5 ms·
Tariffs like this is a market regulation that the people pays for. It doesn't "benefit the wealthy" because it's not progressive, it benefits the wealthy that
by arghwhat 1y ago
Tariffs like this is a market regulation that the people pays for.
It doesn't "benefit the wealthy" because it's not progressive, it benefits the wealthy that have investments in the tariffed industry by distorting the market to their advantage instead of having to be competitive on a level playing field.
The rest of the wealthy are equally annoyed by the tariffs as everyone else, possibly more so as they see their investments tank.
- Gud 1y agoThere is no "level playing field" when you are competing with literal sweatshops though. Frankly tariffs get a bad rep because of from who and how they are implemented but can absolutely serve a purpose.
- Retric 1y agoAutomation consistently outcompetes sweatshops. What’s missing from these discussions is the idea of competitive advantage. It is inherently more efficient to grow crops in climates where they thrive, tacking a tariff to protect domestic production means intentionally lowering the standard of living of everyone both domestically and abroad to favor some tiny group doing something wasteful.
- cuuupid 1y agoAutomation is not replacing sweatshops, they've just made the sweatshop workers more productive (economically) while requiring them to be less productive (in activity). So all that's happened is an exponential increase in the output volume of sweatshops :/
- Retric 1y agoThere’s many industries that have moved beyond sweatshops due to automation. Pepsi can’t get glass bottles from 3rd world sweatshops at anything competitive with a highly automated factory. In the vast majority of industries it’s just a question of levels of automation and climate control inherently makes automation easier by reducing variability in temperature and humidity. Of course the original distinction around climate control that created the term sweatshops is dying as such operations are largely dying out, but that only reinforces the notion of automation killing off the inherent advantages of unskilled cheap labor.
- bendbro 1y agoI don't want to compete with pollution, child labor, slaves, extreme hours, and poverty-tier living conditions
- ethbr1 1y agoThere are a few situations where tariffs are beneficial: 1. To preserve strategically important domestic industries (historically: food production and mechanization industry) 2. To shield domestic industries while they're growing to take on already efficient and scaled global competitors Benefiting labor or saving jobs is probably the stupidest use of tariffs, if one of the above isn't also in play, because it'd be more efficient just to offshore it to low COL countries and instead refocus internal labor. The slippery slope, of course, is that industries will claim to be included in one of the above, but instead sink their tariff-protected excess profitability into shareholder/self-enrichment instead of business investment. It'd make more sense to require domestic industries in tariff-protected sectors to invest {near tariff} percentages of their revenue in R&D and/or capital expenses (or be heavily taxed). Otherwise the government is simply artificially inflating their profitability, at the cost of any consumers of the product.
- Retric 1y agoFood production isn’t some homogeneous entity, it might make sense to subsidize some level of staples but direct subsidies are more transparent and can be more easily limited. But, obviously industry doesn’t want the government feeding through to stop simply because the’ve scaled vastly past domestic consumption. Similarly, military procurement can subsidize relevant industries without impacting the wider economy. In other words you can maintain some domestic steel production etc without impacting the cost of goods.
- ethbr1 1y agoI think that under-appreciates the slippery slope of political leverage. There's a reason Iowa is so hell-bent on keeping their primaries first. Without explicitly and financially tying subsidy-fueled gains to modernization efforts, market participants begin to consider the subsidies as business as usual, plan around them, and get lazy.* It removes a primary incentive to maintain pace with global technology improvements. Domestic industry whispers in politicians' ears that their global competitors are unfair for reasons X, Y, and Z, and they really need more subsidies to protect them. {Benefit from politically driving new tariffs / subsidies} must never be higher than {benefit from investing in efficiency increases}. * Lazy as measured by peak international efficiency, not work. E.g. a farmer who works their ass off manually farming is economically inefficient compared to one who mechanizes most of their work
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Workaccount2 1y agoBernie removed the section on his website about tariffs being necessary for a healthy economy... Tariffs are a populist thing, and people seem to think it's just a Trump thing.
- arghwhat 1y agoThe shops you're thinking of are less of a sweat shop than, say, Amazon in the US. Theres no good wages, but factory jobs don't really pay well anywhere. They're mostly just a lot more efficient at scale, with a few plants managing close to the whole worlds supply of random shit. Almost all microwaves by all international brands are made by the same Chinese company, all prismatic LiFePo battery cells come out of one of two factories in China, and so forth. Economy of scale on turbo steroids. Imagine having to compete with Ford by making cars in a garage. Now imagine Ford as the garage shop vs. these factories. The sweat shops you're thinking of is stuff like clothes manufacturing in other third world countries than the usual suspect. That shit is nasty - breathing and handling acid with naked skin nasty.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Retric 1y agoIt benefits the wealthy by applying to a smaller percentage of their spending. You can easily avoid all tariffs on a 100 million dollar yacht built outside the US, and you don’t pay it for a personal chef etc.
- Scoundreller 1y agoBest part is, I don’t even have to pay it on the work of the personal chef I import!
- arghwhat 1y agoMost wealthy people are not billionaire wealthy. Billionaire wealthy pretty much manage to avoid all taxation, progressive or not, so the comparison is moot. They just trample on everyone else.
- Retric 1y agoBillionaires still pay property taxes etc so it’s worth separating how regressive various tax schemes are.
- arghwhat 1y agoThey don't really. They misreport the value for tax purposes, they own it through some other legal entity that is all negative, they own it through a company that negotiated tax rates to have some other business happen there, they own it in countries that don't to property taxes, etc. etc. You can be damn sure they're paying at most a tiny fraction if not zero of any tax rate you'd be paying for that asset as they'd much rather pay very good lawyers, accountants, and most importantly, politicians to not have to pay tax. You don't need progressive taxes. You just need everyone to pay it equally, without loopholes. Fewer less complicated tax rates are harder to work around.
- Retric 1y ago> They misreport the value for tax purposes Regular people also commit fraud which can make some differences here. But in general it’s the state who decides what something is worth for tax purposes not the individual. > they own it through some other legal entity that is all negative Unpaid property taxes result in forfeiture, so again the state’s getting paid here. It’s financial voodoo around other taxes which causes such structures. > they own it in countries that don't to property taxes So do regular people, the important bit is where such property is located not who owns it.
- dale_huevo 1y ago>it benefits the wealthy that have investments in the tariffed industry If only they invested in venture-backed mass surveillance apps instead
- arghwhat 1y agoOh they do, and you probably have several of them installed...