4 ms·

Tariffs aren't conserving the status quo. Rather, they're an attempt to return to an (allegedly) better past state. Specifically, a past state where foreign c

by csense 2y ago

Tariffs aren't conserving the status quo. Rather, they're an attempt to return to an (allegedly) better past state. Specifically, a past state where foreign companies were unable to outcompete domestic ones [1]. It's also a policy going against internationalist norms (which encourage you to free trade even if it seems to be hurting you), and toward nationalist ones [2]. [1] A lot of people who like tariffs have a sense that our free trade policy was an honest attempt to play an honest game where a rising tide would lift all boats. But that didn't happen; instead of a win-win, foreign companies won big by cheating, and we lost. (And we did lose, at least if you ask just about anyone in the Rust Belt.) For example, tariffs of their own; subsidies; IP theft; currency manipulation; various abuses of their people with low wages; bad working conditions; low or non-existent safety / environmental standards; and totalitarian governments willing to shoot anybody who complains about any of the above. Trying to play fair to lift everybody's boats when everybody else is pouring water from their boat into yours isn't a recipe for success. It just makes you a sucker sunk by the cheaters -- too honest for your own good. [2] Again, there's a sense of grievance. Our past policies were honestly trying to unselfishly help the world, and other countries selfishly took advantage of us. So we're done being suckers; it's our turn to be selfish. If other countries don't like us being selfish now, well, they should have thought of that instead of being so selfish themselves before. Rightly or wrongly, that's really how the current administration thinks about many other countries. That attitude came out loud and clear in the Signal messages they accidentally sent to that journalist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHU5HDQL6F0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHU5HDQL6F0

no_wizard 2y ago
I could get on board with tariffs on known bad actors like China, but they hit everyone needlessly. Europe has been a great partner, Mexico and Canada even more so The problem with any of these narratives is it burns decades of good relationships and allows our enemies, for lack of a better word, to fill any void that is left over. I’m sure China is trying to woo the EU right now as we speak, and I couldn’t blame the EU for not taking some of their possible proposals, as they now need to replace hundreds of billions of dollars of trade overnight Free trade with western/ US aligned countries actually works extremely well. China being the largest of the bad actors (but hardly the only one) is problematic, so I understanding targeting that, but not our historically close Allies
- csense 2y ago
  I'm not really happy about this either, there's a strong case to be made for tariffs to be limited to enemies, rivals and economic cheaters. But on the other hand, the US's entire industrial base has fallen into complete ruin and needs to be rebuilt. Broad tariffs will help with that. I see both sides of the issue, and I'm not really sure which is right. But the political leadership has made its choice; now the rest of us are along for the ride. Personally I'm skeptical it will work out exactly as hoped, but I'm still decently optimistic it will put us in a better position than we had before. One good thing is that everyone's now on notice: Taking advantage or over-relying on the US now has consequences. It's no longer an all-benefit, no-risk strategy. Undoubtedly there will be short-term pain but that's the price of fixing the disastrous neoliberal trade policies that destroyed the Rust Belt.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    > It's no longer an all-benefit, no-risk strategy. Interesting when the US has benefited more from this system than almost anyone else. You have massive economic growth compared to almost all developed countries and (according to your words) don’t even have to work for it. Can hardly blame the rest of the world for US government/etc. failing to fairly distribute the value US is extracting from the global economy.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    >But on the other hand, the US's entire industrial base has fallen into complete ruin and needs to be rebuilt. Broad tariffs will help with that It won’t, unless they’re sustained for a long time, longer than Trump will be president and even then I’m not sure. It won’t be like it was in any case. If anyone actually cares about undoing the externalized costs of businesses moving their manufacturing overseas it should be to invest in re-training, re-education, fostering R&D and targeting industries we can have global advantages in. Get people working on things that will sustain themselves without major trade interventions. The entire premise of helping our industrial base is extremely hollow and doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny. Especially since this isn’t being followed with any reforms or subsidies that will do anything to help. There’s no talk of it coming either. It’s hand waved away. At any rate, why does it matter? What non critical manufacturing benefits from being in the US? What benefit does the US get if any of this non critical manufacturing comes back? Why not invest in new industries to take its place? Invest, retrain, reskill, retool. Those should have been the mantras. Not bad trade policy. Not throwing away the rules based order on effectively a whim. >One good thing is that everyone's now on notice: Taking advantage or over-relying on the US now has consequences. It's no longer an all-benefit, no-risk strategy. It never was, not really. There’s no evidence that our faithful (re: the EU, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan etc) were getting all the benefits without giving up something in return, in some manner. Our close allies always maintained symbiotic relationships with the US. The biggest of which is the USD status as reserve currency. That gives the US such immense power that it’s easy to forget just how big a deal it is. It was also technology sharing, intelligence sharing, trade, international finance etc. It’s not a good thing this is breaking down As for the Rust belt. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it’s not going to recover. There’s no chance it ever meaningfully does, but doubly so because there is no plan, no funding. Nothing. I don’t understand any of this unfounded confidence
wqaatwt 2y ago
> and we lost Lost due to lack of redistribution not because of foreign companies outcompeting everyone. US won, its economy was basically built on exporting dollars and effectively buying “free” stuff with it. Almost any other country besides the US that had a similar fiscal policy would have already imploded. Instead you got to export your inflation to the rest of the world and even that wasn’t good enough…

