5 ms·

This is an inherently political subject, but I would appreciate a dispassionate argument explaining how this could be even remotely good for the U.S.'s economy

by beloch 2y ago

This is an inherently political subject, but I would appreciate a dispassionate argument explaining how this could be even remotely good for the U.S.'s economy in a way that is light on MAGA ideology and doesn't simply claim the overwhelming majority of economists are dumb. I'm simply not seeing even a glimmer of a possible upside right now. I see even less possibility of an upside for those of us North of the border or pretty much anywhere else on the globe.

Apreche 2y ago
[flagged]
fulladder 2y ago
The belief of Trump and his allies is that the last 40 years of free trade has been extremely favorable to college educated "elites" and extremely unfavorable to the working class. They see foreign trade as having hollowed out American manufacturing, and therefore they see the shutting down foreign trade as a way to reverse this decline. While they are aware that doing so will hurt college educated professionals, they don't care because they feel those people have had it too good for too long.
- techpineapple 2y ago
  the irony is I don’t think there’s any way this hurts the college educated more than the working classes, as most things do.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  I think that's the belief of his voters in the Upper Midwest, but not necessarily Trump himself. He's the college-educated elite. He's playing them like a fiddle. He knows that they will absorb the damage from this, not the elites, who are far more connected than they are college educated.
- ViktorRay 2y ago
  But these beliefs have been core to the American left for decades. Even left wing intellectuals like Noam Chomsky have attacked the neoliberal trade agreements I think. Trump’s populist right wing fans have adopted traditionally left wing views. What’s surprising is so many left wing people are supportive of free trade when they were against free trade during the Reagan era.
  - kalkin 2y ago
    I don't think the left has been automatically in favor of tariffs--or at least I'd appreciate evidence for that claim. The complaints about free trade deals that I've seen have tended to be about provisions that treated various labor and environmental regulations as restraints on trade. It's fair to say that left-liberal people are paying more attention to the downsides of tariffs than they were, but I don't think it's a simple reversal of positions.
  - alphabettsy 2y ago
    I’m not sure what your sources are but if Bernie Sanders is the left, then he’s been saying the same thing for a long time and continues to. Maybe there’s some nuance to it? 2025 https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-statement-on-trumps-escalating-trade-war-with-the-world/ https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-s... 2011 https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/senate-speech-by-sen-bernie-sanders-on-unfettered-free-trade/ https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/senate-speech-...
  - tokai 2y ago
    MAGA Communism is apparently a thing.
- api 2y ago
  I get it and even sympathize, but I don’t think it will work for three reasons. First is the uncertainty they are creating. Factories take a long time to build and staff and cost millions to billions depending on size and industry. Who in their right mind is going to invest that to build factories that are only economically viable under a tariff regime that could vaporize after the next election? Or if Trump changes his mind? Which he has a history of doing. Chaos like this is anathema to that kind of long term investment. I am not opposed to the idea of trying to rebalance trade and repatriate manufacturing. Not at all. But it can be done skillfully, strategically, and without panicking global markets. This economic pivot is less well planned and executed than Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. The second reason it won’t work is that there’s way more competition today. After WWII during those glory days of US manufacturing everyone talks about Europe was destroyed and much of Asia had not yet industrialized. We were not just selling to a domestic market. We were selling to a world that had no alternatives. That’s just not true anymore. The third reason it won’t work is that these tariffs are going to be massively inflationary and that will wipe out any gains the working class gets from more or better jobs. Meanwhile they are doing nothing to address cost disease in housing, health care, or education. Housing is the big one and I haven’t heard a peep. Instead of using Federal leverage to tilt at windmills like trans people using bathrooms, they could use that power to push states to regularize zoning and allow more home construction. “No more Federal highway funds unless you implement a plan to reduce housing costs.” Now that would help the working class and the young. It would also help things like the birth rate, which I know a bunch of people on the right are freaking out about. Reducing the #1 cost barrier to family formation would help a lot. In short I think they’re doing a terrible erratic job of implementing a dubious strategy. This is going to fail, and we will all get poorer as a result. China will be the largest beneficiary since even more of global trade will now shift to them. They are now seen as stable, responsible, and reliable while we look like a basket case.
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  Sure, it's just that though, a belief. The vast majority of the poor have prospered from free trade; indeed, the costs they complain the most about (health, education, housing) are the biggest categories of things that _can't_ be traded.
- jghn 2y ago
  > The belief of Trump and his allies Trump and his allies are all college educated elites.
- mathfailure 2y ago
  Where did you take this from? Trump is not from working class. Working class might've been his 'platform' for the election, but he's already elected now, he basically has no incentive now to fight for the rights/interests of his voters, he has his own wallet that needs to finally get filled. Unless you think he really aims for a 3rd term.
qiqitori 2y ago
The late night show industry is making record profits.
ViktorRay 2y ago
In the long run it could lead to more fair trade deals. Today’s episode of Newshour at the BBC World Service had a conversation between a BBC journalist and a German CDU politician where they talked about how the tariffs on cars from Germany entering America has historically been lower than the tariffs on cars from America entering Germany. The CDU politician was telling the BBC that he hoped maybe a resolution for all of this would be both America and Europe lowering their tariffs to zero. That was the hope of that politician in the long run though. In the short run the politician was in a sad mood because he felt things economically are going to be bad for everybody.
- jliptzin 2y ago
  Trump himself has said the tariffs are to raise revenue in order to get rid of income and corporate taxes. But now they’re also a negotiating tool to eventually remove all tariffs with our trade partners? That makes no sense
- bawolff 2y ago
  I think that is unlikely. Trade deals require precitability and trust. Nobody wants to sign a trade deal if it might not be worth the paper its written on next week. I would expect that it would make future trade agreements more "unfair" to usa because other countries will price in a risk premium to cover america's unpredictability.
