This is simply sane washing Trump. If this were about leverage, why did Trump tariff Penguins and not Putin? If this were about national debt, why does Trump want to blow out the deficit with tax...
Exemplary
This is simply sane washing Trump.
If this were about leverage, why did Trump tariff Penguins and not Putin?
If this were about national debt, why does Trump want to blow out the deficit with tax cuts that will benefit the rich?
If this were about trade imbalance, why place tariffs on countries that have a trade surplus?
Trump shooting USA in the foot is not going to get China to the negotiation table, and pissing all over the existing trade agreements is not the way to get Europe to agree to a new trade agreement, and threatening Canada with invasion is not the way to fix the Canadian trade imbalance.
Also, it's worth pointing out that this argument is nonsensical. A trade imbalance is not a bad thing in of itself. It can be bad, for instance, to have a strategic deficit of things like food,...
If this were about trade imbalance, why place tariffs on countries that have a trade surplus?
Also, it's worth pointing out that this argument is nonsensical. A trade imbalance is not a bad thing in of itself. It can be bad, for instance, to have a strategic deficit of things like food, metals, semiconductors, and other things you'd like to be self-reliant for. But there's no sane reason why purchasing widgets from someone else is inherently bad.
Edit: There is one scenario in which all or most trade deficits are bad: you expect to be at war with or ostracized by many of your trading partners.
I'll put it another way: there are approximately 8 billion people in the world, of which less than 5% are located in America. Why should we expect America to be better than every other country in...
I'll put it another way: there are approximately 8 billion people in the world, of which less than 5% are located in America. Why should we expect America to be better than every other country in the world at every industry? Moreover, why should we expect America (GDP per capita of $87,000) to have balanced trade with, say, Angola (GDP per capita of $2,300)?
There are many levels of debating why this is ridiculous, ranging from the fact that Trump's mind is not all there, and even when it was, he only cared about himself. Second, the only celebration...
There are many levels of debating why this is ridiculous, ranging from the fact that Trump's mind is not all there, and even when it was, he only cared about himself.
Second, the only celebration that anyone on this topic is doing is for rich people. The working people have seen their lives get worse and worse and worse as the ultra-rich steal more and more of the wealth.
So even if we assume that any of this is worth debating - even if we assume that the price we're paying in losing our status in the world is worth paying - it will only benefit the rich, and it will only cost the rest of us more and more.
I’m anything but an economic expert, but this is my fear too. I don’t see a way this isn’t going to absolutely crush little people, with the paltry remnants of the middle class getting hit hardest...
I’m anything but an economic expert, but this is my fear too. I don’t see a way this isn’t going to absolutely crush little people, with the paltry remnants of the middle class getting hit hardest because they have the most to lose (don’t get me wrong, it’ll be hard for the poorest too, but one can’t bleed a stone and all).
With that in mind, even if this really is some kind of master play to prevent one type of economic disaster, what’s the point if the last vestiges of The American Dream get destroyed (potentially permanently) in the process? A solution that only has those sitting on the summit of economic prosperity coming out the other end in good shape isn’t a solution.
That's another good point and yet another level to this (adding on to my other reply elsewhere). In addition to being insanity from an insane tyrant, and in addition to not having the desired...
I don’t see a way this isn’t going to absolutely crush little people,
That's another good point and yet another level to this (adding on to my other reply elsewhere).
In addition to being insanity from an insane tyrant, and in addition to not having the desired results anyway, it will only hurt the average American and make things even worse. The already huge wealth inequality will only get worse, and this will put more people who were already barely scraping by even closer to poverty.
People will end up homeless because of this. And when you end up homeless, it's really hard to come back from that.
And the irony is that the more and more of us who end up scraping by on even less - the less money the oligarchs can even make because nobody can afford to buy anything except food and basic utilities.
BRRRR NUMBERS GO UP - sure, maybe in the short term (if you ignore the stock market falling, but the rich people can typically ride the markets down and up), but EVERYONE loses. That's what makes it all so frustrating. So much pain and death and suffering and they don't even win anyway.
