4 ms·

> But, he claims, there are network effects to manufacturing. Those countries low on the value chain, once they learn how how to build things, are better equipp

> But, he claims, there are network effects to manufacturing. Those countries low on the value chain, once they learn how how to build things, are better equipped to rise in the value chain and replace companies completely. So you place tariffs on specific goods that you wish to strategically produce domestically. * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good Doing a blanket tariff on (e.g.) Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—which hits clothing (see Nike, Adidas stock prices)—is not helpful. Why is the US interested in making sneakers and t-shirts? Doing specific tariffs for strategic / national security purposes is one thing, but that is obviously not what is happening here: and it is obvious because tariffs were put on the island of Diego Garcia, whose on inhabitants are US and UK military personnel, and Heard and McDonald Islands in the middle of nowhere whose only inhabitants are penguins.

inetknght 2y ago
> Doing a blanket tariff on (e.g.) Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—which hits clothing (see Nike, Adidas stock prices)—is not helpful. Why is the US interested in making sneakers and t-shirts? Why shouldn't the US be interested in being able to clothe its own people?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  For the same reasons most of us don't sew our own clothes. We have better things to do, and others will do it faster, cheaper, and better than we can.
  - lliamander 2y ago
    > cheaper One major reason why it is cheaper to make these clothes overseas is because we have such a stringent regulatory regime for worker and environmental protections, and using foreign manufacturers is essentially a loophole through those regulations. Whether those regulations are useful or not is entirely beside the point: if they are good, then moving manufacturing over to lower regulation countries is bad and we should impose tariffs on all of those goods. If those regulations are bad, then we should just repeal them and let domestic manufacturers compete on an even playing field.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      We grow corn in Kansas and not NYC's Central Park. (Roughly) the same regulatory regime; very different costs of living and available workforces.
      - lliamander 2y ago
        Yes, there will still be specialization and trade in a balanced regulatory environment.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        Precisely. As such, Americans don't make many of their own clothes.
        lliamander 2y ago
        No. We don't make our own clothes because: 1. The regulatory burden on manufacturing is much higher here than foreign countries 2. Those foreign countries have a deliberate policy of maintaining a trade surplus in order to improve their own industrial capacity at the expense of our own I would absolutely expect that even in a more level trade environment there would still be some foreign manufacturing of clothes. But what we are seeing is not the happy accident of the free market, but the result of very deliberate government policy.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        You've left out: 3. American workers have more productive uses of their time.
        lliamander 2y ago
        No, I did not. Are you actually going to engage with the arguments I have made?
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Why shouldn't the US be interested in being able to clothe its own people? There are plenty of made-in-USA clothing companies: what do those items (shoes, shirts, pants, underwear, coats, etc) cost compared to the same items made not-in-USA? How much do you want your citizens spending on such items compared to other things? Do you want them to spend 3-5% on apparel: * https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/spending-on-clothing-and-footwear-falls-below-3-of-disposable-income-for-first-time-in-u-s-history/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/spending-on-clothing-and-foot... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditures_price_index#Comparison_to_CPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditu... Or 10%? More? Most people have a finite income, so whatever they're spending on clothing they're not spending on something else (which could include services). How important is making clothing as an industry compared to something else? Yes, manufacturing is important, but given that a country has a finite population it may be prudent to be more focused: > Democratic countries’ economies are mainly set up as free market economies with redistribution, because this is what maximizes living standards in peacetime. In a free market economy, if a foreign country wants to sell you cheap cars, you let them do it, and you allocate your own productive resources to something more profitable instead. If China is willing to sell you brand-new electric vehicles for $10,000, why should you turn them down? Just make B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps, sell them for a high profit margin, and drive a Chinese car. > Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps aren’t very useful for defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about manufacturing would have been years before the war, except you weren’t able to anticipate and prepare for the future. Manufacturing doesn’t just support war — in a very real way, it’s a war in and of itself. * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now Do you want people operating sewing machines or (say) welders?