  - beloch 2y ago
    e.g. The U.S. has now violated CUSMA/USMCA/NAFTA 2.0 to an egregious degree, and this treaty is due to be renegotiated next year. As an unreliable partner, the U.S. is going to have to give up some serious concessions to Mexico and Canada to make the treaty happen. It's no different than applying for a loan with a low credit score. If you're a higher risk, the rates will be unfavourable.
- energy123 2y ago
  These tariffs don't create an incentive to strike fair deals because they're not based on trade barriers, they're solely based on trade deficits.
jimmyjazz14 2y ago
I wouldn't say its good for anyone, but it is probably worse for many of our trading partners so they would, in theory, make moves to negotiate with the US to skirt the tariffs. I don't think it will ultimately have been worth it in the end but time will tell.
techpineapple 2y ago
If you want someone talking intellectually about the global trade situation, Oren Cass’ interview with Jon Stewart was pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgEQeLR-M0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgEQeLR-M0g But I do think that a logical assessment undervalues the notion that this is an emotional/intuitive. I don’t think Oren Cass’ very interesting intellectualization of the problem will actually help you predict what Trump will do. But in the emotional piece - He’s talked endlessly about how America is getting screwed, and his tariff calculation was based pretty directly on trade deficit calculations.
jarym 2y ago
My best understanding of the administration's psyche is that they're determined to have more manufacturing happen in the US - regardless of the economic impact. It still doesn't make sense though - there's a reason sneaker makers like to have kids in places like Vietnam make shoes for a few cents per hour. It's because no one in the US would work gruelling hours for such little pay! POTUS wants to 'level the field' but I'm not convinced it's dawned on him that as leader of one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, 'levelling' will mean the US getting poorer.
- energy123 2y ago
  More manufacturing will move to the US, but they're about to get a real-time lesson in Econ 101 in the form of the destruction of their country as they abandon comparative advantage and achieve autarky, joining the illustrious club of North Korea.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  Also would require near-certainty that these conditions will last far, far longer than 4 years (or 4 days, per earlier tariff tantrums). Especially for the most important industries like semiconductors, steel, oil, which require massive capex.
  - joering2 2y ago
    You said the most important part. Trump and Co believes that a car or semi factories grow overnight like mushrooms in the forest. If a CEO of a semiconductor company would decide to start building a billion dollar plant in the USA, which would take 6-8 years to built, knowing that new President from the other much different party might take over in less than 4 years, that CEO would probably endup being sued by shareholders for jeopardizing the company's bottom line. Noone in their right mind will start building factories in USA because of temporary tariffs that all might go away with an executive order and a stroke of a pen comes January 2029.
    - veidr 2y ago
      Or might go away in May 2025, after whatever foreign leader or competitor bought enough $TRUMP, or rented sufficient luxury hotel rooms.
xnx 2y ago
[flagged]
lenerdenator 2y ago
> This is an inherently political subject, but I would appreciate a dispassionate argument explaining how this could be even remotely good for the U.S.'s economy in a way that is light on MAGA ideology and doesn't simply claim the overwhelming majority of economists are dumb. The slim hope to a voting bloc in the Upper Midwest that maybe, somehow, this will bring back manufacturing. They've tried everything else; why not this? We can't simply legally punish the people who shipped the factories off and drove the region into despair, so why not tax the stuff the factories made overseas as a part of the trade-off? I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying this is their logic.
- api 2y ago
  I’m from Southern Ohio which was not hit as hard, but I know the attitude well. I call it “rust belt rage.” I remember during the first Trump election hearing quotes like “I hope he does as much damage as possible” and “I can’t throw a bomb into the White House but I can throw a Trump.” Lots more like that. The attitude in that region of the country is absolute seething rage. A lot of people from Northern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. would be gleeful if they saw people hanged. It’s that kind of rage. Imagine what the vibes would be on the West Coast if there was a huge set of policy changes that decimated and liquidated the high tech industries. All those software and engineering jobs just vaporize in a span of 20 years. Places that were once the wealthiest in the country look like failed states and war zones. Everyone who can leave leaves. Then the media makes you the butt of jokes. Calls you “flyover country.”
  - JackYoustra 2y ago
    > Imagine what the vibes would be on the West Coast if there was a huge set of policy changes that decimated and liquidated the high tech industries We had large inflation caused by Joe Biden's industrial revival acts (spurring a massive increase in factory construction (see https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/unpacking-the-boom-in-us-construction-of-manufacturing-facilities https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/unpacking-th...) that led to interest rate rises and a TON of tech layoffs! People on this forum should be aware that the chain of causality runs in that direction. And are you saying that the US media doesn't pillory Californa as a liberal hellhole? I actually don't even know what distribution of media you consume that doesn't handwring over the morality of liberals.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mixmastamyk 2y ago
The only positive outcome I can think of is that T and co are trying to scare trading partners into lowering their tariffs in response. Assuming that happens to some degree, T will revert his and then take credit. Then the market will return as well, and we all head off into the sunset. Likely why it is happening so early in the admin, so we can all forget about it by the end.
irrational 2y ago
I’m pretty sure the only ones it will be good for are the rich. Make the rich richer. They will be able to buy stocks cheaply. They will be able to buy homes cheaply as people lose their jobs and foreclose. They will make the USA into a nation of renters. They will increase inflation and prices of everything so most people will be on the cusp of insolvency so they have to work multiple jobs for lower wages and can never retire. They will decrease education so people won’t be able to recognize the propaganda for what it is. They will disappear dissidents. They will make abortion illegal so people churn out the next generation of wage slaves. They will create false enemies (Canadians, gays, liberals, atheists, Jews, Muslims, anyone not white, etc.) to distract people from the real villains.
