5 ms·

If one was to believe the goal is to move manufacturing back to the states, a zero for zero would never be considered, as it wouldn't move the needle on the wan

If one was to believe the goal is to move manufacturing back to the states, a zero for zero would never be considered, as it wouldn't move the needle on the wanted end state.

dgoldstein0 2y ago
Key word, "if". Trump hasn't stated that goal. It's unclear he has a particular goal in mind other than "trade deficits bad, tariffs can fix trade deficits therefore tariffs good".
- femiagbabiaka 2y ago
  They're quite explicit about their goals, they're just quieter about it now because they don't want to give away the game. Alex Danco, one of my favorite finance writers, wrote this piece about it, recommend: https://danco.substack.com/p/if-youre-first-out-the-door-its-not https://danco.substack.com/p/if-youre-first-out-the-door-its...
  - ggm 2y ago
    "give the game away" -c'mon, this isn't trade secret. If the outcome is dollar revaluation and releasing the trigger finger on US debt, then thats been the plan for a long time. The part of the equation where manufacturing jobs magically came back onshore and somehow all the other impacts were "not material" continues to escape me. Those manufacturing jobs won't come back even with a worldwide GST of 10% paid to the USA, and those other impacts are going to play out for decades.
    - femiagbabiaka 2y ago
      I didn’t say it was a good plan or that it was being executed well — but if you don’t broadcast your every move you maintain plausible deniability, just like with the initial denial of Project 2025. If he said “I’m trying to make American labor cheaper” that would obviously be unpopular. And yet that is exactly the plan.
  - AlecSchueler 2y ago
    The article you linked admits to being based on various assumptions. I'm not sure how guesses from a third party equate to the administration being explicit about what they're doing and why.
    - femiagbabiaka 2y ago
      It is based on the same set of assumptions the entire world is working off of, and the strategy described is what has been done so far. We won’t get better than that unfortunately.
      - AlecSchueler 2y ago
        That's fine but my point is that the word "quite" is doing quite some heavy lifting in the claim "they've been quite explicit about their goals" if the entire world has to work off of guesses and assumptions.
- solumunus 2y ago
  He absolutely has been banging that drum for ages, I’ve no idea how you’ve missed this.
ggm 2y ago
I only partially agree. They could e.g. have negotiated some outcome which altered the goods of trade on the same bilateral basis so France and Germany got better wine entry with a boost to rural sector jobs, in return for some US manufactured goods being given an easier ride in. It's not like Trump wouldn't have enjoyed shitting on the West coast wine industry, for some east coast car -related love. Thats a silly example but there would presumably be jobs-creating outcomes for both of them in a negotiated outcome. You couldn't call this a BATNA

If one was to believe the goal is to move manufacturing back to the states, a zero for zero would never be considered, as it wouldn't move the needle on the wanted end state.

dgoldstein0 2y ago

Key word, "if". Trump hasn't stated that goal. It's unclear he has a particular goal in mind other than "trade deficits bad, tariffs can fix trade deficits therefore tariffs good".

femiagbabiaka 2y ago
They're quite explicit about their goals, they're just quieter about it now because they don't want to give away the game. Alex Danco, one of my favorite finance writers, wrote this piece about it, recommend: https://danco.substack.com/p/if-youre-first-out-the-door-its-not https://danco.substack.com/p/if-youre-first-out-the-door-its...
- ggm 2y ago
  "give the game away" -c'mon, this isn't trade secret. If the outcome is dollar revaluation and releasing the trigger finger on US debt, then thats been the plan for a long time. The part of the equation where manufacturing jobs magically came back onshore and somehow all the other impacts were "not material" continues to escape me. Those manufacturing jobs won't come back even with a worldwide GST of 10% paid to the USA, and those other impacts are going to play out for decades.
  - femiagbabiaka 2y ago
    I didn’t say it was a good plan or that it was being executed well — but if you don’t broadcast your every move you maintain plausible deniability, just like with the initial denial of Project 2025. If he said “I’m trying to make American labor cheaper” that would obviously be unpopular. And yet that is exactly the plan.
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  The article you linked admits to being based on various assumptions. I'm not sure how guesses from a third party equate to the administration being explicit about what they're doing and why.
  - femiagbabiaka 2y ago
    It is based on the same set of assumptions the entire world is working off of, and the strategy described is what has been done so far. We won’t get better than that unfortunately.
    - AlecSchueler 2y ago
      That's fine but my point is that the word "quite" is doing quite some heavy lifting in the claim "they've been quite explicit about their goals" if the entire world has to work off of guesses and assumptions.
solumunus 2y ago
He absolutely has been banging that drum for ages, I’ve no idea how you’ve missed this.

ggm 2y ago

I only partially agree. They could e.g. have negotiated some outcome which altered the goods of trade on the same bilateral basis so France and Germany got better wine entry with a boost to rural sector jobs, in return for some US manufactured goods being given an easier ride in. It's not like Trump wouldn't have enjoyed shitting on the West coast wine industry, for some east coast car -related love. Thats a silly example but there would presumably be jobs-creating outcomes for both of them in a negotiated outcome. You couldn't call this a BATNA