4 ms·

I think often trump's policies are rooted in some sort of idea that is perhaps controversial but at least not totally insane, and then implemented in the most b

I think often trump's policies are rooted in some sort of idea that is perhaps controversial but at least not totally insane, and then implemented in the most boneheaded way possible. E.g. one explanation given for these trade policies is that trump sees a war with china down the line and is worried that china has tons of factories that could be converted to make ammunition while usa does not. If so, there is at least some logic to the base idea, but the implementation is crazy, probably not going to work that effectively, and going to piss off all amrrica's allies which would be bad if WW3 is really on the horizon.

facile3232 2y ago
I like this take a lot. I also think that America competing on manufacturing is obviously never going to happen.
- okr 2y ago
  Why is it obvious and why never?
  - vkou 2y ago
    Unemployment is at 4%, there's no reserve army of labor that can be mobilized to make flashlights and sew t-shirts for $3/hr. Anyways, I hope you're looking foward to prices for everything going up.
    - pcdoodle 2y ago
      Could be a thing? Perhaps people might start caring about product durability and stop buying cheap shit that goes in a landfill because the producers only care about shelf appeal.
      - 42772827 2y ago
        This is my hope, too. But also I fear the transition is going to be ugly. Personally I feel lucky that I’m not just starting out my life — I already have high quality stuff.
    - tnolet 2y ago
      But then we can promote immigration from poorer neighbouring countries to pick up the work. Oh wait...
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      The folks who voted because of the price of eggs are not going to be happy. And midterm elections are next year.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        They didn’t really care about egg prices.
  - geysersam 2y ago
    Because Americans are too rich and manufacturing is too cheap. If any of those changes it's a different story, but that's unlikely to happen.
  - matwood 2y ago
    I think there is a bit more nuance. US manufacturing jobs are never coming back. If you look at the stats, US manufacturing output continues to set records. Yes, the US is second to China (has been since ~2010), but that was bound to happen on population/demographics alone.
aurareturn 2y ago
E.g. one explanation given for these trade policies is that trump sees a war with china down the line and is worried that china has tons of factories that could be converted to make ammunition while usa does not. 1. US will never outproduce China in ammunition 2. Alienating allies won't help the US produce ammunition
- p3rls 2y ago
  [flagged]
sandworm101 2y ago
It is the logic of schoolchildren. It is the simplistic logic of a teenager discovering Ayn Rand's wikipedia entry. (Grover Norquits came up with his tax pledge while in highschool.) The world is more complicated than any econ 099 exam.
jajko 2y ago
[flagged]
- jonplackett 2y ago
  I wish this was true, but I have a strong feeling my nation (UK) will be right there along side any new military adventures.
  - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
    Aren't we (UK) putting boots on the ground in support of Ukraine, directly opposing USA? We're going to fight on both sides - the side of expansionist oligarchs (Russia, USA) _and_ the side of democracy?
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      Wouldn't be surprised if the UK winds up trying to play the same 'both sides' game that Turkey generally tries to play. Ukraine is obviously much closer to home for the UK, but interests may align in other areas of the world.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    "Real military allies."
  - Gupta2 2y ago
    Given Sir Kier Starmer regards himself as New Labour and it was Tony Blair that got us into the illegal wars of Iraq and Afghanistan to please the Republican Americans, then yes I expect he might get us into another illegal war (e.g. Iran) to please the Republicans.
- pseudo0 2y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 2y ago
pbhjpbhj 2y ago
>Trump sees a war with china down the line So is destroying diplomatic relations with all their allies and trying to force ceding of power in central Europe to a former enemy who is allied to China? Go on with ya. He's a prick saving himself from prison whilst being willingly used to establish an oligarchic fascist state from the former USA.
- bawolff 2y ago
  If you follow the logic of it, at least to the first order - fighting a two front war is bad, forcing europe to deal with russia frees up USA to focus on china. America's withdrawl from europe has made european states panic and re-arm, and you could argue that a well-armed europe that grudgingly helps america with a common enemy would be better than a poorly armed europe that uselessly helps willingly. The second order effects of what he's doing are pretty obviously terrible for usa, but quite frankly i dont think trump is smart enough to see that. [To be clear i think trump is stupid, but i don't think his actions are entirely random. There is a chain of reasoning here, it just misses the forest for the trees]