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  The rich have most of their money in stocks, saying they can lower stocks to buy stocks doesn't make much sense
  - saturn8601 2y ago
    The rich are about to get a massive tax cut. They cannot possibly spend all those savings on things like food or consumer goods. So where does it go? Assets: Housing, more stocks, antiquities. Any truly rich person will have a diversified portfolio of assets. So what if some of their stocks go down temporarily? They will go back up eventually and the rich can afford to wait out much longer than any normal peon. Its not even a nefarious thing either. If anyone were in their position it would be the prudent thing to do. The most important thing is they have to put this money into something now before it erodes. Buy up all the stocks, buy up all the land, buy up all the vintage collector items, hell even buy up all the retro video games, just do it now.
    - JackYoustra 2y ago
      It's more concentrated than you give it credit: the wealthy overwhelmingly hold their money in business capital (read: stocks) not housing. Housing is predominantly owned by the middle class. Having stocks go up and down is what mostly changes the ultra-rich wealth, and in this case they're going down.
mathfailure 2y ago
I think this might be a move to stop a world war (between Russia and NATO/Europe). If U.S. also leaves NATO any time soon - the chances for a world war would decrease greatly.
- bawolff 2y ago
  I don't think that makes sense. Wars happen when one of the sides think they can win (and want something). USA leaving nato and reducing trade makes european states more vulnerable. I would expect this to increase the liklihood of war. Especially in the near term - eventually europe will adapt to the new world order, but in the mean time their is a limited window of opportunity where everything is in flux, which would be a great time to strike.
  - mathfailure 2y ago
    I'd like to correct you: wars don't happen when just one of the sides thinks they can win, they happen when BOTH sides think so. I think that exactly for this reason Europe needs such a vaccine shot, so they stop they can win a war against Russia.
    - kalkin 2y ago
      But... they can? If Ukraine can fight Russia to a standstill, a fully mobilized Europe clearly at least has a shot. Unless it escalates to nuclear weapons and everyone loses... But you need at least an argument if you want to say that is less likely without any initial US involvement, it's not obvious.
      - mathfailure 2y ago
        Exactly. Europe thinks it may join Ukraine in a war against Russia to actually win that war. My point is that this is quite a reason why a nuke war may occur. And if U.S. turns back away from Europe - Europe might 'sober up' and not seek the prolongation of a conflict. Non-nuke wars end somehow. One side usually loses, without such a loss - there would be no end for the war and more and more people would die. A bitter ending is better than endless bitterness.
everforward 2y ago
I think in theory it forces the middle class to buy American due to tariffs, which builds a more sustainable lower class at the expense of the middle and lower upper classes. I think it’s still an overall net negative (dramatically) that sees us become overall poorer and less influential, but I would guess there will be more factory sorts of jobs.
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  We got the factory jobs already: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/unpacking-the-boom-in-us-construction-of-manufacturing-facilities https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/unpacking-th... The deadweight losses from this trade are staggering, several percents of gdp that'll mostly hit people who consume imports (mostly low-end goods so probably poor people)
- soared 2y ago
  If American made prices did not increase too match tariff adjusted foreign made prices that logic would hold. But we know from recent and not so recent history - American made prices some increase, even if they are not impacted at all.
travisgriggs 2y ago
The boundaries of what is politics and what isn't is difficult to suss (for me) these days. I personally do not believe this is good. But I have a theory on why those that do think so. I'm 54. It follows that I see a number of people my age. I'm churchgoing, as well as involved in a number of clubs (pilots, rowing, legos, etc). So I get to rub shoulders with a decent amount of people. And especially a bunch of older people. Our parents are aging. I'm just beginning to see how hard these years from here on out have a number of difficult challenges. I've begun writing myself notes that I hope will help me navigate the years ahead. One of the key issues is feeling relevant still. As well as losing your competitive edge. Your formative wisdom is being invalidated and eroded constantly. Couple that with a period of euphoria that was experienced as post WWII prosperity followed by the cessation of the "cold war" and a surge in population, and you have a group of people that are more in their own generational bubble than historically. There's enough peers to make you feel like you're in the majority. I think many of these people feel like this is good, because it feeds the need for relevancy. It's not uncommon for older people to lash out, somewhat foolishly, as they transit these years. And as cognition decreases, it becomes easier to game people in this age bracket (unless someone has a better explanation for why older people are the best target of scams). As I visit with many of the older genrations (not all of course), their justifications, when pared back often come down to "this makes me feel relevant again". And attempts to restore "the narrative I have in my head about how life was in the good years". Just some rambling thoughts, about why some people think this is good. It's less about the money to them, and more about a hope of something gained. Not unlike a terminally ill person blowing a wad of cash on something that they would never otherwise have justified. It is sad, that it comes at the expense of the younger generations. It breaks my heart actually.
- calmbell 2y ago
  I was shocked to learn that 75-year-old white men supported Kamala Harris at a significantly higher rate than 20-year-old white men: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-david-shor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas... (search for "75-year-old white men").
  - 2y ago
mightyham 2y ago
It is strategically beneficial, for trade agreements, diplomatic leverage and in international conflicts, for a nation to have a strong industrial base, in other words an economy that creates and exports actual physical goods. Tariffs level the playing field in our own consumer economy for American made goods, because without them American manufacturing is competing with countries where labor is absurdly cheap.
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  American manufacturing by value is at an all time high. The jobs went to automation.
brailsafe 2y ago
My thought today was that aside from the stocks crashing, and aside from any realistic possibility of magically minting new manufacturing facilities, you'd force the price of imported products up in the short term, and prices don't really go back down, so after they go away you'll hypothetically be selling the same products at higher prices that people are now used to, and nothing else needs to happen functionally to increase efficiency or build them domestically. 1) Increase cost of selling imports 2) Crash stock market 3) Buy stocks 4) Remove tariffs 5) Profit But I don't know wtf I'm talking about.
