11 ms·

Everyone is quick to deride this move as stupid. I don’t disagree that there are downsides to the approach, but there is a set of very real national problems th

• Ragnarork 1y ago
  According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, there are 7 million unemployed in the U.S. currently. I don't know how you expect these to cover for all the manufacturing you imply might come back to the U.S. with these tariffs, and that's assuming the space and the production means (factories, etc.) are here already. They aren't, and not for a couple years. Combined to the fact that the U.S. is clearly sending a signal that coming there is dangerous now, especially for any other category than white males, and I don't see how you can even imagine that this situation is going to be working out.
• yodsanklai 1y ago
  Progressive taxation, better public services, universal healthcare, free education for all
  • megaman821 1y ago
    Doesn't the US already have the most progressive tax system in the world? If you want more public services the tax rate would need to increase at all levels but dramatically so at the middle to low end.
    • kacesensitive 1y ago
      No. The U.S. tax system is less progressive than those in many other industrialized nations. European countries like Denmark and France have higher top marginal tax rates (above 50%), while the U.S. top federal rate is significantly lower. Additionally, U.S. taxes and transfers do less to reduce income inequality compared to peer countries.
      • megaman821 1y ago
        That is not what progressive means. The US doesn't have the highest marginal tax rate but a greater share of taxes are paid by high-income earners than others on a per dollar basis. Raising rates on soley the rich will make the tax system even more progressive but will probably not make public service much more generous. Raising the tax rates on everyone would probably make the tax system less progressive but might actually fund a large increase in public spending.
        • kacesensitive 1y ago
          You're right that "progressive" technically refers to how tax burdens increase with income, and by that measure, the U.S. looks progressive because high earners pay a large share. But that doesn’t mean the system is actually effective at reducing inequality. What matters is outcomes, and the U.S. system—compared to other developed nations—does far less to redistribute wealth or fund robust public services. Other countries raise more revenue overall (often through broader-based taxes like VAT), and they spend it more equitably. So yes, technically progressive—but practically insufficient.
    • Marsymars 1y ago
• rawgabbit 1y ago
  I agree with the goal. I disagree with the execution. First, from the outside looking in, it appears these tariffs were implemented in an adhoc basis which disrupt supply chains potentially bankrupting companies and result in more layoffs in the short term. Second, there should be a carve-out on tariff policy to respond to national security interests. e.g., if and when the US wants Ukraine to rebuild its fledgling export economy, the US should set the tariff on Ukraine's products to zero as it is in the US' interests that Ukraine is financially strong. Similarly, the US should use tariffs to protect industries it deems strategic such as manufacturing advanced computer chips. In other words, instead of using a purely political process to set tariff policy, I would argue tariffs should be managed by an impartial semi-independent agency such as the Federal Reserve. The governors of such a tariff agency should be tasked with the goals of advancing long term US interests, economically, employment-wise, and national security interests.
  • stevenwoo 1y ago
    The Trump administration set the Russia tariff to zero, and we do still import stuff from Russia in spite of all the sanctions and set the blanket ten percent rate on Ukraine as you write. Maybe this is simply the current administration's national security interest.
    • kristjansson 1y ago
      There's only one nation's security interest that are advanced by an emboldened Russia.
      • stevenwoo 1y ago
        Most of Tulsi Gabbard's professed foreign policy beliefs prior to being added to this administration echoed Russian state policy, she called it being independent. Tim Pool was just added to White House press pool, he claims he was fooled into repeating information provided by Russia state media, after it was revealed they paid millions to him to do so. There is an awful lot of smoke here.