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    The garment industry is an interesting one to make a cost argument about. It produces an immense amount of ecological damage and human suffering to support prices so low that even poor people have way more clothing than they need. The garment industry in Southeast Asia has some of the worst working conditions in the world, comparable without cynicism to modern day slavery. Of all the things that I would like to see taxed, the garment industry is absolutely one. Yes, it would be worth it to pay more per item of clothing if it was created by someone with human rights. Super worth it. Please tax the likes of Vietnam and kill fast fashion brands like Shien. The world would be 100% better. In general I think these tariffs are terrible but taking the side of fast fashion is pretty much always morally wrong.
- dttze 2y ago
  Making clothes more expensive for everyone is helping that how?
  - leereeves 2y ago
    The reason it makes the clothes more expensive is that US workers are paid more, work in better conditions, and have more rights. That's worth spending more to support.
    - dttze 2y ago
      I'm talking about jacking up tariffs immediately, costing US consumers right now, with false promises of mfg magically popping up immediately to replace it. The government needs to directly fund and standup industrial infrastructure in the way China does with their SEZ to actually bring the jobs here, and we know that that will never happen.
      - leereeves 2y ago
        Either way clothing will cost more. Unless China (or another supplier) chooses to pay the tariffs to make their products more competitive. I've heard allegations that they do sometimes export products below cost.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        But the clothing costs more without the benefit of supporting countries with stronger workers' rights. Isn't that the worst of both worlds?
        leereeves 2y ago
        The extra costs support the US government, so opinions will vary. But that's the pessimistic view. The ideal outcome is making import costs high enough that US manufacturing can compete without subsidies.
Izkata 2y ago
> and Heard and McDonald Islands in the middle of nowhere whose only inhabitants are penguins. This one is because of imports that were labeled as having come from there: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/04/revealed-how-trump-tariffs-slugged-norfolk-island-and-uninhabited-heard-and-mcdonald-islands https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/04/revea...
bitshiftfaced 2y ago
> Doing specific tariffs for strategic / national security purposes is one thing, but that is obviously not what is happening here: It's not so obvious to me. If they left certain countries out, then bad actors could set up shop in those countries to exploit their low tariff. For example, Chinese companies opened factories in Mexico after the first round of tariffs hit China. As for why not targeting certain items, it seems pretty clear that Trump is concerned more with trade imbalance itself than security reasons (he puts it as, "make America wealthy again"). Instead of creating very complex regulations that are always behind the constantly changing market, the policy is simple. It forces the other country to figure out what's causing the trade imbalance.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > It's not so obvious to me. If they left certain countries out, then bad actors could set up shop in those countries to exploit their low tariff. For example, Chinese companies opened factories in Mexico after the first round of tariffs hit China. Is that why Israel got 17% tariffs but Iran has 10%? Or why Diego Garcia—who is run by the UK—also got hit with tariffs, even though the only inhabitants are UK and US military personnel. There's a bunch of B-2s there right now: * https://www.twz.com/air/b-2-spirits-amassed-on-diego-garcia-underscore-hardened-aircraft-shelter-debate https://www.twz.com/air/b-2-spirits-amassed-on-diego-garcia-... * https://newrepublic.com/post/193523/donald-trump-tariffs-us-military-base https://newrepublic.com/post/193523/donald-trump-tariffs-us-...
  - bitshiftfaced 2y ago
    > Is that why Israel got 17% tariffs but Iran has 10%? Wouldn't tariffs being based off of the trade deficit explain exactly this? Also maybe this is not the best example since doesn't the US already impose sanctions on Iran?
    - throw0101d 2y ago
      > Wouldn't tariffs being based off of the trade deficit explain exactly this? Also maybe this is not the best example since doesn't the US already impose sanctions on Iran? Yes, which is why the tariff rates are retarded. As someone observed: it's like being taxed not on your income, but on the number of vowels in your name.