Spooky23 2y ago
Trump has kooky beliefs about tariffs, and his economic guys are yes men. Economics and science mean nothing to the President. He probably heard some blowhard in a bar 50 years ago yabber about tariffs. He’s an instinctual person, and when he senses danger to himself, he’ll pivot. I’d guess there will be air strikes on Iran or threats of an incursion into the Mexican side of the border by June.
- outer_web 2y ago
  Or it's just his newest promise to give voters something for free. Like the wall that was partially built and paid for with DoD funds. He advertises tariffs as free money from other countries. For some reason people buy it.
acidmath 2y ago
[flagged]
- Symbiote 2y ago
  Perhaps you'd like to give an example, maybe for the UK since all the information will be in English.
  - acidmath 2y ago
    [dead]
  - acidmath 2y ago
    [dead]
- mathfailure 2y ago
  Well, you should then accept that some things will be very expensive for you as well. Is that what you want?
fzeroracer 2y ago
Donald J. Trump lost an auction in 1988 for a 58-key piano used in the classic film “Casablanca” to a Japanese trading company representing a collector. While he brushed off being outbid, it was a firsthand reminder of Japan’s growing wealth, and the following year, Mr. Trump went on television to call for a 15 percent to 20 percent tax on imports from Japan. “I believe very strongly in tariffs,” Mr. Trump, at the time a Manhattan real estate developer with fledgling political instincts, told the journalist Diane Sawyer, before criticizing Japan, West Germany, Saudi Arabia and South Korea for their trade practices. “America is being ripped off,” he said. “We’re a debtor nation, and we have to tax, we have to tariff, we have to protect this country.” [1] We're in an Emperor With No Clothes situation and all of his aids have no clothes either. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/china-trade-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/china-trade-d...
- alphabettsy 2y ago
  He’s shown himself to be deeply motivated by petty slights so that makes a lot of sense.
alaxhn 2y ago
To lay out my own biases - I voted for Trump but do not consider myself a strong supporter (I saw it much more of a vote for who you dislike less sort of situation) - I don't understand and am not supportive of the approach on Tariffs - I am an active participate in what most here would consider right wing politics although I don't find myself aligning on every topic (e.g. I am supportive of the abortion laws in California) so I tend to hear a lot of the chatter "from the other side" Some arguments that I have heard (which I mostly do not agree with) are - When manufacturing moved out of the US to low cost of living countries, this hurt towns which relied on manufacturing (e.g. the rust belt). Cost is the primary reason why manufacturing moved. Raising the cost on overseas manufacturing may make domestic manufacturing cost competitive. Although economics tells us this will still be a net loss there may be externalities which are not priced into the trade (e.g. the towns falling apart and people becoming despondent / drug addicted might not be factored into corporate profit models) - Being overly dependent on China or more broadly "foreign powers" for manufacturing represents a national security risk. - In theory this could be posturing to provide an opening for the US to negotiate more favorable trade agreements. For example Israel, Vietnam, and Argentina have made some statements about reducing trade barriers on US companies. - In theory it could be beneficial to shift the revenue model of the US towards raising revenue with tariffs while reducing interest rates and other tax rates (e.g. "no taxes on overtime and tips")
- biophysboy 2y ago
  To improve rust belt manufacturing, you would target competitors of industries in that area, not the whole global economy. We imposed a 32% tariff on Taiwan. Simultaneously, we are making it more expensive to manufacture here in the states. We have 1/4 China's pop - why would we try to compete on raw output by ourselves, instead of strengthening ties w/ the world? For many countries, there is nothing to negotiate since we already have free trade agreements with them. We may import a lot of goods, but we export a lot of services, like many developed nations do. With regard to raising revenue, think of the tradeoffs. If demand is elastic (given our trade deficit, it has to be!), this will be a tax on many, many American businesses and consumers. Its just moving the taxes from income tax to a consumption tax. That's a worse deal for poorer/middle-class Americans.
mizzao 2y ago
It seems the maximum likelihood model is a political one and not an economic one. Trump likes making deals and he historically has made them by applying his leverage and bullying people to go his way. Now he has the most powerful office in the world and a lot of leverage to bully anyone he wants (universities, law firms, other countries). Lots of lunch money will be taken but no one's going to go near the bully anymore. At the end of the day, it's about Trump's need for attention and ability to wield power, rather than any economic objective. Tariffs are a way to wield significant power without requiring the approval of Congress.
veidr 2y ago
It's clearly not good for the US economy, but I think that is a red herring. This has been so far, and continues to be, a highly successful endeavor from the perspective that matters: that of the US president himself, who wants to benefit personally. I think it's helpful to ask "What if this president actually doesn't care one way or the other what happens to the US economy, the world economy, or even geopolitical stability (beyond the US not getting nuked, causing him to die), and everything is just a grifter's instinct for how to benefit personally?" In that light, literally everything this administration does makes perfect sense. This is a man whose main accomplishment before the presidency was "being famous" — starring in a reality TV show and professional wrestling (the fake/scripted kind), and he clearly wants to be the center of attention in the media. Although his tariffs are widely mocked by knowledgeable people as "insane", "stupid", or as the Financial Times put it, "one of the greatest acts of self-harm in American economic history", imposing them gives the man himself the opportunity for corruption on a scale unprecedented in modern US history. He can easily (very easily) benefit financially and otherwise because heads of state, captains of industry, and the ultra-wealthy have to come to him to beg, flatter, or do something — buy his memecoin, rent out his hotels, buy his otherwise-failed social network for billions, the list is near-infinite — to get out from under his tariffs. So I don't think there is any upside of the kind you are talking about. But there is substantial upside for the man himself, and it is enough to explain all of his actions. They only seem nonsensical if you believe he is trying to act in the best interests of the nation.
tim333 2y ago
I saw Peter Navarro saying US car plants were only running at 65% capacity and by tariffing foreign cars, the US plants could crank up and produce more. Not sure how true that is but that's the kind of thing that could be positive.