• cloverich 1y ago
  > Globalization has played a big role in creating the massive income inequality in our country; it seems like we should fix that. Wouldn't restoring the prior taxes to those with highest incomes, and adding a proper capital gains tax, address this directly? As I've started to accumulate small amounts of wealth I've realized, my capital gains are taxed lower than my income; when I sell my house, I get up to 500k of gains tax free. If I backdoor a Roth IRA, I get tax free gains there too. etc. Add additional taxes to investment properties, in the form of property taxes could be one approach as well - I personally know of one investor that owns at least 20 (SFH) properties for example. So I'd propose starting there, as it targets both the wealth gap as well as hits those who can most afford it directly. > Tariffs accomplish both of those, raising money at the same time as raising cost of goods and weakening the dollar. If tariffs significantly reduce demand, or worse cause a recession, they will have the opposite effect. It would take time to sort out the full impact. But AFAIK, the tax cuts are proposed to be pushed through immediately, without firm corresponding spending reductions nor time to sort out the impact of the tariffs; similarly the tariffs are being implemented in what seems like a haphazard way, with everyone unsure of what they would / will be, how much, etc. In general, I think if the plan were modest tax increases, esp. around capital gains policy and targeting SFH as investments, (very) modest tariffs, and well executed spending cuts, nobody would be in uproar. I will be pleasantly surprised if the current plan ends well, but it certainly feels as though only those steeped deeply in ideology are supportive of them at the present moment, and I think that is probably telling.
  • bluedino 1y ago
    You can tax whoever you want as much as you want but the problem is the industries from the past are no longer in this country.
    • greenavocado 1y ago
      This was actually the real cause of the collapse of Zimbabwe. The tax base disappeared. People think it's just because they printed into oblivion but that's not the full picture.
    • TehCorwiz 1y ago
• corry 1y ago
  There are two different questions here: (1) is Trump's strategy a good one to accomplish his goals? and (2) what are other good ideas to do so? Just because there aren't many ideas in bucket #2 doesn't mean you should do #1. For a trivial example, consider steel and aluminum tariffs (Larry Summers gave this example on Bloomberg yesterday): There are 60x more jobs in industries that rely on steel/aluminum inputs than there are in the US steel/aluminium producers. 60x! Steel/aluminum tariffs increase the cost of inputs to the companies that employ those 60x more people; their businesses suffer; those jobs are more at risk. Meanwhile, it will take a decade for steel/aluminum production to be fully done within the US, and even then it will be a higher cost (i.e. the reason the US imports a big share of aluminium from Canada is that Canada uses cheap hydro energy to produce it - something that the US can't do). Through that decade, every single item that uses imported steel/aluminum as an input will be more expensive for average Americans. So you risk 60x the jobs, for a slow and ultimately non-competitive local industry rebuild, and meanwhile average Americans pay higher costs. Now multiply that across every category of good in the economy? #1 is bad. I don't have a great idea for #2, but #1 is bad.
  • cryptonector 1y ago
    Look at it from Trump's perspective for a moment. The only tool he has is tariffs, and the people he's negotiating with are not just foreign governments but also Congress. Because he has this authority he can use it to try to bring any of those to the table and negotiate alternative approaches. Not saying that's what he's doing. Just saying that's a possibility.
    • kristjansson 1y ago
      He's got the entire congress! He's got the entire universe of industrial policy to advance whatever domestic improvements he wants to pursue. Clearly they even have the political capital and appetite to do a massive tax increase!
      • cryptonector 1y ago
        The Republicans in Congress don't all want the same things, and they have very narrow majorities, so yes, he does have to negotiate with them.
• belter 1y ago
  > So, to anyone who disagrees with these measures, but agrees that these are issues we ought to solve, what would you propose? The solution is clear, let the tax cuts expire, and increase the taxes on corporations. Make special tax incentives on real investment and innovation. Make a special tax for the four individuals behind Trump at the inauguration, who own more health than 60% of the US population. Stop allowing billionaires and corporations cheat the tax code to have lower effective rates than the majority of US citizens. I am sure the 14 billionaires on Trump cabinet will be working on this right away... \s
  • electriclove 1y ago
    Billionaire boys behaving badly! Let’s teach them a lesson! That will solve all the problems in the world! /s
    • belter 1y ago
      Yes of course. What is your solution? "Warren Buffett Wants Higher Taxes For The Ultra-Rich, Including Himself — Says 'My Friends And I Have Been Coddled Long Enough" - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-wants-higher-taxes-182425932.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-wants-higher-t... "Reagan's Radio Address on Free and Fair Trade on April 25, 1987" - https://youtu.be/5t5QK03KXPc?t=119 https://youtu.be/5t5QK03KXPc?t=119
      • electriclove 1y ago
        Free all the trade (no tariffs by anyone) and let the chips fall where they may.