  - matwood 2y ago
    The problem with this line of reasoning is that Trump just pushed our allies in that part of the world closer to China. China stated the other day they are working on a joint response to tariffs with Japan and South Korea. Additionally, leaving power gaps around the world from the pullback of USAID gives China an in to be the 'good guy'. This is the exact opposite of planning for a conflict with China. In fact, it feels like ceding the fight before it even begins (much like what he did with Russia).
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    > America's withdrawl from europe has made european states panic and re-arm Russia's invasion of Ukraine is more immediate concern there. Even if Europe still could count on the USA's NATO commitments 100% the war was a big wake-up call in terms of readiness.
    - 2y ago
2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
How will they project power into the Asia Pacific now they have tariffed their allies and probably forgotten about AUKUS?
intended 2y ago
There is no logic to these things. This is the emperors new clothes, over and over again. The proximate cause for these tariffs is not some future event. This is post fact rationalization. The proximate cause is still the ongoing “information” war which determines the perceived reality that is litigated in elections. Earlier politicians played theater, acting as if the red meat being fed to voters was real on TV, but dealing with reality as need be when it came to decision making. This was a betrayal of voters, who saw their election efforts result in legislators who didnt do what they said. Trump does what he says. He believes WWE is real, and acts as if it is. His base believes it is real, and now reality is crashing with the fiction. The fiction will prevail, because his party has also been working to build the power to enact their will. Everyone sees logic here, the same way that everyone saw the emperors clothes. The alternative is illogical. This is the reason potential reasons “we dont know” have to be postulated (war / China can make more ammunition)
KaiserPro 2y ago
You're giving him too much credit. Trump has always liked tariffs [alas, I can't find the source for this pre-presidency, its been blown out by current events]. He thinks trade is a zero sum game, and thinks that someone else set up the petro-dollar system. Trump has consistently and reiliably always cowered away from war. Using other means to stop it (see russia, NK, China, Iran). Yes I hear the "we're going to invade x, y and z" but they never acutally came to anything (is that because of his advisors?) Trump doesn't think about future capacity, only future pride. Does this change "make american stronger, and other weaker" is pretty much the only calculus that he's doing. Trump's thinking is roughly as following: "Why do we have taxes when we can use tariffs to raise cash and bring power back?" "Why don't they buy from us?"(china/rest of asia) "why are we spending money on them, when we don't get any money back? They are weak."(NATO) "Why are we punishing russia, they are offering deals" (Putin offering cash deals) There is no 4d chess. Its just a man who's pretty far gone, shitting out edicts to idiots willing to implement them.
- vitus 2y ago
  > Trump has always liked tariffs [alas, I can't find the source for this pre-presidency, its been blown out by current events]. Here you go, Feb 2011: https://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/news/economy/donald_trump_cpac/index.htm https://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/news/economy/donald_trump_c... "The comment repeated past statements from "The Apprentice" star, who has said he wants to put a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports, to level trade imbalances in the global economy."
  - KaiserPro 2y ago
    thank you for this link, it is most appreciated.
- zimpenfish 2y ago
  > [alas, I can't find the source for this pre-presidency, its been blown out by current events]. Doesn't help that Google's custom time range search is complete garbage. Searched for "trump tariffs" from 1/1/1980 to 1/1/2010 and almost every link is about the current tariffs but with timestamps between 1980 and 2010. e.g. "20 Nov 1987 — President Donald Trump issued a slew of tariffs on Chinese goods", "30 Jun 1981 — Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced Monday a 25% increase on electricity exports to some American states as a result of President Donald Trump's tariffs", "31 Dec 1999 — IMF says too early for precise analysis on Trump tariff impact", "1 Feb 2001 — Trump's Global Tariff War Begins" Did find a couple of links that were chronologically correct - a 1999 Guardian story about Trump wanting to tax the rich(!) and a 1987 NYT story about Reagan putting tariffs on Japan. (duckduckgo was even worse)
mytailorisrich 2y ago
The US are never going into a direct war with China, and China is never going into a direct war with the US. This is M.A.D in action. At most we might see a proxy war over Taiwan (i.e. the US supporting and arming Taiwan, with sanctions against the PRC). The risk would then be a widespread disruption of global trade, at which point the US would not want to be dependent on the Chinese economy or factories in any way.

