5 ms·

Trade, Tariffs, and Tech

40 points by swolpers 2y ago

typs 2y ago
If fixing trade was the goal of these tariffs, Trump had other, better options. He did not listen to policy advisors who have spent a long time writing about how to prepare the US for a war with China and rebalancing global trade. This is why it’s been a PR disaster, not because it was preemptive decisive action.
- tfandango 2y ago
  Also, if fixing trade imbalances is the purpose of these tariffs, that brings into question the constitutionality of this. I know nothing matters anymore, but how quickly he forgets to say "fentanyl" when justifying these. Presumably, even if people supported this tariff strategy, they might still disagree that the president should be the one doing it.
  - Volundr 2y ago
    > Presumably, even if people supported this tariff strategy, they might still disagree that the president should be the one doing it. You can sort of count me among this number. Not this wild tarrifs everyone strat, but I've long thought we should have tarrifs on goods from countries like China that are happy to exploit their workers to steal market share. 54% doesn't seem crazy to me. The thing is to actually encourage investment they'd need to a) phase in over time to give companies a chance to react, and b) be something more permanent than an executive order. If it was the legislature putting in place something more targeted and gradual I'd probably find myself arguing for the Republican position on something for the first time in a long time.
    - tfandango 2y ago
      It is saying something that Biden did not roll back some of Trump 45's tariffs (maybe related to chips?) on China when he took over in 2020. I agree with you; some thoughtful strategic tariffs could have produced good things.
    - amalcon 2y ago
      This is also where I am. I think trade barriers are a tool we've abandoned unnecessarily, but in order to be reasonable there need to be specific requirements for their use: 1) The barrier needs to be imposed and removed under specific, transparent criteria that are under the control of the party you are negotiating with. Specifically what I have in mind are that the barrier would apply to industries that don't meet specific environmental and human rights standards, but my reasonableness criteria extends to anything that is under the control of such an industry or its regulators. 2) The initial implementation must be telegraphed years in advance, and there must be some sort of assurance that it won't be removed on a whim. In a system like the U.S., this means it cannot be an executive decision, and must come from Congress. 3) Barriers must be phased in over time. Don't go from zero to 30% at once. 4) There needs to be a coherent theory of how one might source the thing we're taxing without paying the tax. Otherwise it doesn't accomplish very much. The current policy violates all four of my conditions. Which doesn't matter a ton -- there is no good reason for anyone in power to listen to me -- but that's just how I'm thinking about it.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pr337h4m 2y ago
>This meant there was inelastic demand for U.S. treasuries, which basically made it impossible for the U.S. to not run a deficit, either in terms of trade or the federal budget. Ease of borrowing does not force a government to run a deficit, which is entirely a political choice.
- CMCDragonkai 2y ago
  The US could have taken its king dollar and immense credit to fund a technological paradise. But it instead funded stupid wars and bailed out giant banks. This is a problem entirely created by oneself.
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Sane-washing like this is already dangerous even before you figure in that a surprising amount of it seems to be predicated on starting a war with China in the near future. I guess that's the only plausible scenario they can think of that somewhat eclipses this self-inflicted disaster and makes it seem like a mere bump in the road by rhetorical comparison.
- palmotea 2y ago
  > a surprising amount of it seems to be predicated on starting a war with China in the near future. Or more likely China starting a war, which is periodically threatens to do eventually over Taiwan. And China will win, because it's successfully hollowing out the West, more and more every day: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/business/china-manufacturing-exports-trump-tariffs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/business/china-manufactur...: > Recent data from China’s central bank shows that state-controlled banks lent an extra $1.9 trillion to industrial borrowers over the past four years. On the fringes of cities all over China, new factories are being built day and night, and existing factories are being upgraded with robots and automation. > China’s investments and advances in manufacturing are producing a wave of exports that threatens to cause factory closings and layoffs not just in the United States but also around the globe.
  - margalabargala 2y ago
    Eh. If they win, it'll be because primarily Russia was successful in dividingWestern countries internally so that they are unable to properly commit to anything. If the US decided unequivocably that it would militarily prevent China from taking Taiwan, it would succeed.
    - palmotea 2y ago