        • belter 1y ago
          Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland. You don’t get world-class infrastructure, universal healthcare, and top-tier education without paying for it. High taxes are the price of a civilized society. Get over it! Life isn’t meant to be a Squid Game.
• brianbest101 1y ago
  [dead]
• wat10000 1y ago
  Globalization is fine. Wages in this country are quite high overall. Inequality isn't caused by trade, it's caused by low taxes on rich people, weak unions, and weak labor regulation. The terrible state of US production is a myth. The US is the second largest manufacturer in the world. The #1 spot is occupied by a country with over 4x our population. Manufacturing employment is down because our manufacturing productivity is really high. Yeah, we don't assemble smartphones or make plastic trinkets. We make cars and jetliners and computer chips. If you want to address the national debt and inequality, the solution is to correct the power imbalance between employers and employees by strengthening labor regulations and unions, and to raise taxes, especially on high incomes, and especially on the super wealthy. Taxing people like Elon Musk down to a more manageable 10 or 11 figures of net worth won't do a lot for the nation's finances directly, but it will do a lot to curb their power and get the government to be more responsive to our interests instead of theirs. (And no, tariffs are not a good way to do this, since they're regressive.)
  • neutronicus 1y ago
    Aren't "weak unions" caused by globalization? Unless the union is global, employers can always respond to stronger unions by pulling the off-shoring lever even more vigorously than they already do.
    • wat10000 1y ago
      Globalization adds competition for both labor and business, which will drive prices down. That will limit what unions are able to bargain for, but it also limits what non-union workers are able to bargain for, so it's somewhat orthogonal. A smart union won't bargain so hard that their employer decides to move the facility instead.
• ccorcos 1y ago
  I really want to read a good response to this comment. I have the same questions, and I’ll add one more thought. Lots of people talk about how the US should be more like Europe. People say the average European has a better quality of life, etc. Well, Europe has tariffs…
  • ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Europe has tariffs pretty much in line with the US. The weighted average tariff for the EU is 2.7% and 2.2% for the US. There's of course the opportunity to get those in line, but that requires negotiations.
    • bagels 1y ago
      Had, past tense.
    • ccorcos 1y ago
      Weighted average is an interesting metric, but I'm not sure of its value in this context. I can imagine that perhaps 2-3% is more of an equilibrium and any amount of tariffs will still trend towards some market equlibrium. I believe the EU has 10% tariffs on all US autos and we didnt have tariff theirs. That seems relevant in a way that this weighted average doesn't account for, right?
      • ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        And the US has a 25% tariff on F150s (light duty vehicles). You can go tit for tat down the line, but all in all the numbers I gave you are the sum of everything. Heavy tariffs won’t bring an equilibrium. It will only make imported goods expensive and allow the existing domestic producers to become laze and uncompetitive, all in all zeroing their export value.
      • rat87 1y ago
        We tarrif Trucks because they tarrifed our chickens. Tarrifs are pretty complicated and often don't make sense. But no the idea that EU tarrifs on the US are much higher on average is unsupportable
• boringg 1y ago
  Agreed there are serious restructuring that needs to happen in the US. That said this approach doesn't make a lot of sense. There are many ways to do this without antagonizing all of your allies which only helps out your enemies and ostracizes the U.S. Loss of confidence in the greenback is deeply problematic for US power.