Who says they wouldn't win? The most sociopathic ultra-wealthy want a desperate, uneducated, immiserated population that they can rule over more easily, without the protections of labor unions,...
Who says they wouldn't win? The most sociopathic ultra-wealthy want a desperate, uneducated, immiserated population that they can rule over more easily, without the protections of labor unions, safety regulations, or the capacity for job-hopping or self-sufficiency. Even if they themselves lose trillions in the bargain, it still leaves them with more wealth and power in relative terms compared to the rest of us. Kings of the ash heap.
Billionaires have a lot more to lose. In terms of pure wealth, the poorest likely don't even own stocks, but the huge market movers are getting crushed left and right. This is terrible for...
Billionaires have a lot more to lose. In terms of pure wealth, the poorest likely don't even own stocks, but the huge market movers are getting crushed left and right.
This is terrible for practically everyone, including the stupid union leaders supporting Trump for protectionist reasons.
Much of inequality is a function of the economic structure that Reagan and Clinton-era free trade has created. I think we could do a lot more on the taxation side to level the playing field, which...
Much of inequality is a function of the economic structure that Reagan and Clinton-era free trade has created. I think we could do a lot more on the taxation side to level the playing field, which of course the administration has no interest in doing, but it can't be ignored that de-industrialization has largely contributed to the hollowing out of the working class.
Taxation is by far the largest issue. The ultra wealthy don't pay their fair share. And I disagree that manufacturing leaving has any large influence on worker pay. If you look at the companies...
Taxation is by far the largest issue. The ultra wealthy don't pay their fair share.
And I disagree that manufacturing leaving has any large influence on worker pay. If you look at the companies out there right now - the owners are all raking as much profit as they can while trying to pay everyone as little as possible. And while one might argue that's the goal of capitalism, one might also argue that the point of having a representative democracy is to improve conditions for all people.
The fact that we don't have the same social safety nets as ALL of the other "developed" countries (the OECD nations) - we are the only country without universal health care.
We need a real minimum wage. We need universal health care. We need universal basic income.We need to attack the wealth inequality.
Bringing back manufacturing, which these fascists will not even accomplish, will not solve these problems.
We do need domestic manufacturing. We need to be making our own computer chips. But that has little to do with anything on the topic of these tariffs, which are insane and not based on reality (the list of tariffs Trump showed nearly certainly came from AI, because the countries matched those with ccTLDs, which is how we got uninhabited islands. And the methods they used for calculating what the tariff should be is stupid - based off the amount of trade we have with the country, i.e. imports vs exports. Then when they calculated the final figure, using this stupid method they shouldn't have used anyway, they made another mistake that quadrupled the supposed fair tariff rate. So it's dumb stacked on top of dumb stacked on top of dumb from a wannabe-king/tyrant who doesn't know what he's trying to do and who constantly reverses himself so everyone knows not to make plans based on anything he says or does).
There. That parenthetical statement goes a ways towards expressing my disagreements with this tariff situation.
An depressing but logical outcome I’ve seen other speculate is that some manufacturing will come back, but the compensation will be awful and between increasing levels of automation and widespread...
An depressing but logical outcome I’ve seen other speculate is that some manufacturing will come back, but the compensation will be awful and between increasing levels of automation and widespread economic destruction everybody will be desparate and have no choice but to work these poorly paying manufacturing jobs. The US will become what China used to be.
Taxes play a significant role in progressive economic outcomes, but are definitely not the only major factor. Ex. tax progressivity between the US and Canada is comparable, but inequality is not....
Taxes play a significant role in progressive economic outcomes, but are definitely not the only major factor. Ex. tax progressivity between the US and Canada is comparable, but inequality is not. To reduce inequality, you also need to worry about the economic structure, rent seeking, elite capture, supporting domestic competition such that firms compete away profits, minimum wage, and labor rights.
Industrial manufacturing jobs aren’t inherently better paid than high skilled service jobs. They just had the benefit of inertia from the heavy union organizing that happened during the early days...
but it can't be ignored that de-industrialization has largely contributed to the hollowing out of the working class.
