4 ms·

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 indepe

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.
- dgfitz 1y ago
  > 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? Are you asking why a single point of failure is a bad thing? To restate what you asked: “if the USA weapons manufacturing capability is compromised and cannot sell weapons to approved parties, and said parties also cannot manufacture their own weapons, how is this in the interest of the US?” What do you think?
  - histriosum 1y ago
    > Are you asking why a single point of failure is a bad thing? >To restate what you asked: “if the USA weapons manufacturing capability is compromised and cannot sell weapons to approved parties, and said parties also cannot manufacture their own weapons, how is this in the interest of the US?” You can't equate weapons manufacturing to server uptime or data center diversity -- it's fundamentally different. In terms of what is in the best interests of the United States -- yes, having a single point of weapons manufacture and having that be the United States would very much be in the US interests. It would allow the US to dictate, even more than we do today, how the rest of the world operates. Although we have not been a single source for weapons (Europe does make their own), our role as primary supplier would be (and has been) very profitable. How is it that we can afford to create the advanced weapons that we do? F-35, Patriot, etc? It's because we can spread that research and development cost across other (allied) countries, because they buy our gear instead of developing their own. Reduce the market for our weapons, and you're going to reduce the quality of our weapons and increase their per-unit cost -- both things that are very much not in the interests of the United States. This was sparked by the remark that this was all part of the "intention" of the policy. Since that intention would by definition be very contrary to US interests, both financial and strategic, it seems dubious that this was the intention.
KerrAvon 1y ago
Dictated, past tense. As a result of these tariffs. And that part's not coming back even if everything got magically reversed tomorrow. That level of trust is gone, forever. If capital doesn't get very mad and do something fix the fallout immediately, it will get very bad. You can't wait for things to work themselves out; they will not. It's as stupid as it appears on the surface. These people are sociopathic, vengeful idiots, they're mad at anyone smarter than they are, and they're going to destroy everything that's good and replace it with much, much worse. There is no logic behind it, no matter how badly everybody wants there to be. Trump's brain is stuck in the early 1980's when he first had a subliterate fixation on tariffs, and he's never let go of the idea. I'm sorry that's it not more complex than that -- it would be reassuring if there was an actual plan that anyone not MAGA-infected would thought would work! But there isn't. This is them destroying America and taking down as much of the global economy as America can reach.
munksbeer 1y ago
> 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’m simply explaining the logic behind it I really disagree most strongly that this is the logic behind it. You genuinely think Trump and his base want these tariff wars to encourage more manufacturing in Europe? As a foreigner, the message that comes across loud and clear from the US is "America first". I can't speculate what is really going on inside Trump's head or inside his administration, but one thing I'm 100% sure of, they really don't care in the slightest about Europe or any other country in the world for that matter.
- didericis 1y ago
  The message is absolutely America first, and the motivation to boost the middle class through reindustrialization is a huge factor. The desire to eventually back out of defense commitments in Europe is not in contradiction to that. The political will to commit troops and to defend Ukraine simply isn’t there, especially not while Taiwan is looming. Wanting Europe to reindustrialize and handle it’s own defense allows America to focus more domestically and on potential wars more aligned with American interests (disruption of chip manufacturing affects America much more than Russian occupation of Ukraine). I linked to a hoover institute interview with Niall Ferguson explaining a lot of the thinking. You can also just listen to what the administration has been saying themselves. You don’t have to agree with it, but the goal is reindustrialization of both America and Europe so America doesn’t lose it’s defense capabilities and so Europe can defend itself without relying on American support.
  - mopsi 1y ago
    > The political will to commit troops and to defend Ukraine simply isn’t there, especially not while Taiwan is looming. Wanting Europe to reindustrialize and handle it’s own defense allows America to focus more domestically and on potential wars more aligned with American interests (disruption of chip manufacturing affects America much more than Russian occupation of Ukraine). This seems like a coping narrative. The unwillingness to stand by commitments, groveling before Putin without receiving anything in return, threatening long-standing allies with annexation, and now the utterly moronic trade war (which is not based on any economic plan but apparently on chatbot output) are all weakening the US politically, economically and militarily, and giving countries like China a window of opportunity to act against it. China has no strong allies, and its long-term goal has therefore been to isolate the US from its own allies in order to level the playing field. With each passing day, the US under Trump can indeed expect less and less support from its allies in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Despite all the hollow rhetoric against China, Trump is setting the stage for the invasion. Had the US played its cards better, it could have had a booming economy, motivated allies across the globe, and tens of thousands of highly experienced soldiers from Ukraine's battlefields willing to return the favor in the war with China. Ideally, that would've led to China shelving the invasion plans. Instead, we see an embarrasing clown show, which serves as an open invitation to invade Taiwan.