• TehCorwiz 1y ago
  Tax corporations and the wealthy since they receive the majority of the benefits. They benefit from a trained healthy workforce, social safety nets, infrastructure like roads and electricity and water. They benefit form the US dollar being the reserve currency for most of the world. I literally cannot list all the ways these two groups benefit in a real tangible outsized way than any other individual. Trump wants to eliminate all federal taxes. That's NOT going to reduce the deficit. The current republican spending bill includes a 4.5T tax cut to the wealthy and businesses, while cutting only 2T in spending from entitlements WE PAY INTO SEPARATE FROM TAXES. I am entitled to the money that me and my employer pay into Social Security, it's an investment, not a tax. Let's stop taking from working people who are quickly falling further and further into poverty and start taking from the people who literally own everything!
  • dfilppi 1y ago
    [dead]
• mrtksn 1y ago
  JD Vance had a nice speech about globalisation lately, he describes how globalisation made the rest of the world advanced and rich: https://x.com/OopsGuess/status/1902396228404674853 https://x.com/OopsGuess/status/1902396228404674853 So if people were trying to make the world a better place congratulations they succeeded. JD Vance uses a bit different framing(!). Anyway, back to your question, IMHO the problem in thinking here is that it implies that there must be "They" and "Us". You can't just get prosperous as a humanity, it needs to be a subgroup like "Americans" or "Germans" that do amazing things and they are very unsatisfied that Chinese and Indians got advanced and no longer do the shitty jobs. When they say globalism has failed us, they mean we thought that Vietnamese will keep making our shoes but now they are making cars too. Essentially the core of the problem(or ideal) is nationalism and borders associated with it, preventing of people move around and pursue happiness. A group of people like the generations of Americans who pioneered many technologies and sciences built a world, then other group of people(mostly their offsprings or people who caught up thanks to proximity to the ground zero) operated within that world and made some choices and transformed the world into something else. Now, they are unhappy with the current state and propose teaming up around something like religion/attitudes around genders etc. If you subscribe to the idea that people should team around these things and if you think that you won't be suffering that much and you don't care that some people might suffer a lot, then yes the current actions actually makes sense.
  • sjakakznxx 1y ago
    > is that it implies that there must be "They" and "Us". You can't just get prosperous as a humanity This idea of humanity transcending our genetic (due to geographic proximity) tribal groups is a uniquely European one. Pretending we can abandon all tribalism and integrate the entire world into a European model is either immensely incompetent or intentionally malicious (I tend to think the latter). The current billionaire class profits immensely from all the diversity (both generic and ideological) in the west. It’s much easier to parasitically rule a divided people than a unified one. Nationalism is a defense against these parasites. > needs to be a subgroup like "Americans" or "Germans" that do amazing things and they are very unsatisfied that Chinese and Indians got advanced The issue isn’t other countries improving. The issue is the average America should not have a degraded quality of life (barring major natural disasters etc) so that our billionaires can be richer. A nationalist elite class would correctly say “no, we keep those jobs here because it benefits my countryman even if I’m going to make less money”. We do not have this and the wealth gap continues to increase. > If you're subscribe the idea that people should team around these things and if you think that you won't be suffering that much and you don't care that some people might suffer a lot Do you think parents should prioritize their children? Not saying this snidely - there’s no black and white lines here, but I think universalism can only be accomplished by taking care of our own and growing our tent, as opposed to diminishing our own to lift up others (who in many cases do not share our universalist sentiments).
• arrosenberg 1y ago
  > So, to anyone who disagrees with these measures, but agrees that these are issues we ought to solve, what would you propose? Good faith negotiations with our allies and trading partners that creates a balance of trade and reduces wealth inequality in the west. I'm not opposed to the actual ideas being floated, but the people doing are are completely unserious and it's being implemented in a stupid nonsense way.
  • kolanos 1y ago
    > Good faith negotiations with our allies and trading partners that creates a balance of trade and reduces wealth inequality in the west. We can look at a 50+ year history of every major U.S. trade partner increasing their protectionist policies, largely targeting the U.S., while the U.S. allowed trade deficits to balloon out of control. I don't see evidence that this "good faith" approach you speak of has any viability at all. The global economy can't say with a straight face that it has been a fair trade partner with the United States. For the past 50+ years the U.S. market has been open for business for all global producers, but the same has been far from true for pretty much every major U.S. trade partner. You can't even operate a company in China without 50% Chinese ownership, for example. The global stance on trade has all but made this an inevitable outcome.