Industrial manufacturing jobs aren’t inherently better paid than high skilled service jobs. They just had the benefit of inertia from the heavy union organizing that happened during the early days of industrialization. The hollowing out of the working class has come from a recalibration of negotiating power between workers and owners since the stagflation shock in the 70s and the Reagan revolution that followed, not the types of work the workers are doing.
Manufacturing output in the US hasn’t even declined that much, it’s just that the sorts of very high value added manufacturing we do now is largely automated. And even a lot of small-scale manufacturing is as well. You don’t need as many machinists when you can have one person program a CNC machine. You don’t need a bunch of people to knit scarves when you have automating knitting machines that can either operate industrially or take up about a bookshelf’s worth of space and have someone run an Etsy shop out of their garage all by themselves.
As far as I understand, this is about something like the Productivity-Pay Gap: You get the same or less compensation for increasingly more effective (profitable) work, meaning people with...
As far as I understand, this is about something like the Productivity-Pay Gap: You get the same or less compensation for increasingly more effective (profitable) work, meaning people with ownership (which are not lower/middle class, typically) disproportionately benefit, leaving the working class behind. This has been a phenomenon for decades now, especially in the US, but also other developed nations.
Despite the video containing criticisms, his choice to platform a title like this feels irresponsible right now given the potential impacts of these tariffs.
Despite the video containing criticisms, his choice to platform a title like this feels irresponsible right now given the potential impacts of these tariffs.
Tariffs are only meaningful in the context of an industrial policy which reinvests the proceeds in economic development of the sectors you're protecting. That's what Biden's CHIPS Act and other...
Tariffs are only meaningful in the context of an industrial policy which reinvests the proceeds in economic development of the sectors you're protecting. That's what Biden's CHIPS Act and other policies set out to do with China tariffs, over a span of a decade. The package was a genuine "three-legged stool", serving domestic economic needs, foreign policy, and monetary policy goals, on a realistic timeline. [Shame the effects were too delayed to impact the election...] These acts were specifically constructed to avoid beggar-thy-neighbor impacts to allies, though some were unhappy.
I don't have words or energy to express how damaging the Trump regime will be to global stability.
I think this video did a good job describing the merits and likely potential failures of Trump's trade policy. On a related note, the US needs to build a more independent economy, some way or...
I think this video did a good job describing the merits and likely potential failures of Trump's trade policy.
On a related note, the US needs to build a more independent economy, some way or another. Given the fiscal crisis we're in, it's a virtual certainty that America will see sustained high levels of inflation. The two most important things to focus on will be ensuring that American wages and wealth keep up with this inevitable inflation and that American bonds remain a desirable option to buyers. I deeply disagree with the tax cut insanity that has contributed to this crisis, but the merits of Trump's tariff policy, at least directionally speaking, I don't think should be scoffed at.
Forcing a country to do without international trade can be done as punishment. It's called trade sanctions. The effects can be pretty severe, particularly for smaller countries. Tariffs are not as...
Forcing a country to do without international trade can be done as punishment. It's called trade sanctions. The effects can be pretty severe, particularly for smaller countries. Tariffs are not as bad as cutting off trade, and the US is very large. So it's not as severe, but we will still likely see a recession if it isn't called off.
I don't think full independence from the entire world is possible without doing severe damage. Detangling from China is hard enough when cooperating with allies rather than alienating them.
Also, I don't see inflation as inevitable - not sure where you got that from? The Federal Reserve is pretty good at containing it. But these tariffs might result in a "stagflation" dilemma. The way to stop inflation is to raise interest rates, the way to prevent a recession is to lower interest rates, and you can't do both.
Stealing this from the other thread: And, make no mistake, the tariffs are tantamount to an act of war, as Warren Buffet just referred to it recently. The peace of the modern world comes from...
"What protectionism teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war."