by beloch 2y ago

Apreche 2y ago

[flagged]

fulladder 2y ago

The belief of Trump and his allies is that the last 40 years of free trade has been extremely favorable to college educated "elites" and extremely unfavorable to the working class. They see foreign trade as having hollowed out American manufacturing, and therefore they see the shutting down foreign trade as a way to reverse this decline. While they are aware that doing so will hurt college educated professionals, they don't care because they feel those people have had it too good for too long.

techpineapple 2y ago
the irony is I don’t think there’s any way this hurts the college educated more than the working classes, as most things do.
lenerdenator 2y ago
I think that's the belief of his voters in the Upper Midwest, but not necessarily Trump himself. He's the college-educated elite. He's playing them like a fiddle. He knows that they will absorb the damage from this, not the elites, who are far more connected than they are college educated.
ViktorRay 2y ago
But these beliefs have been core to the American left for decades. Even left wing intellectuals like Noam Chomsky have attacked the neoliberal trade agreements I think. Trump’s populist right wing fans have adopted traditionally left wing views. What’s surprising is so many left wing people are supportive of free trade when they were against free trade during the Reagan era.
- kalkin 2y ago
  I don't think the left has been automatically in favor of tariffs--or at least I'd appreciate evidence for that claim. The complaints about free trade deals that I've seen have tended to be about provisions that treated various labor and environmental regulations as restraints on trade. It's fair to say that left-liberal people are paying more attention to the downsides of tariffs than they were, but I don't think it's a simple reversal of positions.
- alphabettsy 2y ago
  I’m not sure what your sources are but if Bernie Sanders is the left, then he’s been saying the same thing for a long time and continues to. Maybe there’s some nuance to it? 2025 https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-statement-on-trumps-escalating-trade-war-with-the-world/ https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-s... 2011 https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/senate-speech-by-sen-bernie-sanders-on-unfettered-free-trade/ https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/senate-speech-...
- tokai 2y ago
  MAGA Communism is apparently a thing.
api 2y ago
I get it and even sympathize, but I don’t think it will work for three reasons. First is the uncertainty they are creating. Factories take a long time to build and staff and cost millions to billions depending on size and industry. Who in their right mind is going to invest that to build factories that are only economically viable under a tariff regime that could vaporize after the next election? Or if Trump changes his mind? Which he has a history of doing. Chaos like this is anathema to that kind of long term investment. I am not opposed to the idea of trying to rebalance trade and repatriate manufacturing. Not at all. But it can be done skillfully, strategically, and without panicking global markets. This economic pivot is less well planned and executed than Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. The second reason it won’t work is that there’s way more competition today. After WWII during those glory days of US manufacturing everyone talks about Europe was destroyed and much of Asia had not yet industrialized. We were not just selling to a domestic market. We were selling to a world that had no alternatives. That’s just not true anymore. The third reason it won’t work is that these tariffs are going to be massively inflationary and that will wipe out any gains the working class gets from more or better jobs. Meanwhile they are doing nothing to address cost disease in housing, health care, or education. Housing is the big one and I haven’t heard a peep. Instead of using Federal leverage to tilt at windmills like trans people using bathrooms, they could use that power to push states to regularize zoning and allow more home construction. “No more Federal highway funds unless you implement a plan to reduce housing costs.” Now that would help the working class and the young. It would also help things like the birth rate, which I know a bunch of people on the right are freaking out about. Reducing the #1 cost barrier to family formation would help a lot. In short I think they’re doing a terrible erratic job of implementing a dubious strategy. This is going to fail, and we will all get poorer as a result. China will be the largest beneficiary since even more of global trade will now shift to them. They are now seen as stable, responsible, and reliable while we look like a basket case.
JackYoustra 2y ago
Sure, it's just that though, a belief. The vast majority of the poor have prospered from free trade; indeed, the costs they complain the most about (health, education, housing) are the biggest categories of things that _can't_ be traded.
jghn 2y ago
> The belief of Trump and his allies Trump and his allies are all college educated elites.
mathfailure 2y ago
Where did you take this from? Trump is not from working class. Working class might've been his 'platform' for the election, but he's already elected now, he basically has no incentive now to fight for the rights/interests of his voters, he has his own wallet that needs to finally get filled. Unless you think he really aims for a 3rd term.

qiqitori 2y ago

The late night show industry is making record profits.

ViktorRay 2y ago

In the long run it could lead to more fair trade deals. Today’s episode of Newshour at the BBC World Service had a conversation between a BBC journalist and a German CDU politician where they talked about how the tariffs on cars from Germany entering America has historically been lower than the tariffs on cars from America entering Germany. The CDU politician was telling the BBC that he hoped maybe a resolution for all of this would be both America and Europe lowering their tariffs to zero. That was the hope of that politician in the long run though. In the short run the politician was in a sad mood because he felt things economically are going to be bad for everybody.

jliptzin 2y ago
Trump himself has said the tariffs are to raise revenue in order to get rid of income and corporate taxes. But now they’re also a negotiating tool to eventually remove all tariffs with our trade partners? That makes no sense
bawolff 2y ago
I think that is unlikely. Trade deals require precitability and trust. Nobody wants to sign a trade deal if it might not be worth the paper its written on next week. I would expect that it would make future trade agreements more "unfair" to usa because other countries will price in a risk premium to cover america's unpredictability.
- beloch 2y ago
  e.g. The U.S. has now violated CUSMA/USMCA/NAFTA 2.0 to an egregious degree, and this treaty is due to be renegotiated next year. As an unreliable partner, the U.S. is going to have to give up some serious concessions to Mexico and Canada to make the treaty happen. It's no different than applying for a loan with a low credit score. If you're a higher risk, the rates will be unfavourable.
energy123 2y ago
These tariffs don't create an incentive to strike fair deals because they're not based on trade barriers, they're solely based on trade deficits.