    • arrosenberg 1y ago
      We negotiated those deals, we aren’t the victims. Now we don’t like how a deal turned out so instead of renegotiating we are throwing a temper tantrum like we weren’t the ones who suggested it in the first place. It’s embarrassing to be represented like that, and it won’t work! We will wind up weaker than we started, I hope they prove me wrong.
      • kolanos 1y ago
        The u.S. didn't negotiate protectionist policies against their own exports. Can you cite a single example of this? A more charitable explanation is that the U.S. has been all in on globalization and free trade since the 1970s and the rest of the world took a protectionist stance in response. I'm sure the rest of the world had their reasons. But the U.S. does now, too. Globalization and free trade that only substantially flows in one direction simply is not sustainable.
• no_wizard 1y ago
  >For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well? We could instead pay for re-education and training for these folks to find jobs that do align better with the global economy and bolster social safety nets to help with job loss. Tariffs are no guarantee the jobs will come back either or even if some of the manufacturing does come back to the US, that it will employ people who need it most or in the same number. Manufacturing automation is quite sophisticated nowadays. Even if the manufacturing comes back to the US - which I don't think is going to happen en masse if at all - the employment prospects that you're suggesting in this line of reasoning won't come back with them, is what the evidence suggests. >There really are structural challenges to onshoring production due to strength of the dollar due to its reserve currency status; our society as such is biased heavily toward importing goods rather than exporting goods. This is a real challenge that needs to be addressed as well. Why? Why is onshoring production of non critical goods a benefit to the US as a whole over the long term? Why do we want to protect manufacturing interests at the expense of other interests? These questions haven't been addressed. Not to mention the pain tariffs are going to cause isn't being addressed either, we're simply told to 'grin and bear it', and for what are we doing that exactly? Whats the actual nuts and bolts plan here? Everywhere I look at the argument for tariffs I come up short on legitimate answers to these questions >Our national debt is not sustainable either. Either we pay it down some, or we inflate it away; these are the two ways it goes away, ignoring the option of a world-shattering default on the debt. Tariffs accomplish both of those, raising money at the same time as raising cost of goods and weakening the dollar. There's other ways to handle the national debt than put broad tariffs on all our trading partners - including allies who have actually been very generous about their trade terms and investments in the US, like Japan, the UK (really much of western Europe), Canada etc. If we really want to strength the dollar, we could raise wealth taxes (like capital gains or instituting a land value tax for example) and moderate spending. Why are tariffs superior to this? Tariffs only hurt the poor and middle classes anyway, who can't simply fly out of the country for large purchases to avoid them.
• austin-cheney 1y ago
  > For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete That misses the point on so many levels. First of all consider that this is a domestic problem too. What about all the businesses abandoning California for Texas because wages are so much lower to achieve an equivalent cost of living? Cheaper goods produced elsewhere is not necessarily a security concern for the economy. Silicon produced only in Taiwan is a security concern for the US, for example, but rubber production isn't even though the US cannot produce natural rubber. Finally, and most importantly, price depreciation of goods due to global options frees up American businesses and employees to seek more lucrative ventures as the market demands that would other not exist due to opportunity costs.
• ASinclair 1y ago
  If you believe in these tariffs then the major problem is how he enacted them. Businesses want certainty. It takes years to build factories. The next president could just wipe away these tariffs instantly. Hell, even the current one could. That does not give these companies the certainty they need to commit years of effort to building factories. If the goal is to spur domestic manufacturing then, at a minimum, he would get the tariffs enacted via a new law so they're more likely to stick for the long term.
  • 0x5f3759df-i 1y ago
    This is the key point. Even if tariffs did everything Trump claims they will (they will not) no one is investing billions to build factories in America for tariffs that will not be there in a few years. Turns out that governing based on the whims of the executive has downsides.
