4 ms·

Because a rising power (China) backed a country (Russia) which didn’t bow to the dominant power (USA) that enables international trade, and intentionally blowin

Because a rising power (China) backed a country (Russia) which didn’t bow to the dominant power (USA) that enables international trade, and intentionally blowing up international trade agreements now allows the USA more time to rebuild strategic supply chains to counter further violations of the international order. If the USA doesn’t have a secure industrial base and can’t reliably enforce the international order then there is no international trade.

turtlesdown11 2y ago
> intentionally blowing up international trade agreements now allows the USA more time to rebuild strategic supply chains to counter further violations of the international order. Sources? >If the USA doesn’t have a secure industrial base and can’t reliably enforce the international order then there is no international trade. The US reliably enforces international order and global trade now. Source where this is an issue?
- didericis 2y ago
  The current international situation as understood by a lot of people in republican circles is outline in detail here: https://youtu.be/vDBZeHhx3YE https://youtu.be/vDBZeHhx3YE > The US reliably enforces international order and global trade now Yes, which is why many believe now is the time to revamp our industrial capacity while we still have strategic dominance. The war in Ukraine has illustrated the importance of mass drone production, and we currently lack a lot of the direct capacity to make them. A lot of our military supply chains are also based too heavily on components assembled and manufactured in China and in parts of east Asia that could easily be disrupted and cripple our ability to project power and play the role we currently play.
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    You can improve all those things, even fast, without doing… this. Tariffing close allies at the same time as likely or actual foes especially doesn’t make sense. And rather than this weird roundabout approach, the government can just… pay for things to happen. Like, they used to run weapons factories. If that’s the actual reason for this, it would have been a ton cheaper to just fire up a few government factories, continue and expand the chips act, and maybe ramp up some targeted tariffs and other controls, which would have been way more effective with allies on board. Or, they can start placing drone orders and handing out r&d contracts with specifications that they be entirely made in the USA. You may be presenting a real perspective, and it could be entirely correct, and this still would be extremely stupid.
    - didericis 1y ago
      Yes, this is a real perspective. Again, I’m not endorsing the approach they’re taking, I’m simply explaining it. I also don’t think even a moderate introduction of tariffs would have been viewed favorably. Reindustrialization is I think necessary/I agree with the desire to ramp up domestic production and secure supply chains in both America and Europe, but we haven’t done it yet because it’s going to be painful to reverse the current trajectory. This could very well be a part of a kind of shock deal to get allies to know we’re serious as we negotiate down. I’m not saying I agree with that tactic, either, and the complaints about the damage in trust are extremely valid.
jajko 2y ago
That's... not how things will roll out. Sure it looks nice on some paper diagram my 5 year old son could pop out, but reality is way, way more complex. Also, here its US who is doing massive 'violations of international order'. You know which order I talk about? WTO for example, US is founding member, an org specifically designed and accepted to handle this. Various international agreements between close allies. And so on, news are full of whims of one bipolar old man stomping left and right. What is actually and already happening is that US will lose a lot of customers world wide. That Amazon cloud or tesla car or weapons (machinists heh) or literally any other US product ain't so cool or even acceptable anymore. What will happen actually that rest of the world will replace US products. Not just government, but regular people. Nobody wants to drink US whiskey or wine anymore. Nobody wants any US product or service anymore. If you think 4% of global population (and just 26% of global GDP) can on whims dictate lives of 96% of mankind by force, well, that's like your opinion man.
- didericis 2y ago
  The USA already dictates the direction of much of the world economy through its position in the WTO, and you are correct that the tariffs will cause more independent production. That’s part of the intention. Europe specifically is underproductive and the hope is that these tariffs and the change of tone for defense agreements will bolster Europes domestic industrial and defensive capabilities. I also realize how incredibly complex modern supply chains are and how disruptive these tariffs are. While it seems clear to me the previous trade situation was unsustainable and going to break down without some sort of change of course, that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of the blanket tariffs or the way this was executed, and I don’t know whether it will work. I’m simply explaining the logic behind it, which is also more complex than just “a bipolar old man stomping left and right”.
  - histriosum 1y ago
    Let me get this straight… > That’s part of the intention. Europe specifically is underproductive and the hope is that these tariffs and the change of tone for defense agreements will bolster Europes domestic industrial and defensive capabilities So, rather than sell Europe weapons that we create in the United States, part of the “intention” of this policy is to cut off the European demand for our weapons systems and cause them to manufacture their own? How is that helpful to the United States and our bottom line? How is that at all in the US interests? I agree that’s what is going to happen, but I see no evidence that it was part of the intention.
Vilian 1y ago
Trump didn't tariff Russia tho

turtlesdown11 2y ago

> intentionally blowing up international trade agreements now allows the USA more time to rebuild strategic supply chains to counter further violations of the international order. Sources? >If the USA doesn’t have a secure industrial base and can’t reliably enforce the international order then there is no international trade. The US reliably enforces international order and global trade now. Source where this is an issue?