      I don't think so. I think the US is seeming more and more like a paper tiger. It still has a bit of a technology advantage, but China has such an overwhelming advantage in manufacturing capacity, that I think a conflict may will end up being like WWII in reverse: the US with V-2s and jet fighters (but too few) overwhelmed by waves and waves of Chinese B-17s and P-51 Mustangs. Also China's cornered the market on the latest military tech advancement: small drones. They've completely changed the battlefield in Ukraine, and my understanding both the Russian and Ukrainian drones are made from kits of Chinese building blocks (motors, frames, control boards, etc) sources from places like AliExpress. In a conflict with China, the US is going to get its AliExpress accounts closed, and probably lacks the manufacturing base to replace it at the necessary scale.
GardenLetter27 2y ago
Everyone seems to be saying it's "tough medicine" and will help bring industry back to the USA, but what if the reverse is true? The tariffs hit American companies hardest - it is companies in the USA actually paying the tariffs, and it's paid on every step of importing in the supply chain. People are acting like Ford and GM will bring back the factories and make America great again, but it's just as likely that the other countries lower their trade barriers and while Ford is stuck dealing with the hit from tariffs, BYD etc. just take all of their market share internationally - as they aren't affected. This might actually accelerate the decline of US industry, as manufacturers cannot move their entire supply chain to the US overnight (and wouldn't keep the same profit margins even if it were possible), meanwhile they become much less competitive in foreign markets. E.g. when OpenAI is stuck paying tariffs on GPUs, then DeepSeek will be even more competitive. Same for Boeing vs. AirBus and COMAC. > Third, there are a lot of other things the Trump administration could be doing, particularly in terms of relieving regulation, ensuring equal opportunity throughout the economy, etc. It seems like a missed opportunity to be burning political capital on deficit reduction and trade rebalancing when there are major pro-growth opportunities still available. This seems particularly pertinent given the rise of AI, which has very high variance in terms of potential outcomes. I agree with this completely, I'm surprised Trump didn't couple it with a bonfire of NIMBY regulation to help jump-start domestic growth that way too.
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  > Everyone seems to be saying it's "tough medicine" and will help bring industry back to the USA Everyone just assumes that bringing manufacturing back would be a good thing. I can't see why. It will make everything cost more, and our unemployment was already as low as it could be. Our problem was inflation, not a lack of low paying jobs.
  - thechao 2y ago
    U.S. manufacturing was already near an all-time high. Bringing more manufacturing onshore will just get us more robots, not more jobs. There's a steel plant a few hours south of me, outside of Corpus, it runs at a few % of nominal capacity, and generates 2 millions tons of new steel per year. It has 200 employees, mostly for regulatory purposes. How many thousands of people would a plant like that have employed in 1980? I can tell you: at least 10000 at current nominal, without overhead, just on the floor; at full capacity it'd be 100k+. Similarly, our naval yards are inefficient because we're fucking with last minute change orders, because there's no effective oversight. (And, due to DOGE, none, now.) China produces vast amounts of manufacturing output because it's a huge country. So does the U.S. So does India.
stevenAthompson 2y ago
> I think that Trump’s approach, while more theoretically valid than it is being given credit for, is the wrong one. I disagree that Trumps approach is "theoretically valid". So do 16 Nobel Prize-winning economists and the entire stock market. > These tariffs, however, are much more complicated, because they exist (for now anyways), while a war does not. I think the author means to imply that the tariffs will be short lived here. However, I initially misread it to mean that a war was coming, and found it to be prescient. Republicans lost the house/senate for 50 years the last time they tried tariffs. It's going to take a pretty large distraction to keep the retirees from noticing that cat food doesn't taste as good as it used to.
- setsewerd 2y ago
  My understanding of economics doesn't go further than a few college classes I took, and I have no idea how sophisticated the models are that modern economists are using to make these kinds of conclusions. And Trump's whole approach does seem to be a pretty terrible idea from what I've read. However, a part of me is curious whether certain political maneuvers (power dynamics etc) are sufficiently captured in modern economic models? Could there be a reason that the Trump administration is continuing to persevere on something that is seen across the board as an objectively bad idea? Is it possible that this is actually smarter than just a poorly calculated ego trip or a means to game the economy for personal profit?
  - Volundr 2y ago
    > Could there be a reason that the Trump administration is continuing to persevere on something that is seen across the board as an objectively bad idea? From cofefe to tarrifs there's always someone out there insisting that whatever inexplicable move Trump is making at this moment is actually 4D chess, and ready to explain how this is some convoluted move we just don't understand. In reality I think the answer is no. I've seen nothing to convince me over the years that Trump is operating at this level, and it's telling that it's never Trump whose explaining how these moves are supposed to lead to wonderful outcomes through convoluted paths, but instead some rando on the Internet.
xnx 2y ago
How can an article on tariffs not mention fentanyl? /s Reading this article and/or trying to apply any logic to these actions will only make you dumber. Don't waste your time reading this.