    • gizzlon 1y ago
      > not be there in a few years Years? Lol, how much would you bet they are all exactly the same in a month? A week?
  • Lord_Zero 1y ago
    Which is why they want to abolish term limits.
    • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      Their point has nothing to do with term limits. > Hell, even the current [president] could [eliminate these tariffs]. The point is that the goal of building onshore production isn't as likely to be reached with these tariffs due in part to the uncertainty surrounding the method of enacting the tariffs.
    • kristjansson 1y ago
      There is still a functioning system of laws in this county. Devolving into a monarchy is not a necessary condition for stable trade policy (and the particular guy trying to install himself has not proven a force for stability in trade policies, even his own viz. USMCA).
• scotty79 1y ago
  > what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, Tariffs won't make them any better at their jobs. So the American customer can expect higher prices and lower quality of products and services.
• greybox 1y ago
  One unintended benefit of this move might be reducing greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping ... if US consumers are consuming more US made products, the supply chain for those projects will have gotten significantly shorter in nautical miles. I'm hesitant credit President Trump with this too soon though, after all, his motto is "drill drill drill", but It's going to be interesting to see what happens.
  • fwip 1y ago
    Emissions from shipping are about 3-5% of global greenhouse gases, and my understanding is that also includes all domestic shipping. Emissions from personal vehicles (not including freight trucks) is at something like 10%. I don't have specific numbers for America on hand, but I'd be very surprised if Trump's administration broke even, let alone cause an overall reduction.
• jayd16 1y ago
  If it's fundamentally a jobs program, you can be a lot smarter about it than tariffs. If companies couldn't compete before, they're now further disincentivized to compete, leaving the rest of us worse off and uncompetitive with the rest of the world. Tariffs are just bad policy.
  • rtkwe 1y ago
    That's the part I just don't get about the pro tariff as reshoring manufacturing argument. That industry only makes sense and will only be profitable in a world where the tariffs are permanent. The Vietnamese textile factories aren't going to just disappear their exports will shift to other parts of the world and if the tariffs ever disappear they'll shift right back to the US. So you'll have a tiny fragile industry beholden to the government for its continued existence that makes an expensive product only for domestic consumption... Maybe that's the actual goal create a new raft of client industries and workers in that industry who'll support the administration because to not do it will destroy them simply by lifting or easing the tariffs.
• Justsignedup 1y ago
  Tarrifs are a tool that must be applied strategically. You typically announce tarrifs years in advance so business can shift their logistics and build out manufacturing where you want it. However a daily change in tariffs only creates a chaos that the economy cannot simply respond to fast enough. A new steel mill won't magically appear in the middle of the US within a month.
  • duskwuff 1y ago
    > A new steel mill won't magically appear in the middle of the US within a month. And yet, I'm sure Trump will show up at one to take credit for its existence within the next month or so.
• myrmidon 1y ago
  Do you honestly believe that there are significant numbers of US citizens lining up to take up low-margin manufacturing work as is currently done in China or elsewhere? Chinese manufacturing workers live on a $25k/y income ($15k without adjusting for purchasing parity!). Do you beliefe that raising prices on goods by 30%ish is enough to make those jobs attractive to US citizens? What sectors would you suggest primarily sourcing domestic manufacturing workers from, and would you agree that just doing that is going to lead to further cost increase for the average consumer? In my view, the current tariff approach is a rather naive attempt at improving national self-sufficiency at the cost of the average citizen, and the administrations explicit statements and goals make this pretty clear-- shifting government income from taxes to tariffs is a very obvious losing move for the vast majority of people that spend most of their income. US economy right now is heavily biased towards providing services and high-tech goods because that is the most valuable use of its citizens according to market dynamics. Managing the economy in a "I know better than the market way" certainly did not work out for the soviets... Sometimes I feel that people construct elaborate theories of how Trumps policies will end up beneficial for the average citizen, despite clear, explicit descriptions of how that is not the goal and historical precedent of acting directly against working-class interests (i.e. raising estate tax exemptions above literal 1%er-thresholds).
