6 ms·

it's the whole point of the tariffs. China does an end run around all of our laws, consumer safety, human rights, workers conditions, intellectual property, all

it's the whole point of the tariffs. China does an end run around all of our laws, consumer safety, human rights, workers conditions, intellectual property, all that, and in doing so they cut costs and beat domestic companies at the market. Tariffs are a tax we charge to represent those things they have immorally refused to do while participating in our market. A country can't effectively have things like a minimum wage while allowing completely free trade with countries that use slave labor and don't share your values, because they can beat you on price by using human suffering as a competitive advantage, and put you entirely out of business.

synergy20 2y ago
after 50 years of de-industrialization in US, it's a sad fact that US can no longer produce most of those items, yes it's totally gone. It will take a few decades to rebuild, if possible at all. For now, whatever those junks are at Amazon, there are not many options to procure them elsewhere.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
  You want the US to spend the next few decades retooling to ... build junk?
  - synergy20 2y ago
    Build essential stuff locally, not junk of course. Or else the virtual economy can not sustain forever based on borrowing money while producing very little locally.
    - roboror 1y ago
      What is "essential stuff" to you?
      - tpolm 1y ago
        well, produce own steel. Own processors, own drug precursors...
- jimbob45 1y ago
  This weird demoralization has to stop. We went to the moon in less than 10 years from beginning the Apollo program. It’s less than 10 years to build a nuclear power plant on average. We deployed the COVID vaccine worldwide in less than one year. Manufacturing is not that hard. If we want to do it, we can do it and we can do it quickly.
  - aaronbaugher 1y ago
    True. The biggest impediment to increased manufacturing is the pile of onerous regulations, many of which were created by the stroke of a pen since 2008, and which can be removed by another stroke of the pen.
    - dttze 1y ago
      The biggest impediment is the misallocation of capital and the lack of regulations controlling corporations.
    - ThenAsNow 1y ago
      Do you have any substantiation for either the point that onerous regulations are the primary impediment or that most of these have been created since 2008 (by fiat or otherwise)? It's always going to be cheaper to make things in places where labor costs and environmental responsibility expectations are low.
      - maxwell 1y ago
        > It's always going to be cheaper to make things in places where labor costs and environmental responsibility expectations are low. Yeah, offshoring was mostly about driving down costs by laundering labor and environmental law.
        Sabinus 1y ago
        That's why the manufacturing companies did it. The politicians allowed it because it was meant to make the world more peaceful and prosperous. Which it did, really.
neogodless 2y ago
Do you mean this is the point of a carefully planned, deliberated, executed, and announced tariff rollout, or do you mean that's the whole point of tariffs as they are currently being implemented in the United States?
- genewitch 2y ago
  The tariffs that were announced during the campaign - the same way Ross Perot did - and the reasoning was to bring us manufacturing back to the US and reduce the tax burden on US citizens? Such as writing off car payments if the car is American? People wigged out over non-reciprocal tariffs, where we tariff at 50% what they charge the US. People wigged out at 10℅ flat rate tariffs. "Heard island penguins get charged 10%!) I really have to wonder how important this Chinese junk is. They make so much junk for the US, that the EU, including Von der Lyon, had to make a plan to deal with Chinese companies wanting to, and I quote here, "dump" all their exports on to the EU market. The EU is very protectionist over their countries' economic outputs and manufacturing. But if the US does that...
  - eCa 2y ago
    > reduce the tax burden on US citizens Do you consider the tariffs to be a (tax) burden on US citizens?
    - maxwell 1y ago
      Only on those who buy imports.
      - neogodless 1y ago
        This seems to assume that everything can be imported or acquired domestically. But tariffs implemented in other countries are much more specific. It makes sense to use tariffs when you have the capability to meet your domestic demand with domestic supply. Indiscriminate tariffs catch things where demand far exceeds domestic production, whether that's raw materials, specific foods, or things that will take a long time to ramp up production domestically. Ultimately, lots of things manufactured domestically will still increase in price because of the raw materials they require.
tshaddox 2y ago
What zamalek describes isn't just that China manufactures cheap products. The complain is more about retailers or marketplaces (particularly online ones) that encourage essentially anonymous, zero-cost seller accounts and product listings. Traditional retailers like Target or Costco also sell a lot of cheap Chinese stuff, but they don't have quite the same level of junk in their listings.
- aaronbaugher 2y ago
  Right. There's always been a range of products from cheap to quality. But "cheap" used to mean something that wouldn't last as long or that had limited features, but that could still be worth the lower price. Now "cheap" can mean something that will break the first time you use it, at which point is any price low enough? I bought a garden hose sprayer at Dollar General for $1, and it leaked immediately. $1 is so little now that it was basically free, but even for free it wouldn't have been worth it, and I'm not going to make a trip to get a $1 refund. At some point, "cheap" is so bad that it has negative value, as it only adds clutter and waste.
Propelloni 2y ago
I can see how hitting the EU with tariffs is going to improve human rights ... oh wait. But on a more serious note, tariffs could have been used for what you are saying, and it would have been a beautiful thing, but I think we can agree that's not what's happening here, can't we?
- maxwell 1y ago
  Not sure why the sarcasm. Do we keep picking up the tab until they're trampling the entire Bill of Rights?
sanktanglia 1y ago
The whole point of the tariffs is to cause chaos and if you think they have an actual plan boy do I have a bridge to sell you
rstuart4133 1y ago
> A country can't effectively have things like a minimum wage while allowing completely free trade with countries that use slave labor and don't share your values, because they can beat you on price by using human suffering as a competitive advantage, and put you entirely out of business. Australia (I live there) has free trade, a high minimum wage (USD$16/hr) which is strictly enforced, no tariffs to speak of, and used to share the same values as the USA (in the last 100 days no so much). Australia has been that way for decades. In other words: your wrong, despite what "common sense" might tell you. There are far more glaring examples, like Singapore. Almost no natural resources to exploit, no tariffs to speak of, and a median yearly income of USD$66,000. The USA's median income is USD$40,000. Now look at countries with high tariffs, or even just "higher than the USA used to have" tariffs. All of them, and I do mean off of them, including China, have living standards well below those with very low tariffs. So you are not just wrong. Empirical evidence says you have it completely arse about.