40 points by swolpers 2y ago

typs 2y ago

If fixing trade was the goal of these tariffs, Trump had other, better options. He did not listen to policy advisors who have spent a long time writing about how to prepare the US for a war with China and rebalancing global trade. This is why it’s been a PR disaster, not because it was preemptive decisive action.

tfandango 2y ago
Also, if fixing trade imbalances is the purpose of these tariffs, that brings into question the constitutionality of this. I know nothing matters anymore, but how quickly he forgets to say "fentanyl" when justifying these. Presumably, even if people supported this tariff strategy, they might still disagree that the president should be the one doing it.
- Volundr 2y ago
  > Presumably, even if people supported this tariff strategy, they might still disagree that the president should be the one doing it. You can sort of count me among this number. Not this wild tarrifs everyone strat, but I've long thought we should have tarrifs on goods from countries like China that are happy to exploit their workers to steal market share. 54% doesn't seem crazy to me. The thing is to actually encourage investment they'd need to a) phase in over time to give companies a chance to react, and b) be something more permanent than an executive order. If it was the legislature putting in place something more targeted and gradual I'd probably find myself arguing for the Republican position on something for the first time in a long time.
  - tfandango 2y ago
    It is saying something that Biden did not roll back some of Trump 45's tariffs (maybe related to chips?) on China when he took over in 2020. I agree with you; some thoughtful strategic tariffs could have produced good things.
  - amalcon 2y ago
    This is also where I am. I think trade barriers are a tool we've abandoned unnecessarily, but in order to be reasonable there need to be specific requirements for their use: 1) The barrier needs to be imposed and removed under specific, transparent criteria that are under the control of the party you are negotiating with. Specifically what I have in mind are that the barrier would apply to industries that don't meet specific environmental and human rights standards, but my reasonableness criteria extends to anything that is under the control of such an industry or its regulators. 2) The initial implementation must be telegraphed years in advance, and there must be some sort of assurance that it won't be removed on a whim. In a system like the U.S., this means it cannot be an executive decision, and must come from Congress. 3) Barriers must be phased in over time. Don't go from zero to 30% at once. 4) There needs to be a coherent theory of how one might source the thing we're taxing without paying the tax. Otherwise it doesn't accomplish very much. The current policy violates all four of my conditions. Which doesn't matter a ton -- there is no good reason for anyone in power to listen to me -- but that's just how I'm thinking about it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pr337h4m 2y ago

>This meant there was inelastic demand for U.S. treasuries, which basically made it impossible for the U.S. to not run a deficit, either in terms of trade or the federal budget. Ease of borrowing does not force a government to run a deficit, which is entirely a political choice.

CMCDragonkai 2y ago
The US could have taken its king dollar and immense credit to fund a technological paradise. But it instead funded stupid wars and bailed out giant banks. This is a problem entirely created by oneself.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

Sane-washing like this is already dangerous even before you figure in that a surprising amount of it seems to be predicated on starting a war with China in the near future. I guess that's the only plausible scenario they can think of that somewhat eclipses this self-inflicted disaster and makes it seem like a mere bump in the road by rhetorical comparison.

palmotea 2y ago
> a surprising amount of it seems to be predicated on starting a war with China in the near future. Or more likely China starting a war, which is periodically threatens to do eventually over Taiwan. And China will win, because it's successfully hollowing out the West, more and more every day: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/business/china-manufacturing-exports-trump-tariffs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/business/china-manufactur...: > Recent data from China’s central bank shows that state-controlled banks lent an extra $1.9 trillion to industrial borrowers over the past four years. On the fringes of cities all over China, new factories are being built day and night, and existing factories are being upgraded with robots and automation. > China’s investments and advances in manufacturing are producing a wave of exports that threatens to cause factory closings and layoffs not just in the United States but also around the globe.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  Eh. If they win, it'll be because primarily Russia was successful in dividingWestern countries internally so that they are unable to properly commit to anything. If the US decided unequivocably that it would militarily prevent China from taking Taiwan, it would succeed.
  - palmotea 2y ago
    I don't think so. I think the US is seeming more and more like a paper tiger. It still has a bit of a technology advantage, but China has such an overwhelming advantage in manufacturing capacity, that I think a conflict may will end up being like WWII in reverse: the US with V-2s and jet fighters (but too few) overwhelmed by waves and waves of Chinese B-17s and P-51 Mustangs. Also China's cornered the market on the latest military tech advancement: small drones. They've completely changed the battlefield in Ukraine, and my understanding both the Russian and Ukrainian drones are made from kits of Chinese building blocks (motors, frames, control boards, etc) sources from places like AliExpress. In a conflict with China, the US is going to get its AliExpress accounts closed, and probably lacks the manufacturing base to replace it at the necessary scale.