– Henry George
And, make no mistake, the tariffs are tantamount to an act of war, as Warren Buffet just referred to it recently. The peace of the modern world comes from interlinked economies freely exchanging resources for mutual benefit, with the threat of being sanctioned into oblivion for breaking the peace, whereas in the past simply taking resources to center them within national borders was incentivized. These tariffs are a declaration of intent, and the world will respond in kind.
Already we're seeing Japan, Korea and China setting a unified front of economic retaliation. And Canada and Japan are both now in the program to succeed the EuroFighter Typhoon, meaning they are setting plans to abandon the use of US fighter jets.
I only hope the rest of the world will eviscerate the US with finance before it can shift gears to using arms, and force a change of course.
Obviously tariffs aren't an act of war. Nobody's going to war over them. So I don't know what "tantamount to an act of war" is supposed to mean. We call it a "trade war," but that's a metaphor.
Obviously tariffs aren't an act of war. Nobody's going to war over them. So I don't know what "tantamount to an act of war" is supposed to mean. We call it a "trade war," but that's a metaphor.
The sitting US President considers it at least part of his plan to annex Canada. I don't understand how it's not tantamount to an act of war. "President-elect Trump said Tuesday he was not...
Obviously tariffs aren't an act of war.
The sitting US President considers it at least part of his plan to annex Canada. I don't understand how it's not tantamount to an act of war.
"President-elect Trump said Tuesday he was not considering using military force to make Canada part of the United States after repeatedly musing about the idea of the country becoming the 51st state.
Instead, Trump said he intended to consider using “economic force” against the neighbor to the north" [0]
I don’t know what “economic force” is supposed to mean and I don’t trust what Trump says. But since he says right there that he isn’t going to start a war, it’s bizarre to interpret that as...
I don’t know what “economic force” is supposed to mean and I don’t trust what Trump says. But since he says right there that he isn’t going to start a war, it’s bizarre to interpret that as evidence that he will start one.
The plan to annex Canada seems to be missing some steps. Maybe it’s more of a concept of a plan?
Respectfully, I am running out of ways to tell Americans that annexation of my country is not acceptable, and tantamount to a declaration of war. Stating you will use "economic force" via tariffs,...
Respectfully, I am running out of ways to tell Americans that annexation of my country is not acceptable, and tantamount to a declaration of war.
Stating you will use "economic force" via tariffs, instead of military force, to follow through with the threats of annexation does not make it more acceptable
Strong agree - I've been boycotting US goods (especially payment platforms) since the government has explicitly stated that it doesn't rule out using military means to break other nations'...
Strong agree - I've been boycotting US goods (especially payment platforms) since the government has explicitly stated that it doesn't rule out using military means to break other nations' sovereignty. I will advocate for the same and weigh it as a significant factor in my political voting decisions. Honestly, the "West" has been way too US-centric for too long, so I see this self-harm by a US president as providing the energy for a movement towards a more independent EU that can erect its own systems that work to project EU soft power, rather than simply reflecting US power as the de facto "west" soft power.
Yes, of course it’s terrible. But whatever words you use to say that making threats is unacceptable, you’re not going to start a war over it. This is going to have to be settled in other ways, and...
Yes, of course it’s terrible. But whatever words you use to say that making threats is unacceptable, you’re not going to start a war over it. This is going to have to be settled in other ways, and a good thing too.
I feel like the rest of the comment seemed to explain that, but maybe I’m reading too much into it? My understanding of the comment: prior to the significant period of relative peace since before...
I feel like the rest of the comment seemed to explain that, but maybe I’m reading too much into it?
My understanding of the comment:
prior to the significant period of relative peace since before WWII, if a country wanted access to a resource it didn’t have, it would take that resource by force
since WWII, that paradigm shifted, and if a country wanted a resource, it traded for it
by signalling that the US is no longer freely trading with the rest of the world, it will totally just choose to not have that resource anymore that’s fine revert to taking that resource by force
Therefore, it’s a few steps removed at the moment, but extrapolating the signal of a US that is no longer open to free trade, it suggests the US might be leading towards a future where it takes resources by force, which itself is a step removed from war (for a given definition)
An act of war doesn't necessarily start one. It's just designed to or very likely to provoke one. Ultimately you'll have to argue with Warren Buffet about what he intended, but given the stance of...