by csense 2y ago

no_wizard 2y ago

I could get on board with tariffs on known bad actors like China, but they hit everyone needlessly. Europe has been a great partner, Mexico and Canada even more so The problem with any of these narratives is it burns decades of good relationships and allows our enemies, for lack of a better word, to fill any void that is left over. I’m sure China is trying to woo the EU right now as we speak, and I couldn’t blame the EU for not taking some of their possible proposals, as they now need to replace hundreds of billions of dollars of trade overnight Free trade with western/ US aligned countries actually works extremely well. China being the largest of the bad actors (but hardly the only one) is problematic, so I understanding targeting that, but not our historically close Allies

csense 2y ago
I'm not really happy about this either, there's a strong case to be made for tariffs to be limited to enemies, rivals and economic cheaters. But on the other hand, the US's entire industrial base has fallen into complete ruin and needs to be rebuilt. Broad tariffs will help with that. I see both sides of the issue, and I'm not really sure which is right. But the political leadership has made its choice; now the rest of us are along for the ride. Personally I'm skeptical it will work out exactly as hoped, but I'm still decently optimistic it will put us in a better position than we had before. One good thing is that everyone's now on notice: Taking advantage or over-relying on the US now has consequences. It's no longer an all-benefit, no-risk strategy. Undoubtedly there will be short-term pain but that's the price of fixing the disastrous neoliberal trade policies that destroyed the Rust Belt.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  > It's no longer an all-benefit, no-risk strategy. Interesting when the US has benefited more from this system than almost anyone else. You have massive economic growth compared to almost all developed countries and (according to your words) don’t even have to work for it. Can hardly blame the rest of the world for US government/etc. failing to fairly distribute the value US is extracting from the global economy.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  >But on the other hand, the US's entire industrial base has fallen into complete ruin and needs to be rebuilt. Broad tariffs will help with that It won’t, unless they’re sustained for a long time, longer than Trump will be president and even then I’m not sure. It won’t be like it was in any case. If anyone actually cares about undoing the externalized costs of businesses moving their manufacturing overseas it should be to invest in re-training, re-education, fostering R&D and targeting industries we can have global advantages in. Get people working on things that will sustain themselves without major trade interventions. The entire premise of helping our industrial base is extremely hollow and doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny. Especially since this isn’t being followed with any reforms or subsidies that will do anything to help. There’s no talk of it coming either. It’s hand waved away. At any rate, why does it matter? What non critical manufacturing benefits from being in the US? What benefit does the US get if any of this non critical manufacturing comes back? Why not invest in new industries to take its place? Invest, retrain, reskill, retool. Those should have been the mantras. Not bad trade policy. Not throwing away the rules based order on effectively a whim. >One good thing is that everyone's now on notice: Taking advantage or over-relying on the US now has consequences. It's no longer an all-benefit, no-risk strategy. It never was, not really. There’s no evidence that our faithful (re: the EU, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan etc) were getting all the benefits without giving up something in return, in some manner. Our close allies always maintained symbiotic relationships with the US. The biggest of which is the USD status as reserve currency. That gives the US such immense power that it’s easy to forget just how big a deal it is. It was also technology sharing, intelligence sharing, trade, international finance etc. It’s not a good thing this is breaking down As for the Rust belt. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it’s not going to recover. There’s no chance it ever meaningfully does, but doubly so because there is no plan, no funding. Nothing. I don’t understand any of this unfounded confidence

wqaatwt 2y ago

> and we lost Lost due to lack of redistribution not because of foreign companies outcompeting everyone. US won, its economy was basically built on exporting dollars and effectively buying “free” stuff with it. Almost any other country besides the US that had a similar fiscal policy would have already imploded. Instead you got to export your inflation to the rest of the world and even that wasn’t good enough…