3 ms·

> 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, sh

> 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.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > In general I think these tariffs are terrible but taking the side of fast fashion is pretty much always morally wrong. I'm not taking the side of fast fashion: I'm saying that US people would potentially spend less in aggregate when all items are suddenly more expensive, which can have domestic economic effects. Especially with the suddenness of all this (the day after which Trump went golfing). If you want to deal with the specific issue of working conditions, then (e.g.) a treaty mandating working conditions (with international monitoring?) could be a better idea, with violations imposing tariffs for violations after a transition period so changes have time to be implemented.
lliamander 2y ago
> Do you want people operating sewing machines or (say) welders? Adequate clothing is actually a very important in war. Frostbite, sunburn, heat exhaustion, cuts and scrapes (which can lead to infection), trench foot, etc. are all conditions that can be mitigated through clothing.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Adequate clothing is actually a very important in war. Frostbite, sunburn, heat exhaustion, cuts and scrapes (which can lead to infection), trench foot, etc. are all conditions that can be mitigated through clothing. Which is why all US military clothing is mandated to be domestically produced (Berry Amendment). But how much industrial capacity do you want to take up making clothing? Or do you want to concentrate your finite workforce in perhaps being able to produce (say) artillery shells or cruise missiles? Which is another ironic/sad part of Trump and Ukraine: a large portion of the US money 'sent' to UA actually went to the American military industrial complex. Helping UA was actually helping the US in being better prepared from a military supply chain POV. Similarly, by alienating NATO allies, they're now less inclined to purchase US military gear, and so there will be lower economies of scale for fighters and missiles and such. The icebreaker agreement (ICE Pact) would have caused investment in US shipyards: * https://canadiandefencereview.com/davie-will-soon-establish-a-u-s-shipbuilding-presence-solidifying-its-role-in-the-icebreaker-collaboration-effort-ice-pact/ https://canadiandefencereview.com/davie-will-soon-establish-... * https://gcaptain.com/polar-icebreakers-may-be-key-to-jumpstarting-american-shipbuilding-new-report-finds/ https://gcaptain.com/polar-icebreakers-may-be-key-to-jumpsta... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_Pact
  - lliamander 2y ago
    > Which is why all US military clothing is mandated to be domestically produced (Berry Amendment). Cool. > But how much industrial capacity do you want to take up making clothing? I actually want the market to decide that. But that is fundamentally what we do not have. It has been more or less the result of conscious trade policy (by all governments involved) to incentivize production in other countries.

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.

throw0101c 2y ago
> In general I think these tariffs are terrible but taking the side of fast fashion is pretty much always morally wrong. I'm not taking the side of fast fashion: I'm saying that US people would potentially spend less in aggregate when all items are suddenly more expensive, which can have domestic economic effects. Especially with the suddenness of all this (the day after which Trump went golfing). If you want to deal with the specific issue of working conditions, then (e.g.) a treaty mandating working conditions (with international monitoring?) could be a better idea, with violations imposing tariffs for violations after a transition period so changes have time to be implemented.

lliamander 2y ago

> Do you want people operating sewing machines or (say) welders? Adequate clothing is actually a very important in war. Frostbite, sunburn, heat exhaustion, cuts and scrapes (which can lead to infection), trench foot, etc. are all conditions that can be mitigated through clothing.

throw0101c 2y ago
> Adequate clothing is actually a very important in war. Frostbite, sunburn, heat exhaustion, cuts and scrapes (which can lead to infection), trench foot, etc. are all conditions that can be mitigated through clothing. Which is why all US military clothing is mandated to be domestically produced (Berry Amendment). But how much industrial capacity do you want to take up making clothing? Or do you want to concentrate your finite workforce in perhaps being able to produce (say) artillery shells or cruise missiles? Which is another ironic/sad part of Trump and Ukraine: a large portion of the US money 'sent' to UA actually went to the American military industrial complex. Helping UA was actually helping the US in being better prepared from a military supply chain POV. Similarly, by alienating NATO allies, they're now less inclined to purchase US military gear, and so there will be lower economies of scale for fighters and missiles and such. The icebreaker agreement (ICE Pact) would have caused investment in US shipyards: * https://canadiandefencereview.com/davie-will-soon-establish-a-u-s-shipbuilding-presence-solidifying-its-role-in-the-icebreaker-collaboration-effort-ice-pact/ https://canadiandefencereview.com/davie-will-soon-establish-... * https://gcaptain.com/polar-icebreakers-may-be-key-to-jumpstarting-american-shipbuilding-new-report-finds/ https://gcaptain.com/polar-icebreakers-may-be-key-to-jumpsta... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_Pact
- lliamander 2y ago
  > Which is why all US military clothing is mandated to be domestically produced (Berry Amendment). Cool. > But how much industrial capacity do you want to take up making clothing? I actually want the market to decide that. But that is fundamentally what we do not have. It has been more or less the result of conscious trade policy (by all governments involved) to incentivize production in other countries.