An act of war doesn't necessarily start one. It's just designed to or very likely to provoke one.
Ultimately you'll have to argue with Warren Buffet about what he intended, but given the stance of the US government on "getting" Canada, Panama, Greenland one way or another, I'm inclined to agree with Buffet.
But how likely is it to provoke one? We’re talking about someone starting a war with a nuclear power, so it’s not like when a country is looking for an excuse to go to war. Traditional ideas about...
But how likely is it to provoke one? We’re talking about someone starting a war with a nuclear power, so it’s not like when a country is looking for an excuse to go to war. Traditional ideas about what provokes a war don’t really apply. Trump can say outrageous, terrible things and it’s not going to start a war. That’s why he can get away with it. Tariffs aren’t going to start a war either.
What starts a war nowadays? Missile attacks can do it, but not always, or Israel would be at war with Iran.
Quoting Buffett is like quoting Lincoln or Einstein, but if you look at the full context of the quote (source), there’s not much there. He wasn’t making a serious argument:
When asked about the state of the economy today, Buffett demurred: "Well, I think that's the most interesting subject in the world, but I won't talk, I can't talk about it, though. I really can't."
Asked about how tariffs will affect the economy, Buffett stated, "Tariffs are actually, we've had a lot of experience with them. They're an act of war, to some degree."
I asked, "How do you think tariffs will impact inflation?"
"Over time, they are a tax on goods. I mean, the Tooth Fairy doesn't pay 'em!" he laughed. "And then what? You always have to ask that question in economics. You always say, 'And then what?'"
This is vague and nobody would be impressed if it weren’t Warren Buffett saying it. He’s 97, so we should make allowances. For historical context, it would be better to talk to a historian.
I mean the news I heard this morning all referred to Trump "starting a trade war" It is, IMO, designed to provoke that. Combine with the aggressive language, I'm not convinced he's not going to...
I mean the news I heard this morning all referred to Trump "starting a trade war"
It is, IMO, designed to provoke that. Combine with the aggressive language, I'm not convinced he's not going to start a war.
Also, I didn't say Buffet was impressive, I said you'd have to ask him what he meant specifically. I remain not Warren Buffet and unable to clarify what he meant.
Even if you think we should be less dependent on countries like china (a position i've held for a long time), this is kinda the main point. You say things like "we're going to ramp up tariffs over...
I don't think full independence from the entire world is possible without doing severe damage. Detangling from China is hard enough when cooperating with allies rather than alienating them.
Even if you think we should be less dependent on countries like china (a position i've held for a long time), this is kinda the main point. You say things like "we're going to ramp up tariffs over 2 years" AT MINIMUM so industries can at least try to prepare.
A big issue though is that all these federal level plans that might take 6-10 years to roll out are getting harder and harder to do, when the average corporate leadership just says "well...yeah they say that, but how likely will that be true after next election?", and to be fair that's a reasonable point in our current environment.
It's a difficult situation, but I'd be shocked if Trump's approach to solving it 1. actually intends to solve anything and 2. works at all.
It's fascinating seeing the benefits that China's system of government can bring in two ways. First, the ability to just take executive decisions (like US executive orders, to be fair) and move...
It's fascinating seeing the benefits that China's system of government can bring in two ways. First, the ability to just take executive decisions (like US executive orders, to be fair) and move policy in a certain fashion. Second, the long-term thinking that is way beyond, e.g. France's quinquennat or the UK's parliaments, that does allow for policy shifts that can take decades to be fully materialised. These tariffs are most likely just a flash in the pan for corporations - although a very painful one.
It's such a shame that the country doesn't place similar importance on human rights and freedoms.
I mean, this is back to “the trains ran on time in Italy”. Benevolent dictators/tyrants/whatever are absolutely able to get things done. That’s the whole problem. Your quality of life is now...