synergy20 2y ago

after 50 years of de-industrialization in US, it's a sad fact that US can no longer produce most of those items, yes it's totally gone. It will take a few decades to rebuild, if possible at all. For now, whatever those junks are at Amazon, there are not many options to procure them elsewhere.

HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
You want the US to spend the next few decades retooling to ... build junk?
- synergy20 2y ago
  Build essential stuff locally, not junk of course. Or else the virtual economy can not sustain forever based on borrowing money while producing very little locally.
  - roboror 1y ago
    What is "essential stuff" to you?
    - tpolm 1y ago
      well, produce own steel. Own processors, own drug precursors...
jimbob45 1y ago
This weird demoralization has to stop. We went to the moon in less than 10 years from beginning the Apollo program. It’s less than 10 years to build a nuclear power plant on average. We deployed the COVID vaccine worldwide in less than one year. Manufacturing is not that hard. If we want to do it, we can do it and we can do it quickly.
- aaronbaugher 1y ago
  True. The biggest impediment to increased manufacturing is the pile of onerous regulations, many of which were created by the stroke of a pen since 2008, and which can be removed by another stroke of the pen.
  - dttze 1y ago
    The biggest impediment is the misallocation of capital and the lack of regulations controlling corporations.
  - ThenAsNow 1y ago
    Do you have any substantiation for either the point that onerous regulations are the primary impediment or that most of these have been created since 2008 (by fiat or otherwise)? It's always going to be cheaper to make things in places where labor costs and environmental responsibility expectations are low.
    - maxwell 1y ago
      > It's always going to be cheaper to make things in places where labor costs and environmental responsibility expectations are low. Yeah, offshoring was mostly about driving down costs by laundering labor and environmental law.
      - Sabinus 1y ago
        That's why the manufacturing companies did it. The politicians allowed it because it was meant to make the world more peaceful and prosperous. Which it did, really.