didericis 2y ago
The current international situation as understood by a lot of people in republican circles is outline in detail here: https://youtu.be/vDBZeHhx3YE https://youtu.be/vDBZeHhx3YE > The US reliably enforces international order and global trade now Yes, which is why many believe now is the time to revamp our industrial capacity while we still have strategic dominance. The war in Ukraine has illustrated the importance of mass drone production, and we currently lack a lot of the direct capacity to make them. A lot of our military supply chains are also based too heavily on components assembled and manufactured in China and in parts of east Asia that could easily be disrupted and cripple our ability to project power and play the role we currently play.
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  You can improve all those things, even fast, without doing… this. Tariffing close allies at the same time as likely or actual foes especially doesn’t make sense. And rather than this weird roundabout approach, the government can just… pay for things to happen. Like, they used to run weapons factories. If that’s the actual reason for this, it would have been a ton cheaper to just fire up a few government factories, continue and expand the chips act, and maybe ramp up some targeted tariffs and other controls, which would have been way more effective with allies on board. Or, they can start placing drone orders and handing out r&d contracts with specifications that they be entirely made in the USA. You may be presenting a real perspective, and it could be entirely correct, and this still would be extremely stupid.
  - didericis 1y ago
    Yes, this is a real perspective. Again, I’m not endorsing the approach they’re taking, I’m simply explaining it. I also don’t think even a moderate introduction of tariffs would have been viewed favorably. Reindustrialization is I think necessary/I agree with the desire to ramp up domestic production and secure supply chains in both America and Europe, but we haven’t done it yet because it’s going to be painful to reverse the current trajectory. This could very well be a part of a kind of shock deal to get allies to know we’re serious as we negotiate down. I’m not saying I agree with that tactic, either, and the complaints about the damage in trust are extremely valid.

jajko 2y ago

That's... not how things will roll out. Sure it looks nice on some paper diagram my 5 year old son could pop out, but reality is way, way more complex. Also, here its US who is doing massive 'violations of international order'. You know which order I talk about? WTO for example, US is founding member, an org specifically designed and accepted to handle this. Various international agreements between close allies. And so on, news are full of whims of one bipolar old man stomping left and right. What is actually and already happening is that US will lose a lot of customers world wide. That Amazon cloud or tesla car or weapons (machinists heh) or literally any other US product ain't so cool or even acceptable anymore. What will happen actually that rest of the world will replace US products. Not just government, but regular people. Nobody wants to drink US whiskey or wine anymore. Nobody wants any US product or service anymore. If you think 4% of global population (and just 26% of global GDP) can on whims dictate lives of 96% of mankind by force, well, that's like your opinion man.

didericis 2y ago
The USA already dictates the direction of much of the world economy through its position in the WTO, and you are correct that the tariffs will cause more independent production. That’s part of the intention. Europe specifically is underproductive and the hope is that these tariffs and the change of tone for defense agreements will bolster Europes domestic industrial and defensive capabilities. I also realize how incredibly complex modern supply chains are and how disruptive these tariffs are. While it seems clear to me the previous trade situation was unsustainable and going to break down without some sort of change of course, that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of the blanket tariffs or the way this was executed, and I don’t know whether it will work. I’m simply explaining the logic behind it, which is also more complex than just “a bipolar old man stomping left and right”.
- histriosum 1y ago
  Let me get this straight… > That’s part of the intention. Europe specifically is underproductive and the hope is that these tariffs and the change of tone for defense agreements will bolster Europes domestic industrial and defensive capabilities So, rather than sell Europe weapons that we create in the United States, part of the “intention” of this policy is to cut off the European demand for our weapons systems and cause them to manufacture their own? How is that helpful to the United States and our bottom line? How is that at all in the US interests? I agree that’s what is going to happen, but I see no evidence that it was part of the intention.

Vilian 1y ago

Trump didn't tariff Russia tho