I mean, this is back to “the trains ran on time in Italy”.
Benevolent dictators/tyrants/whatever are absolutely able to get things done. That’s the whole problem. Your quality of life is now directly reliant on the whims of a few, with basically no recourse if it screw’s you.
The upside of not having to worry about The opinions of others is you get stuff done faster
I always thought it was interesting to compare the output of dictatorships with planned economies vs democracies with (somewhat) free markets. I’ll refer to these as planned vs free below. It’s...
I always thought it was interesting to compare the output of dictatorships with planned economies vs democracies with (somewhat) free markets. I’ll refer to these as planned vs free below.
It’s obvious that a planned economy like China’s can do some better planning across quarters and years and efficiently jump ahead. You can see this in how they are rolling put electric cars for example. I think the problem is that the planned economies over time get behind because the freer societies have more and better inventions. This may be because there is more greed incentive and less fear of failure in the free society. Also planned economies, and dictatorships in general, have much more corruption and that eats a lot of long term gains. Anyway there is always a pattern that the closed societies end up stealing most of their tech. I understand that both China and Russia occasionally make stunning advances without stealing, but historically they are fewer than in the west.
Unfortunately with Trump we get the worst of both worlds. We get all the corruption and incompetent yes men controlling things, but no vision or careful planning.
Out of genuine lack of economic expertise: Is it still correct to refer to China's economy as a 'planned economy'? I was under the impression they've evolved into more of a hybrid model that's...
a planned economy like China’s
Out of genuine lack of economic expertise: Is it still correct to refer to China's economy as a 'planned economy'? I was under the impression they've evolved into more of a hybrid model that's pretty different from a soviet-era planned economy.
We've had substantial growth-mediated containment of inflation. But the US can't grow its economy infinitely, so it cannot realistically grow itself out of the crisis. Adjusting interest rates...
We've had substantial growth-mediated containment of inflation. But the US can't grow its economy infinitely, so it cannot realistically grow itself out of the crisis.
Adjusting interest rates will adjust the velocity of money, which indeed would not be an effective tool in the conditions that would create a stagflation environment. If we substantially increase domestic manufacturing, we could avoid much of the worst of stagflation (that we'll likely see in some form or the other regardless of trade policy), especially since we won't have to worry about energy imports nearly as much as we did in the 70s.
While I agree that growth can't be infinite, predicting the top of the S-curve is very difficult. Nowadays, uncertainty is so high (between Trump and AI) that I wouldn't care to guess where we'll...
While I agree that growth can't be infinite, predicting the top of the S-curve is very difficult. Nowadays, uncertainty is so high (between Trump and AI) that I wouldn't care to guess where we'll be in couple of years.
But so far, this crisis doesn't seem as bad as the pandemic was?
This is simply sane washing Trump.
If this were about leverage, why did Trump tariff Penguins and not Putin?
If this were about national debt, why does Trump want to blow out the deficit with tax cuts that will benefit the rich?
If this were about trade imbalance, why place tariffs on countries that have a trade surplus?
Trump shooting USA in the foot is not going to get China to the negotiation table, and pissing all over the existing trade agreements is not the way to get Europe to agree to a new trade agreement, and threatening Canada with invasion is not the way to fix the Canadian trade imbalance.
Also, it's worth pointing out that this argument is nonsensical. A trade imbalance is not a bad thing in of itself. It can be bad, for instance, to have a strategic deficit of things like food, metals, semiconductors, and other things you'd like to be self-reliant for. But there's no sane reason why purchasing widgets from someone else is inherently bad.
Edit: There is one scenario in which all or most trade deficits are bad: you expect to be at war with or ostracized by many of your trading partners.
I'll put it another way: there are approximately 8 billion people in the world, of which less than 5% are located in America. Why should we expect America to be better than every other country in the world at every industry? Moreover, why should we expect America (GDP per capita of $87,000) to have balanced trade with, say, Angola (GDP per capita of $2,300)?
There are many levels of debating why this is ridiculous, ranging from the fact that Trump's mind is not all there, and even when it was, he only cared about himself.
