now I think we're going to relax that (which IIUC was only implemented to appease our relationship with the U.S. in the first place) and cheaper Chinese EVs should start appearing on the market. Good for Canadians, good for China. Not as good for the U.S.

drivebyhooting 2y ago
What’s good for China is not good for Canada in the long run. There are many reasons you can think of. A small and often overlooked one is that a Chinese hegemony would decrease the língua franca status of English.
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  Sure, but I don't see much of a difference from importing from China vs. the U.S. in terms of real impact. I don't really care so much for the "lingua franca status of English" (even though it's the only language I speak fluently). While yes, this is one of Canada's main languages (not that we don't have a lot of Cantonese/Mandarin speakers too), China itself would be a good example that one can succeed without speaking the language which has the "lingua franca status" Perhaps it's worth noting that the number of fluent Mandarin/Cantonese speakers in Canada is probably not much lower (as a percentage - ~4% in 2016 and I can imagine it's only increased since then) than the number of fluent English speakers in China (5%) edit: 4% is actually the number of Canadians who spoke Mandarin or Cantonese as a first language in 2016 (which again, is likely higher now). The number of fluent combined Chinese language speakers is almost certainly higher then, even if just a little bit.
  - drivebyhooting 2y ago
    Millions of Chinese learn English in school from a very early age to have access to the global labor market. You have a huge unrecognized privilege in being a native English speaker.
    - pcthrowaway 2y ago
      Not sure why you're making this personal. I do of course realize the privilege in speaking English as a first language, being born in a developed nation, as a white cis-man, and so on. To cling to the idea that English need continue to be the most important global economic language though, is a type of linguistic and economic supremacy I don't care to partake in.
      - drivebyhooting 2y ago
        If you were playing a strategy game you would definitely value your country’s language remaining the língua franca. The same logic applies in the real world. It’s not personal. It’s the most impersonal thing possible.
- dryrun 2y ago
  But keeping with the US is not better both in the short and the long term, for lack of possible trust after what just happened over the course of three months.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  It's also good for Canada because the local industry will be forced to compete with China with the consumer benefiting.
nonethewiser 2y ago
China is quite reliant on food and energy imports (two critical preconditions for everything) and their consumption rates arent great which is not good for an export based economy. They could be a beneficiary if global trade doesnt go nuclear. And it probably wont. If it does they are in big trouble.

lakhim 2y ago

Its not a fallacy but game theory playing out - known as beggar thy neighbour policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour

nonethewiser 2y ago
That is very relevant overall and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. But what I'm talking about are people who declare tariffs as an absolute bad and then go on to say enacting them is rational and good. In the beggar thy neighbor policy, the behavior is not considered an absolutely bad thing. This happens with tariffs as well, but people can be even more dogmatic about it.
- lakhim 2y ago
  Think of it like an invasion - shooting people is probably as close to an absolute bad thing as you can get, but if you're getting shot at its pretty much time to start shooting back
  - nonethewiser 2y ago
    Oh I get that. We have these claims: - Shooting someone is absolutely bad in all scenarios - Its correct to shoot someone if they are trying to shoot you I agree with the second point completely. The problem is if you say that, you should go back and revise the first point, because clearly its not absolutely bad. In the case of tariffs, once you acknowledge that reciprocal tariffs are good, you run into a problem because the US generally has lower tariffs on other countries than other countries have on it.

dragonwriter 2y ago

War is bad. It is correct to respond to aggression initiating war with defensive war. Trade wars are like regular wars, in that respect.

nonethewiser 2y ago
OK. So you support the US enacting reciprocal tariffs. edit: lots of evasion from this point below
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  The US is not proposing reciprocal tariffs, it is proposing broad tariffs premised on xenophobic fantasies placing blame for US fentanyl consumption and other US failures on foreign governments.
  - nonethewiser 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ziddoap 2y ago
      I like how you just ignored everything they said, to try and coerce them into saying "yes", presumably so you can extrapolate that out to some other point you're trying to make.
      - nonethewiser 2y ago
        He thinks its xenophobic and sees tariffs that are not reciprocal. I recognize that. It just has no bearing whether or not the US should enact retaliatory tariffs. Does he believe the US should enact tariffs to meet the tariffs other countries already have on the US? He can evade and resort to accusations of xenophobia all he wants but that is the question I'm posing.
        2y ago

BenFranklin100 2y ago

Just about any undergraduate textbook will discuss tariffs and why they are nearly universal regarded as poor policy. See Samuelson for instance. The online discourse is poor because the vast majority of people, even those who are educated, have never cracked open a 1st year Econ textbook.

nonethewiser 2y ago
>Just about any undergraduate textbook will discuss tariffs and why they are nearly universal regarded as poor policy. I think its poor because people see tariffs not immediately derided and they swoop in to denigrate them. Please re-read my entire comment.
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
I think most people are not thinking on purpose, and just accepting the dogma of one side or the other.