facile3232 2y ago

I like this take a lot. I also think that America competing on manufacturing is obviously never going to happen.

okr 2y ago
Why is it obvious and why never?
- vkou 2y ago
  Unemployment is at 4%, there's no reserve army of labor that can be mobilized to make flashlights and sew t-shirts for $3/hr. Anyways, I hope you're looking foward to prices for everything going up.
  - pcdoodle 2y ago
    Could be a thing? Perhaps people might start caring about product durability and stop buying cheap shit that goes in a landfill because the producers only care about shelf appeal.
    - 42772827 2y ago
      This is my hope, too. But also I fear the transition is going to be ugly. Personally I feel lucky that I’m not just starting out my life — I already have high quality stuff.
  - tnolet 2y ago
    But then we can promote immigration from poorer neighbouring countries to pick up the work. Oh wait...
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    The folks who voted because of the price of eggs are not going to be happy. And midterm elections are next year.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      They didn’t really care about egg prices.
- geysersam 2y ago
  Because Americans are too rich and manufacturing is too cheap. If any of those changes it's a different story, but that's unlikely to happen.
- matwood 2y ago
  I think there is a bit more nuance. US manufacturing jobs are never coming back. If you look at the stats, US manufacturing output continues to set records. Yes, the US is second to China (has been since ~2010), but that was bound to happen on population/demographics alone.

aurareturn 2y ago

E.g. one explanation given for these trade policies is that trump sees a war with china down the line and is worried that china has tons of factories that could be converted to make ammunition while usa does not. 1. US will never outproduce China in ammunition 2. Alienating allies won't help the US produce ammunition

p3rls 2y ago
[flagged]

sandworm101 2y ago

It is the logic of schoolchildren. It is the simplistic logic of a teenager discovering Ayn Rand's wikipedia entry. (Grover Norquits came up with his tax pledge while in highschool.) The world is more complicated than any econ 099 exam.

jajko 2y ago

[flagged]

jonplackett 2y ago
I wish this was true, but I have a strong feeling my nation (UK) will be right there along side any new military adventures.
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  Aren't we (UK) putting boots on the ground in support of Ukraine, directly opposing USA? We're going to fight on both sides - the side of expansionist oligarchs (Russia, USA) _and_ the side of democracy?
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    Wouldn't be surprised if the UK winds up trying to play the same 'both sides' game that Turkey generally tries to play. Ukraine is obviously much closer to home for the UK, but interests may align in other areas of the world.
- throwanem 2y ago
  "Real military allies."
- Gupta2 2y ago
  Given Sir Kier Starmer regards himself as New Labour and it was Tony Blair that got us into the illegal wars of Iraq and Afghanistan to please the Republican Americans, then yes I expect he might get us into another illegal war (e.g. Iran) to please the Republicans.
pseudo0 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
2y ago

pbhjpbhj 2y ago

>Trump sees a war with china down the line So is destroying diplomatic relations with all their allies and trying to force ceding of power in central Europe to a former enemy who is allied to China? Go on with ya. He's a prick saving himself from prison whilst being willingly used to establish an oligarchic fascist state from the former USA.

bawolff 2y ago
If you follow the logic of it, at least to the first order - fighting a two front war is bad, forcing europe to deal with russia frees up USA to focus on china. America's withdrawl from europe has made european states panic and re-arm, and you could argue that a well-armed europe that grudgingly helps america with a common enemy would be better than a poorly armed europe that uselessly helps willingly. The second order effects of what he's doing are pretty obviously terrible for usa, but quite frankly i dont think trump is smart enough to see that. [To be clear i think trump is stupid, but i don't think his actions are entirely random. There is a chain of reasoning here, it just misses the forest for the trees]
- matwood 2y ago
  The problem with this line of reasoning is that Trump just pushed our allies in that part of the world closer to China. China stated the other day they are working on a joint response to tariffs with Japan and South Korea. Additionally, leaving power gaps around the world from the pullback of USAID gives China an in to be the 'good guy'. This is the exact opposite of planning for a conflict with China. In fact, it feels like ceding the fight before it even begins (much like what he did with Russia).
- rcxdude 2y ago
  > America's withdrawl from europe has made european states panic and re-arm Russia's invasion of Ukraine is more immediate concern there. Even if Europe still could count on the USA's NATO commitments 100% the war was a big wake-up call in terms of readiness.
  - 2y ago