GardenLetter27 2y ago

Everyone seems to be saying it's "tough medicine" and will help bring industry back to the USA, but what if the reverse is true? The tariffs hit American companies hardest - it is companies in the USA actually paying the tariffs, and it's paid on every step of importing in the supply chain. People are acting like Ford and GM will bring back the factories and make America great again, but it's just as likely that the other countries lower their trade barriers and while Ford is stuck dealing with the hit from tariffs, BYD etc. just take all of their market share internationally - as they aren't affected. This might actually accelerate the decline of US industry, as manufacturers cannot move their entire supply chain to the US overnight (and wouldn't keep the same profit margins even if it were possible), meanwhile they become much less competitive in foreign markets. E.g. when OpenAI is stuck paying tariffs on GPUs, then DeepSeek will be even more competitive. Same for Boeing vs. AirBus and COMAC. > Third, there are a lot of other things the Trump administration could be doing, particularly in terms of relieving regulation, ensuring equal opportunity throughout the economy, etc. It seems like a missed opportunity to be burning political capital on deficit reduction and trade rebalancing when there are major pro-growth opportunities still available. This seems particularly pertinent given the rise of AI, which has very high variance in terms of potential outcomes. I agree with this completely, I'm surprised Trump didn't couple it with a bonfire of NIMBY regulation to help jump-start domestic growth that way too.

stevenAthompson 2y ago
> Everyone seems to be saying it's "tough medicine" and will help bring industry back to the USA Everyone just assumes that bringing manufacturing back would be a good thing. I can't see why. It will make everything cost more, and our unemployment was already as low as it could be. Our problem was inflation, not a lack of low paying jobs.
- thechao 2y ago
  U.S. manufacturing was already near an all-time high. Bringing more manufacturing onshore will just get us more robots, not more jobs. There's a steel plant a few hours south of me, outside of Corpus, it runs at a few % of nominal capacity, and generates 2 millions tons of new steel per year. It has 200 employees, mostly for regulatory purposes. How many thousands of people would a plant like that have employed in 1980? I can tell you: at least 10000 at current nominal, without overhead, just on the floor; at full capacity it'd be 100k+. Similarly, our naval yards are inefficient because we're fucking with last minute change orders, because there's no effective oversight. (And, due to DOGE, none, now.) China produces vast amounts of manufacturing output because it's a huge country. So does the U.S. So does India.

stevenAthompson 2y ago

> I think that Trump’s approach, while more theoretically valid than it is being given credit for, is the wrong one. I disagree that Trumps approach is "theoretically valid". So do 16 Nobel Prize-winning economists and the entire stock market. > These tariffs, however, are much more complicated, because they exist (for now anyways), while a war does not. I think the author means to imply that the tariffs will be short lived here. However, I initially misread it to mean that a war was coming, and found it to be prescient. Republicans lost the house/senate for 50 years the last time they tried tariffs. It's going to take a pretty large distraction to keep the retirees from noticing that cat food doesn't taste as good as it used to.

setsewerd 2y ago
My understanding of economics doesn't go further than a few college classes I took, and I have no idea how sophisticated the models are that modern economists are using to make these kinds of conclusions. And Trump's whole approach does seem to be a pretty terrible idea from what I've read. However, a part of me is curious whether certain political maneuvers (power dynamics etc) are sufficiently captured in modern economic models? Could there be a reason that the Trump administration is continuing to persevere on something that is seen across the board as an objectively bad idea? Is it possible that this is actually smarter than just a poorly calculated ego trip or a means to game the economy for personal profit?
- Volundr 2y ago
  > Could there be a reason that the Trump administration is continuing to persevere on something that is seen across the board as an objectively bad idea? From cofefe to tarrifs there's always someone out there insisting that whatever inexplicable move Trump is making at this moment is actually 4D chess, and ready to explain how this is some convoluted move we just don't understand. In reality I think the answer is no. I've seen nothing to convince me over the years that Trump is operating at this level, and it's telling that it's never Trump whose explaining how these moves are supposed to lead to wonderful outcomes through convoluted paths, but instead some rando on the Internet.

xnx 2y ago

How can an article on tariffs not mention fentanyl? /s Reading this article and/or trying to apply any logic to these actions will only make you dumber. Don't waste your time reading this.