inetknght 2y ago

> Doing a blanket tariff on (e.g.) Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—which hits clothing (see Nike, Adidas stock prices)—is not helpful. Why is the US interested in making sneakers and t-shirts? Why shouldn't the US be interested in being able to clothe its own people?

ceejayoz 2y ago
For the same reasons most of us don't sew our own clothes. We have better things to do, and others will do it faster, cheaper, and better than we can.
- lliamander 2y ago
  > cheaper One major reason why it is cheaper to make these clothes overseas is because we have such a stringent regulatory regime for worker and environmental protections, and using foreign manufacturers is essentially a loophole through those regulations. Whether those regulations are useful or not is entirely beside the point: if they are good, then moving manufacturing over to lower regulation countries is bad and we should impose tariffs on all of those goods. If those regulations are bad, then we should just repeal them and let domestic manufacturers compete on an even playing field.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    We grow corn in Kansas and not NYC's Central Park. (Roughly) the same regulatory regime; very different costs of living and available workforces.
    - lliamander 2y ago
      Yes, there will still be specialization and trade in a balanced regulatory environment.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Precisely. As such, Americans don't make many of their own clothes.
        lliamander 2y ago
        No. We don't make our own clothes because: 1. The regulatory burden on manufacturing is much higher here than foreign countries 2. Those foreign countries have a deliberate policy of maintaining a trade surplus in order to improve their own industrial capacity at the expense of our own I would absolutely expect that even in a more level trade environment there would still be some foreign manufacturing of clothes. But what we are seeing is not the happy accident of the free market, but the result of very deliberate government policy.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        You've left out: 3. American workers have more productive uses of their time.
        lliamander 2y ago
        No, I did not. Are you actually going to engage with the arguments I have made?
throw0101c 2y ago
> Why shouldn't the US be interested in being able to clothe its own people? There are plenty of made-in-USA clothing companies: what do those items (shoes, shirts, pants, underwear, coats, etc) cost compared to the same items made not-in-USA? How much do you want your citizens spending on such items compared to other things? Do you want them to spend 3-5% on apparel: * https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/spending-on-clothing-and-footwear-falls-below-3-of-disposable-income-for-first-time-in-u-s-history/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/spending-on-clothing-and-foot... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditures_price_index#Comparison_to_CPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditu... Or 10%? More? Most people have a finite income, so whatever they're spending on clothing they're not spending on something else (which could include services). How important is making clothing as an industry compared to something else? Yes, manufacturing is important, but given that a country has a finite population it may be prudent to be more focused: > Democratic countries’ economies are mainly set up as free market economies with redistribution, because this is what maximizes living standards in peacetime. In a free market economy, if a foreign country wants to sell you cheap cars, you let them do it, and you allocate your own productive resources to something more profitable instead. If China is willing to sell you brand-new electric vehicles for $10,000, why should you turn them down? Just make B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps, sell them for a high profit margin, and drive a Chinese car. > Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps aren’t very useful for defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about manufacturing would have been years before the war, except you weren’t able to anticipate and prepare for the future. Manufacturing doesn’t just support war — in a very real way, it’s a war in and of itself. * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now Do you want people operating sewing machines or (say) welders?
- dingnuts 2y ago
  The garment industry is an interesting one to make a cost argument about. It produces an immense amount of ecological damage and human suffering to support prices so low that even poor people have way more clothing than they need. The garment industry in Southeast Asia has some of the worst working conditions in the world, comparable without cynicism to modern day slavery. Of all the things that I would like to see taxed, the garment industry is absolutely one. Yes, it would be worth it to pay more per item of clothing if it was created by someone with human rights. Super worth it. Please tax the likes of Vietnam and kill fast fashion brands like Shien. The world would be 100% better. In general I think these tariffs are terrible but taking the side of fast fashion is pretty much always morally wrong.
dttze 2y ago
Making clothes more expensive for everyone is helping that how?
- leereeves 2y ago
  The reason it makes the clothes more expensive is that US workers are paid more, work in better conditions, and have more rights. That's worth spending more to support.
  - dttze 2y ago
    I'm talking about jacking up tariffs immediately, costing US consumers right now, with false promises of mfg magically popping up immediately to replace it. The government needs to directly fund and standup industrial infrastructure in the way China does with their SEZ to actually bring the jobs here, and we know that that will never happen.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      Either way clothing will cost more. Unless China (or another supplier) chooses to pay the tariffs to make their products more competitive. I've heard allegations that they do sometimes export products below cost.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        But the clothing costs more without the benefit of supporting countries with stronger workers' rights. Isn't that the worst of both worlds?
        leereeves 2y ago
        The extra costs support the US government, so opinions will vary. But that's the pessimistic view. The ideal outcome is making import costs high enough that US manufacturing can compete without subsidies.

Izkata 2y ago

> and Heard and McDonald Islands in the middle of nowhere whose only inhabitants are penguins. This one is because of imports that were labeled as having come from there: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/04/revealed-how-trump-tariffs-slugged-norfolk-island-and-uninhabited-heard-and-mcdonald-islands https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/04/revea...

bitshiftfaced 2y ago

> Doing specific tariffs for strategic / national security purposes is one thing, but that is obviously not what is happening here: It's not so obvious to me. If they left certain countries out, then bad actors could set up shop in those countries to exploit their low tariff. For example, Chinese companies opened factories in Mexico after the first round of tariffs hit China. As for why not targeting certain items, it seems pretty clear that Trump is concerned more with trade imbalance itself than security reasons (he puts it as, "make America wealthy again"). Instead of creating very complex regulations that are always behind the constantly changing market, the policy is simple. It forces the other country to figure out what's causing the trade imbalance.

throw0101d 2y ago
> It's not so obvious to me. If they left certain countries out, then bad actors could set up shop in those countries to exploit their low tariff. For example, Chinese companies opened factories in Mexico after the first round of tariffs hit China. Is that why Israel got 17% tariffs but Iran has 10%? Or why Diego Garcia—who is run by the UK—also got hit with tariffs, even though the only inhabitants are UK and US military personnel. There's a bunch of B-2s there right now: * https://www.twz.com/air/b-2-spirits-amassed-on-diego-garcia-underscore-hardened-aircraft-shelter-debate https://www.twz.com/air/b-2-spirits-amassed-on-diego-garcia-... * https://newrepublic.com/post/193523/donald-trump-tariffs-us-military-base https://newrepublic.com/post/193523/donald-trump-tariffs-us-...
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago
  > Is that why Israel got 17% tariffs but Iran has 10%? Wouldn't tariffs being based off of the trade deficit explain exactly this? Also maybe this is not the best example since doesn't the US already impose sanctions on Iran?
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    > Wouldn't tariffs being based off of the trade deficit explain exactly this? Also maybe this is not the best example since doesn't the US already impose sanctions on Iran? Yes, which is why the tariff rates are retarded. As someone observed: it's like being taxed not on your income, but on the number of vowels in your name.