3 ms·
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
by 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 agoEither 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 agoBut the clothing costs more without the benefit of supporting countries with stronger workers' rights. Isn't that the worst of both worlds?
- leereeves 2y agoThe 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.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoThe ideal outcome is a fantasy. The US doesn't have factories because every large US company currently offshores their factory labor. The tariffs at this point in time just increase costs for consumers while, ideally, US companies build factories on US soil over the next 5+ years. That is not a good outcome for Americans, even considering the support of future American manufacturing.
- maxerickson 2y agoImposing a tax on goods from offshore suppliers is a subsidy. Almost literally, as the goal of the tariff is to change buyer behavior. At least, of the tariff even has a coherent goal.
- dttze 2y ago> Either way clothing will cost more. If there are no tariffs they won't cost more. They could use other means to onshore jobs without causing a huge shock to the economy, then raise tariffs.