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.

dgfitz 1y ago
> 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? Are you asking why a single point of failure is a bad thing? To restate what you asked: “if the USA weapons manufacturing capability is compromised and cannot sell weapons to approved parties, and said parties also cannot manufacture their own weapons, how is this in the interest of the US?” What do you think?
- histriosum 1y ago
  > Are you asking why a single point of failure is a bad thing? >To restate what you asked: “if the USA weapons manufacturing capability is compromised and cannot sell weapons to approved parties, and said parties also cannot manufacture their own weapons, how is this in the interest of the US?” You can't equate weapons manufacturing to server uptime or data center diversity -- it's fundamentally different. In terms of what is in the best interests of the United States -- yes, having a single point of weapons manufacture and having that be the United States would very much be in the US interests. It would allow the US to dictate, even more than we do today, how the rest of the world operates. Although we have not been a single source for weapons (Europe does make their own), our role as primary supplier would be (and has been) very profitable. How is it that we can afford to create the advanced weapons that we do? F-35, Patriot, etc? It's because we can spread that research and development cost across other (allied) countries, because they buy our gear instead of developing their own. Reduce the market for our weapons, and you're going to reduce the quality of our weapons and increase their per-unit cost -- both things that are very much not in the interests of the United States. This was sparked by the remark that this was all part of the "intention" of the policy. Since that intention would by definition be very contrary to US interests, both financial and strategic, it seems dubious that this was the intention.

KerrAvon 1y ago

Dictated, past tense. As a result of these tariffs. And that part's not coming back even if everything got magically reversed tomorrow. That level of trust is gone, forever. If capital doesn't get very mad and do something fix the fallout immediately, it will get very bad. You can't wait for things to work themselves out; they will not. It's as stupid as it appears on the surface. These people are sociopathic, vengeful idiots, they're mad at anyone smarter than they are, and they're going to destroy everything that's good and replace it with much, much worse. There is no logic behind it, no matter how badly everybody wants there to be. Trump's brain is stuck in the early 1980's when he first had a subliterate fixation on tariffs, and he's never let go of the idea. I'm sorry that's it not more complex than that -- it would be reassuring if there was an actual plan that anyone not MAGA-infected would thought would work! But there isn't. This is them destroying America and taking down as much of the global economy as America can reach.

munksbeer 1y ago

> 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’m simply explaining the logic behind it I really disagree most strongly that this is the logic behind it. You genuinely think Trump and his base want these tariff wars to encourage more manufacturing in Europe? As a foreigner, the message that comes across loud and clear from the US is "America first". I can't speculate what is really going on inside Trump's head or inside his administration, but one thing I'm 100% sure of, they really don't care in the slightest about Europe or any other country in the world for that matter.

didericis 1y ago
The message is absolutely America first, and the motivation to boost the middle class through reindustrialization is a huge factor. The desire to eventually back out of defense commitments in Europe is not in contradiction to that. The political will to commit troops and to defend Ukraine simply isn’t there, especially not while Taiwan is looming. Wanting Europe to reindustrialize and handle it’s own defense allows America to focus more domestically and on potential wars more aligned with American interests (disruption of chip manufacturing affects America much more than Russian occupation of Ukraine). I linked to a hoover institute interview with Niall Ferguson explaining a lot of the thinking. You can also just listen to what the administration has been saying themselves. You don’t have to agree with it, but the goal is reindustrialization of both America and Europe so America doesn’t lose it’s defense capabilities and so Europe can defend itself without relying on American support.
- mopsi 1y ago
  > The political will to commit troops and to defend Ukraine simply isn’t there, especially not while Taiwan is looming. Wanting Europe to reindustrialize and handle it’s own defense allows America to focus more domestically and on potential wars more aligned with American interests (disruption of chip manufacturing affects America much more than Russian occupation of Ukraine). This seems like a coping narrative. The unwillingness to stand by commitments, groveling before Putin without receiving anything in return, threatening long-standing allies with annexation, and now the utterly moronic trade war (which is not based on any economic plan but apparently on chatbot output) are all weakening the US politically, economically and militarily, and giving countries like China a window of opportunity to act against it. China has no strong allies, and its long-term goal has therefore been to isolate the US from its own allies in order to level the playing field. With each passing day, the US under Trump can indeed expect less and less support from its allies in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Despite all the hollow rhetoric against China, Trump is setting the stage for the invasion. Had the US played its cards better, it could have had a booming economy, motivated allies across the globe, and tens of thousands of highly experienced soldiers from Ukraine's battlefields willing to return the favor in the war with China. Ideally, that would've led to China shelving the invasion plans. Instead, we see an embarrasing clown show, which serves as an open invitation to invade Taiwan.