jimmyjazz14 2y ago

I wouldn't say its good for anyone, but it is probably worse for many of our trading partners so they would, in theory, make moves to negotiate with the US to skirt the tariffs. I don't think it will ultimately have been worth it in the end but time will tell.

techpineapple 2y ago

If you want someone talking intellectually about the global trade situation, Oren Cass’ interview with Jon Stewart was pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgEQeLR-M0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgEQeLR-M0g But I do think that a logical assessment undervalues the notion that this is an emotional/intuitive. I don’t think Oren Cass’ very interesting intellectualization of the problem will actually help you predict what Trump will do. But in the emotional piece - He’s talked endlessly about how America is getting screwed, and his tariff calculation was based pretty directly on trade deficit calculations.

jarym 2y ago

My best understanding of the administration's psyche is that they're determined to have more manufacturing happen in the US - regardless of the economic impact. It still doesn't make sense though - there's a reason sneaker makers like to have kids in places like Vietnam make shoes for a few cents per hour. It's because no one in the US would work gruelling hours for such little pay! POTUS wants to 'level the field' but I'm not convinced it's dawned on him that as leader of one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, 'levelling' will mean the US getting poorer.

energy123 2y ago
More manufacturing will move to the US, but they're about to get a real-time lesson in Econ 101 in the form of the destruction of their country as they abandon comparative advantage and achieve autarky, joining the illustrious club of North Korea.
sorcerer-mar 2y ago
Also would require near-certainty that these conditions will last far, far longer than 4 years (or 4 days, per earlier tariff tantrums). Especially for the most important industries like semiconductors, steel, oil, which require massive capex.
- joering2 2y ago
  You said the most important part. Trump and Co believes that a car or semi factories grow overnight like mushrooms in the forest. If a CEO of a semiconductor company would decide to start building a billion dollar plant in the USA, which would take 6-8 years to built, knowing that new President from the other much different party might take over in less than 4 years, that CEO would probably endup being sued by shareholders for jeopardizing the company's bottom line. Noone in their right mind will start building factories in USA because of temporary tariffs that all might go away with an executive order and a stroke of a pen comes January 2029.
  - veidr 2y ago
    Or might go away in May 2025, after whatever foreign leader or competitor bought enough $TRUMP, or rented sufficient luxury hotel rooms.

xnx 2y ago

[flagged]

lenerdenator 2y ago

> This is an inherently political subject, but I would appreciate a dispassionate argument explaining how this could be even remotely good for the U.S.'s economy in a way that is light on MAGA ideology and doesn't simply claim the overwhelming majority of economists are dumb. The slim hope to a voting bloc in the Upper Midwest that maybe, somehow, this will bring back manufacturing. They've tried everything else; why not this? We can't simply legally punish the people who shipped the factories off and drove the region into despair, so why not tax the stuff the factories made overseas as a part of the trade-off? I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying this is their logic.

api 2y ago
I’m from Southern Ohio which was not hit as hard, but I know the attitude well. I call it “rust belt rage.” I remember during the first Trump election hearing quotes like “I hope he does as much damage as possible” and “I can’t throw a bomb into the White House but I can throw a Trump.” Lots more like that. The attitude in that region of the country is absolute seething rage. A lot of people from Northern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. would be gleeful if they saw people hanged. It’s that kind of rage. Imagine what the vibes would be on the West Coast if there was a huge set of policy changes that decimated and liquidated the high tech industries. All those software and engineering jobs just vaporize in a span of 20 years. Places that were once the wealthiest in the country look like failed states and war zones. Everyone who can leave leaves. Then the media makes you the butt of jokes. Calls you “flyover country.”
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  > Imagine what the vibes would be on the West Coast if there was a huge set of policy changes that decimated and liquidated the high tech industries We had large inflation caused by Joe Biden's industrial revival acts (spurring a massive increase in factory construction (see https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/unpacking-the-boom-in-us-construction-of-manufacturing-facilities https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/unpacking-th...) that led to interest rate rises and a TON of tech layoffs! People on this forum should be aware that the chain of causality runs in that direction. And are you saying that the US media doesn't pillory Californa as a liberal hellhole? I actually don't even know what distribution of media you consume that doesn't handwring over the morality of liberals.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mixmastamyk 2y ago

The only positive outcome I can think of is that T and co are trying to scare trading partners into lowering their tariffs in response. Assuming that happens to some degree, T will revert his and then take credit. Then the market will return as well, and we all head off into the sunset. Likely why it is happening so early in the admin, so we can all forget about it by the end.

irrational 2y ago

I’m pretty sure the only ones it will be good for are the rich. Make the rich richer. They will be able to buy stocks cheaply. They will be able to buy homes cheaply as people lose their jobs and foreclose. They will make the USA into a nation of renters. They will increase inflation and prices of everything so most people will be on the cusp of insolvency so they have to work multiple jobs for lower wages and can never retire. They will decrease education so people won’t be able to recognize the propaganda for what it is. They will disappear dissidents. They will make abortion illegal so people churn out the next generation of wage slaves. They will create false enemies (Canadians, gays, liberals, atheists, Jews, Muslims, anyone not white, etc.) to distract people from the real villains.