2muchcoffeeman 2y ago

How will they project power into the Asia Pacific now they have tariffed their allies and probably forgotten about AUKUS?

intended 2y ago

There is no logic to these things. This is the emperors new clothes, over and over again. The proximate cause for these tariffs is not some future event. This is post fact rationalization. The proximate cause is still the ongoing “information” war which determines the perceived reality that is litigated in elections. Earlier politicians played theater, acting as if the red meat being fed to voters was real on TV, but dealing with reality as need be when it came to decision making. This was a betrayal of voters, who saw their election efforts result in legislators who didnt do what they said. Trump does what he says. He believes WWE is real, and acts as if it is. His base believes it is real, and now reality is crashing with the fiction. The fiction will prevail, because his party has also been working to build the power to enact their will. Everyone sees logic here, the same way that everyone saw the emperors clothes. The alternative is illogical. This is the reason potential reasons “we dont know” have to be postulated (war / China can make more ammunition)

KaiserPro 2y ago

You're giving him too much credit. Trump has always liked tariffs [alas, I can't find the source for this pre-presidency, its been blown out by current events]. He thinks trade is a zero sum game, and thinks that someone else set up the petro-dollar system. Trump has consistently and reiliably always cowered away from war. Using other means to stop it (see russia, NK, China, Iran). Yes I hear the "we're going to invade x, y and z" but they never acutally came to anything (is that because of his advisors?) Trump doesn't think about future capacity, only future pride. Does this change "make american stronger, and other weaker" is pretty much the only calculus that he's doing. Trump's thinking is roughly as following: "Why do we have taxes when we can use tariffs to raise cash and bring power back?" "Why don't they buy from us?"(china/rest of asia) "why are we spending money on them, when we don't get any money back? They are weak."(NATO) "Why are we punishing russia, they are offering deals" (Putin offering cash deals) There is no 4d chess. Its just a man who's pretty far gone, shitting out edicts to idiots willing to implement them.

vitus 2y ago
> Trump has always liked tariffs [alas, I can't find the source for this pre-presidency, its been blown out by current events]. Here you go, Feb 2011: https://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/news/economy/donald_trump_cpac/index.htm https://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/news/economy/donald_trump_c... "The comment repeated past statements from "The Apprentice" star, who has said he wants to put a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports, to level trade imbalances in the global economy."
- KaiserPro 2y ago
  thank you for this link, it is most appreciated.
zimpenfish 2y ago
> [alas, I can't find the source for this pre-presidency, its been blown out by current events]. Doesn't help that Google's custom time range search is complete garbage. Searched for "trump tariffs" from 1/1/1980 to 1/1/2010 and almost every link is about the current tariffs but with timestamps between 1980 and 2010. e.g. "20 Nov 1987 — President Donald Trump issued a slew of tariffs on Chinese goods", "30 Jun 1981 — Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced Monday a 25% increase on electricity exports to some American states as a result of President Donald Trump's tariffs", "31 Dec 1999 — IMF says too early for precise analysis on Trump tariff impact", "1 Feb 2001 — Trump's Global Tariff War Begins" Did find a couple of links that were chronologically correct - a 1999 Guardian story about Trump wanting to tax the rich(!) and a 1987 NYT story about Reagan putting tariffs on Japan. (duckduckgo was even worse)

mytailorisrich 2y ago

The US are never going into a direct war with China, and China is never going into a direct war with the US. This is M.A.D in action. At most we might see a proxy war over Taiwan (i.e. the US supporting and arming Taiwan, with sanctions against the PRC). The risk would then be a widespread disruption of global trade, at which point the US would not want to be dependent on the Chinese economy or factories in any way.