  • hnthrowaway0315 1y ago
    I agree with you. The middle class is going to take all of the blunts. The rich people more or less are not impacted.
  • arandomusername 1y ago
    So you are okay with exploiting people for labour, often in inhumane conditions just so you can buy some unnecessary junk for cheaper? > US economy right now is heavily biased towards providing services and high-tech goods because that is the most valuable use of its citizens according to market dynamics So basically geared for upper class / banking industry? US has some of the highest wealth inequality of the developed world. But by far the most important aspect is military. Manufacturing capability is extremely important for military. US may be the most advanced, but a $10m rocket will not beat 10,000 $1000 drones. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/05sweatshop.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/05... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-... https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/dhs-cracks-down-goods-produced-china-s-state-sponsored-forced-labor https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/dhs-crac...
• 16bytes 1y ago
  > What about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well? What about all of the domestic producers of finished goods who can now can not afford their materials and supplies? What about the domestic supplier of that finished goods producer who has their orders cut because the finished goods producer needs to cut production? What about the domestic consumer who'd like to buy those finished goods, but they can't afford it because prices over all have increased? What about the barber shop by the finished goods plant that has to shut down because the finished goods plant cut their workforce by 50%? 100+ years of studying tariffs have shown that they are effective when very narrowly targeted. Otherwise they almost never achieve their stated goal of actually increasing domestic production. Should we tax goods from Mississippi to NY to save jobs in NYC? After all, wages in NYC are way higher than in MS. Trade with MS pulls down wages with NYC.
• jorblumesea 1y ago
  It's not the idea, it's how it was rolled out, how poorly it was communicated, how little sense the numbers mean.
• SpaceManNabs 1y ago
  This is a bunch of nonsense that is not driven by data and not even worth a response. I am tired of people spitting BS just to defend Trump's inane policies and everyone else having to rederive modern economic trade theory in comments in order to counter it. Physicists used to get a bunch of derision for thinking their high skills in analytical thinking in physics easily carried over to other fields, and now we have CS majors thinking the same. Regardless I will do some of the countering: > what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well? We had a candidates that offered job re-training programs. Those candidates weren't selected and those jobs went away even as we tried to put up protectionist domestic policy. > our society as such is biased heavily toward importing goods rather than exporting goods. This is fine. Comparative advantages and all. We just need to produce the goods necessary for national security. It worked out well so far. Do we actually want to have other countries do the high value services and us doing the low value manufacturing???? Why are you justifying engaging in a trade war with Cambodia and Vietnam? > Tariffs accomplish both of those, raising money at the same time as raising cost of goods and weakening the dollar. This is not backed by any data. Every single economic thinkthank worth a damn, including conservative ones, have detailed how it will raise the national debt. I am tired of people saying ridiculous arguments just so they can stave off cognitive dissonance. Tearing down our soft power and throwig out every trade deal we have carefully crafted since WWII is absolutely ridiculous.
• teovall 1y ago
  If you really want to onshore production, you don't increase taxes on the import of raw materials, parts, and components, you only do so for finished goods. That isn't what this administration has done though. They say they want to increase domestic manufacturing, but their actions clearly prove that that is not their goal.
• dismalaf 1y ago
  You can't look at this move as something in isolation. Trump has also completely flipped geopolitics on their head. Here's other things he's done: - Threatened Canada - Threatened Greenland/Denmark - Supported Russia (it's obvious) - Told NATO allies export F-35s will be nerfed just in case we come into conflict Americans are already very insular, I don't think you all realise just how much you've pissed off Europe and Canada (I live in both places throughout the year, family in both)... American multinationals have benefited greatly from trade with other countries... Look around the world: iPhones and Apple products everywhere, Windows computers, Google dominates search, the USA is a top travel destination, American weapons are used by most allies, etc... Right now in Canada and European countries we're talking about completely cutting out all US trade and travel. Like all of it. It won't be policy but the US has completely destroyed all goodwill and cultural influence it has across the "West". Because of immense hatred of Russia, China is now the "lesser evil" and pretty much all developed countries will band together. And not only will countries move on from US hegemony, they'll accept any pain that comes with it because Russia is threatening Europe and the USA is threatening their neighbours. Without the geopolitical aspect, the US might have won this trade war. But no one is going to bow to the US to then get sold out and conquered by Russia...