JackYoustra 2y ago
The rich have most of their money in stocks, saying they can lower stocks to buy stocks doesn't make much sense
- saturn8601 2y ago
  The rich are about to get a massive tax cut. They cannot possibly spend all those savings on things like food or consumer goods. So where does it go? Assets: Housing, more stocks, antiquities. Any truly rich person will have a diversified portfolio of assets. So what if some of their stocks go down temporarily? They will go back up eventually and the rich can afford to wait out much longer than any normal peon. Its not even a nefarious thing either. If anyone were in their position it would be the prudent thing to do. The most important thing is they have to put this money into something now before it erodes. Buy up all the stocks, buy up all the land, buy up all the vintage collector items, hell even buy up all the retro video games, just do it now.
  - JackYoustra 2y ago
    It's more concentrated than you give it credit: the wealthy overwhelmingly hold their money in business capital (read: stocks) not housing. Housing is predominantly owned by the middle class. Having stocks go up and down is what mostly changes the ultra-rich wealth, and in this case they're going down.

mathfailure 2y ago

I think this might be a move to stop a world war (between Russia and NATO/Europe). If U.S. also leaves NATO any time soon - the chances for a world war would decrease greatly.

bawolff 2y ago
I don't think that makes sense. Wars happen when one of the sides think they can win (and want something). USA leaving nato and reducing trade makes european states more vulnerable. I would expect this to increase the liklihood of war. Especially in the near term - eventually europe will adapt to the new world order, but in the mean time their is a limited window of opportunity where everything is in flux, which would be a great time to strike.
- mathfailure 2y ago
  I'd like to correct you: wars don't happen when just one of the sides thinks they can win, they happen when BOTH sides think so. I think that exactly for this reason Europe needs such a vaccine shot, so they stop they can win a war against Russia.
  - kalkin 2y ago
    But... they can? If Ukraine can fight Russia to a standstill, a fully mobilized Europe clearly at least has a shot. Unless it escalates to nuclear weapons and everyone loses... But you need at least an argument if you want to say that is less likely without any initial US involvement, it's not obvious.
    - mathfailure 2y ago
      Exactly. Europe thinks it may join Ukraine in a war against Russia to actually win that war. My point is that this is quite a reason why a nuke war may occur. And if U.S. turns back away from Europe - Europe might 'sober up' and not seek the prolongation of a conflict. Non-nuke wars end somehow. One side usually loses, without such a loss - there would be no end for the war and more and more people would die. A bitter ending is better than endless bitterness.

everforward 2y ago

I think in theory it forces the middle class to buy American due to tariffs, which builds a more sustainable lower class at the expense of the middle and lower upper classes. I think it’s still an overall net negative (dramatically) that sees us become overall poorer and less influential, but I would guess there will be more factory sorts of jobs.

JackYoustra 2y ago
We got the factory jobs already: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/unpacking-the-boom-in-us-construction-of-manufacturing-facilities https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/unpacking-th... The deadweight losses from this trade are staggering, several percents of gdp that'll mostly hit people who consume imports (mostly low-end goods so probably poor people)
soared 2y ago
If American made prices did not increase too match tariff adjusted foreign made prices that logic would hold. But we know from recent and not so recent history - American made prices some increase, even if they are not impacted at all.

travisgriggs 2y ago

The boundaries of what is politics and what isn't is difficult to suss (for me) these days. I personally do not believe this is good. But I have a theory on why those that do think so. I'm 54. It follows that I see a number of people my age. I'm churchgoing, as well as involved in a number of clubs (pilots, rowing, legos, etc). So I get to rub shoulders with a decent amount of people. And especially a bunch of older people. Our parents are aging. I'm just beginning to see how hard these years from here on out have a number of difficult challenges. I've begun writing myself notes that I hope will help me navigate the years ahead. One of the key issues is feeling relevant still. As well as losing your competitive edge. Your formative wisdom is being invalidated and eroded constantly. Couple that with a period of euphoria that was experienced as post WWII prosperity followed by the cessation of the "cold war" and a surge in population, and you have a group of people that are more in their own generational bubble than historically. There's enough peers to make you feel like you're in the majority. I think many of these people feel like this is good, because it feeds the need for relevancy. It's not uncommon for older people to lash out, somewhat foolishly, as they transit these years. And as cognition decreases, it becomes easier to game people in this age bracket (unless someone has a better explanation for why older people are the best target of scams). As I visit with many of the older genrations (not all of course), their justifications, when pared back often come down to "this makes me feel relevant again". And attempts to restore "the narrative I have in my head about how life was in the good years". Just some rambling thoughts, about why some people think this is good. It's less about the money to them, and more about a hope of something gained. Not unlike a terminally ill person blowing a wad of cash on something that they would never otherwise have justified. It is sad, that it comes at the expense of the younger generations. It breaks my heart actually.

calmbell 2y ago
I was shocked to learn that 75-year-old white men supported Kamala Harris at a significantly higher rate than 20-year-old white men: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-david-shor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas... (search for "75-year-old white men").
- 2y ago

mightyham 2y ago

It is strategically beneficial, for trade agreements, diplomatic leverage and in international conflicts, for a nation to have a strong industrial base, in other words an economy that creates and exports actual physical goods. Tariffs level the playing field in our own consumer economy for American made goods, because without them American manufacturing is competing with countries where labor is absurdly cheap.

JackYoustra 2y ago
American manufacturing by value is at an all time high. The jobs went to automation.

brailsafe 2y ago

My thought today was that aside from the stocks crashing, and aside from any realistic possibility of magically minting new manufacturing facilities, you'd force the price of imported products up in the short term, and prices don't really go back down, so after they go away you'll hypothetically be selling the same products at higher prices that people are now used to, and nothing else needs to happen functionally to increase efficiency or build them domestically. 1) Increase cost of selling imports 2) Crash stock market 3) Buy stocks 4) Remove tariffs 5) Profit But I don't know wtf I'm talking about.