neogodless 2y ago

Do you mean this is the point of a carefully planned, deliberated, executed, and announced tariff rollout, or do you mean that's the whole point of tariffs as they are currently being implemented in the United States?

genewitch 2y ago
The tariffs that were announced during the campaign - the same way Ross Perot did - and the reasoning was to bring us manufacturing back to the US and reduce the tax burden on US citizens? Such as writing off car payments if the car is American? People wigged out over non-reciprocal tariffs, where we tariff at 50% what they charge the US. People wigged out at 10℅ flat rate tariffs. "Heard island penguins get charged 10%!) I really have to wonder how important this Chinese junk is. They make so much junk for the US, that the EU, including Von der Lyon, had to make a plan to deal with Chinese companies wanting to, and I quote here, "dump" all their exports on to the EU market. The EU is very protectionist over their countries' economic outputs and manufacturing. But if the US does that...
- eCa 2y ago
  > reduce the tax burden on US citizens Do you consider the tariffs to be a (tax) burden on US citizens?
  - maxwell 1y ago
    Only on those who buy imports.
    - neogodless 1y ago
      This seems to assume that everything can be imported or acquired domestically. But tariffs implemented in other countries are much more specific. It makes sense to use tariffs when you have the capability to meet your domestic demand with domestic supply. Indiscriminate tariffs catch things where demand far exceeds domestic production, whether that's raw materials, specific foods, or things that will take a long time to ramp up production domestically. Ultimately, lots of things manufactured domestically will still increase in price because of the raw materials they require.

tshaddox 2y ago

What zamalek describes isn't just that China manufactures cheap products. The complain is more about retailers or marketplaces (particularly online ones) that encourage essentially anonymous, zero-cost seller accounts and product listings. Traditional retailers like Target or Costco also sell a lot of cheap Chinese stuff, but they don't have quite the same level of junk in their listings.

aaronbaugher 2y ago
Right. There's always been a range of products from cheap to quality. But "cheap" used to mean something that wouldn't last as long or that had limited features, but that could still be worth the lower price. Now "cheap" can mean something that will break the first time you use it, at which point is any price low enough? I bought a garden hose sprayer at Dollar General for $1, and it leaked immediately. $1 is so little now that it was basically free, but even for free it wouldn't have been worth it, and I'm not going to make a trip to get a $1 refund. At some point, "cheap" is so bad that it has negative value, as it only adds clutter and waste.

Propelloni 2y ago

I can see how hitting the EU with tariffs is going to improve human rights ... oh wait. But on a more serious note, tariffs could have been used for what you are saying, and it would have been a beautiful thing, but I think we can agree that's not what's happening here, can't we?

maxwell 1y ago
Not sure why the sarcasm. Do we keep picking up the tab until they're trampling the entire Bill of Rights?

sanktanglia 1y ago

The whole point of the tariffs is to cause chaos and if you think they have an actual plan boy do I have a bridge to sell you

rstuart4133 1y ago

> A country can't effectively have things like a minimum wage while allowing completely free trade with countries that use slave labor and don't share your values, because they can beat you on price by using human suffering as a competitive advantage, and put you entirely out of business. Australia (I live there) has free trade, a high minimum wage (USD$16/hr) which is strictly enforced, no tariffs to speak of, and used to share the same values as the USA (in the last 100 days no so much). Australia has been that way for decades. In other words: your wrong, despite what "common sense" might tell you. There are far more glaring examples, like Singapore. Almost no natural resources to exploit, no tariffs to speak of, and a median yearly income of USD$66,000. The USA's median income is USD$40,000. Now look at countries with high tariffs, or even just "higher than the USA used to have" tariffs. All of them, and I do mean off of them, including China, have living standards well below those with very low tariffs. So you are not just wrong. Empirical evidence says you have it completely arse about.