• losvedir 1y ago
  As a software engineer dealing with bits and bytes all day, it's easy to lose sight of the hard and sharp parts of reality. My wife is a chemical engineer who actually goes into a factory and is constantly dealing with production issues in actually making soap, ice cream, chemicals flow (different factories over her career). JD Vance had an interview somewhere (I think in the NYTimes?) where he claimed that national prosperity is downstream of military might which is downstream of industrial base. It made me stop and think, because that does line up with what I was taught about how the Allies won WW2, and the US beat the Soviets in the Cold War: we outproduced them. I'm not sure if this is "fighting the last war", though, since I imagine a lot of warfare going forward is going to be technological and with things like drones, etc. It's just so easy to deal with our economic abstraction, of dollars flying around, and computer work, and services and so on, that I sometimes do wonder about your point here about the actual physical, production of goods, and how important that is. Can you have a long term, stable, healthy, successful country that doesn't (and can't) produce anything physical? We clearly can still make some stuff. I have a great squat rack and barbell set from Rogue Fitness, which makes stuff here in the USA (captured in this beautiful advertisement video[0]), and it's awesome. But I also have a made-in-the-USA wood pellet smoker which is garbage, and which I kind of wish I had just bought from China. All to say, yeah, I think there's the potential for there to be something along the lines of what you're saying. That said, the implementation is maybe not great. Even taking the Tesla Texas Gigafactory, which was built in warp speed (construction to first cars in about 1.5 years), that's only leaving 2 years before a potential next administration could roll back the tariffs if they wanted. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aCMGqA6_XY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aCMGqA6_XY
• nitwit005 1y ago
  There is a net outflow of US dollars, because we keep issuing new debt. The fix there is to stop issuing new debt, by fixing the budget. Sadly, no one seems to think this administration will do that.
• rat87 1y ago
  > Everyone is quick to deride this move as stupid. I don’t disagree that there are downsides to the approach, but there is a set of very real national problems that this might address. Because it is stupid. It's important to point out that this is stupid and not only doesn't help with problems that come with the benefits of globalization but makes it worse. How will a deep recession fox anything? Including debt(which is high but manageable under a sane government)
• greg7gkb 1y ago
  > very real national problems that this might address. This is a dubious claim to begin with. If you believe that 'trade deficits are bad,' can you explain why? Post Covid, the US economy has emerged in significantly better shape than nearly every other country in the world, so I'm failing to see how these deficits are meaningful. > Globalization has played a big role in creating the massive income inequality in our country What is your source for this belief, especially when comparing globalization with other factors that cause inequality? From my understanding, the biggest recent contributors to a higher cost of living in the US are housing, health, and education. Health and education purely services-oriented, and housing is one-third a labor cost. > our society as such is biased heavily toward importing goods rather than exporting goods I think that's great. America exports services. We innovate to create new technology, are a leader in designing the things and systems that people want (think of our tech industry), and we delegate the work of manufacturing to others. That seems fine to me, and a function of having (relatively) open, free trade.
• Marsymars 1y ago
  > So, to anyone who disagrees with these measures, but agrees that these are issues we ought to solve, what would you propose? At a high level, the problem is that free trade makes the pie bigger, but causes distribution/inequality problems. So generally speaking, the best measures are going to be those that improve inequality while minimizing the impact to the size of the pie. Raise taxes on the wealthy, increase spending on social programs to the non-wealthy, fund investments in programs that benefit everyone equally. (Public transit, libraries, healthcare, education, etc.) Tariffs shrink the pie, and I'd heavily bet against those hurt by globalization being those who are able to grab a bigger slice under the current administration.
• regularjack 1y ago
  Tax the billionaires and the behemoth corporations.