Spooky23 2y ago

Trump has kooky beliefs about tariffs, and his economic guys are yes men. Economics and science mean nothing to the President. He probably heard some blowhard in a bar 50 years ago yabber about tariffs. He’s an instinctual person, and when he senses danger to himself, he’ll pivot. I’d guess there will be air strikes on Iran or threats of an incursion into the Mexican side of the border by June.

outer_web 2y ago
Or it's just his newest promise to give voters something for free. Like the wall that was partially built and paid for with DoD funds. He advertises tariffs as free money from other countries. For some reason people buy it.

acidmath 2y ago

[flagged]

Symbiote 2y ago
Perhaps you'd like to give an example, maybe for the UK since all the information will be in English.
- acidmath 2y ago
  [dead]
- acidmath 2y ago
  [dead]
mathfailure 2y ago
Well, you should then accept that some things will be very expensive for you as well. Is that what you want?

fzeroracer 2y ago

Donald J. Trump lost an auction in 1988 for a 58-key piano used in the classic film “Casablanca” to a Japanese trading company representing a collector. While he brushed off being outbid, it was a firsthand reminder of Japan’s growing wealth, and the following year, Mr. Trump went on television to call for a 15 percent to 20 percent tax on imports from Japan. “I believe very strongly in tariffs,” Mr. Trump, at the time a Manhattan real estate developer with fledgling political instincts, told the journalist Diane Sawyer, before criticizing Japan, West Germany, Saudi Arabia and South Korea for their trade practices. “America is being ripped off,” he said. “We’re a debtor nation, and we have to tax, we have to tariff, we have to protect this country.” [1] We're in an Emperor With No Clothes situation and all of his aids have no clothes either. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/china-trade-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/china-trade-d...

alphabettsy 2y ago
He’s shown himself to be deeply motivated by petty slights so that makes a lot of sense.

alaxhn 2y ago

To lay out my own biases - I voted for Trump but do not consider myself a strong supporter (I saw it much more of a vote for who you dislike less sort of situation) - I don't understand and am not supportive of the approach on Tariffs - I am an active participate in what most here would consider right wing politics although I don't find myself aligning on every topic (e.g. I am supportive of the abortion laws in California) so I tend to hear a lot of the chatter "from the other side" Some arguments that I have heard (which I mostly do not agree with) are - When manufacturing moved out of the US to low cost of living countries, this hurt towns which relied on manufacturing (e.g. the rust belt). Cost is the primary reason why manufacturing moved. Raising the cost on overseas manufacturing may make domestic manufacturing cost competitive. Although economics tells us this will still be a net loss there may be externalities which are not priced into the trade (e.g. the towns falling apart and people becoming despondent / drug addicted might not be factored into corporate profit models) - Being overly dependent on China or more broadly "foreign powers" for manufacturing represents a national security risk. - In theory this could be posturing to provide an opening for the US to negotiate more favorable trade agreements. For example Israel, Vietnam, and Argentina have made some statements about reducing trade barriers on US companies. - In theory it could be beneficial to shift the revenue model of the US towards raising revenue with tariffs while reducing interest rates and other tax rates (e.g. "no taxes on overtime and tips")

biophysboy 2y ago
To improve rust belt manufacturing, you would target competitors of industries in that area, not the whole global economy. We imposed a 32% tariff on Taiwan. Simultaneously, we are making it more expensive to manufacture here in the states. We have 1/4 China's pop - why would we try to compete on raw output by ourselves, instead of strengthening ties w/ the world? For many countries, there is nothing to negotiate since we already have free trade agreements with them. We may import a lot of goods, but we export a lot of services, like many developed nations do. With regard to raising revenue, think of the tradeoffs. If demand is elastic (given our trade deficit, it has to be!), this will be a tax on many, many American businesses and consumers. Its just moving the taxes from income tax to a consumption tax. That's a worse deal for poorer/middle-class Americans.

mizzao 2y ago

It seems the maximum likelihood model is a political one and not an economic one. Trump likes making deals and he historically has made them by applying his leverage and bullying people to go his way. Now he has the most powerful office in the world and a lot of leverage to bully anyone he wants (universities, law firms, other countries). Lots of lunch money will be taken but no one's going to go near the bully anymore. At the end of the day, it's about Trump's need for attention and ability to wield power, rather than any economic objective. Tariffs are a way to wield significant power without requiring the approval of Congress.

veidr 2y ago

It's clearly not good for the US economy, but I think that is a red herring. This has been so far, and continues to be, a highly successful endeavor from the perspective that matters: that of the US president himself, who wants to benefit personally. I think it's helpful to ask "What if this president actually doesn't care one way or the other what happens to the US economy, the world economy, or even geopolitical stability (beyond the US not getting nuked, causing him to die), and everything is just a grifter's instinct for how to benefit personally?" In that light, literally everything this administration does makes perfect sense. This is a man whose main accomplishment before the presidency was "being famous" — starring in a reality TV show and professional wrestling (the fake/scripted kind), and he clearly wants to be the center of attention in the media. Although his tariffs are widely mocked by knowledgeable people as "insane", "stupid", or as the Financial Times put it, "one of the greatest acts of self-harm in American economic history", imposing them gives the man himself the opportunity for corruption on a scale unprecedented in modern US history. He can easily (very easily) benefit financially and otherwise because heads of state, captains of industry, and the ultra-wealthy have to come to him to beg, flatter, or do something — buy his memecoin, rent out his hotels, buy his otherwise-failed social network for billions, the list is near-infinite — to get out from under his tariffs. So I don't think there is any upside of the kind you are talking about. But there is substantial upside for the man himself, and it is enough to explain all of his actions. They only seem nonsensical if you believe he is trying to act in the best interests of the nation.

tim333 2y ago

I saw Peter Navarro saying US car plants were only running at 65% capacity and by tariffing foreign cars, the US plants could crank up and produce more. Not sure how true that is but that's the kind of thing that could be positive.