Second, the only celebration that anyone on this topic is doing is for rich people. The working people have seen their lives get worse and worse and worse as the ultra-rich steal more and more of the wealth.
So even if we assume that any of this is worth debating - even if we assume that the price we're paying in losing our status in the world is worth paying - it will only benefit the rich, and it will only cost the rest of us more and more.
I’m anything but an economic expert, but this is my fear too. I don’t see a way this isn’t going to absolutely crush little people, with the paltry remnants of the middle class getting hit hardest because they have the most to lose (don’t get me wrong, it’ll be hard for the poorest too, but one can’t bleed a stone and all).
With that in mind, even if this really is some kind of master play to prevent one type of economic disaster, what’s the point if the last vestiges of The American Dream get destroyed (potentially permanently) in the process? A solution that only has those sitting on the summit of economic prosperity coming out the other end in good shape isn’t a solution.
That's another good point and yet another level to this (adding on to my other reply elsewhere).
In addition to being insanity from an insane tyrant, and in addition to not having the desired results anyway, it will only hurt the average American and make things even worse. The already huge wealth inequality will only get worse, and this will put more people who were already barely scraping by even closer to poverty.
People will end up homeless because of this. And when you end up homeless, it's really hard to come back from that.
And the irony is that the more and more of us who end up scraping by on even less - the less money the oligarchs can even make because nobody can afford to buy anything except food and basic utilities.
BRRRR NUMBERS GO UP - sure, maybe in the short term (if you ignore the stock market falling, but the rich people can typically ride the markets down and up), but EVERYONE loses. That's what makes it all so frustrating. So much pain and death and suffering and they don't even win anyway.
Who says they wouldn't win? The most sociopathic ultra-wealthy want a desperate, uneducated, immiserated population that they can rule over more easily, without the protections of labor unions, safety regulations, or the capacity for job-hopping or self-sufficiency. Even if they themselves lose trillions in the bargain, it still leaves them with more wealth and power in relative terms compared to the rest of us. Kings of the ash heap.
Billionaires have a lot more to lose. In terms of pure wealth, the poorest likely don't even own stocks, but the huge market movers are getting crushed left and right.
This is terrible for practically everyone, including the stupid union leaders supporting Trump for protectionist reasons.
Much of inequality is a function of the economic structure that Reagan and Clinton-era free trade has created. I think we could do a lot more on the taxation side to level the playing field, which of course the administration has no interest in doing, but it can't be ignored that de-industrialization has largely contributed to the hollowing out of the working class.
Taxation is by far the largest issue. The ultra wealthy don't pay their fair share.
And I disagree that manufacturing leaving has any large influence on worker pay. If you look at the companies out there right now - the owners are all raking as much profit as they can while trying to pay everyone as little as possible. And while one might argue that's the goal of capitalism, one might also argue that the point of having a representative democracy is to improve conditions for all people.
The fact that we don't have the same social safety nets as ALL of the other "developed" countries (the OECD nations) - we are the only country without universal health care.
We need a real minimum wage. We need universal health care. We need universal basic income.We need to attack the wealth inequality.
Bringing back manufacturing, which these fascists will not even accomplish, will not solve these problems.
We do need domestic manufacturing. We need to be making our own computer chips. But that has little to do with anything on the topic of these tariffs, which are insane and not based on reality (the list of tariffs Trump showed nearly certainly came from AI, because the countries matched those with ccTLDs, which is how we got uninhabited islands. And the methods they used for calculating what the tariff should be is stupid - based off the amount of trade we have with the country, i.e. imports vs exports. Then when they calculated the final figure, using this stupid method they shouldn't have used anyway, they made another mistake that quadrupled the supposed fair tariff rate. So it's dumb stacked on top of dumb stacked on top of dumb from a wannabe-king/tyrant who doesn't know what he's trying to do and who constantly reverses himself so everyone knows not to make plans based on anything he says or does).
There. That parenthetical statement goes a ways towards expressing my disagreements with this tariff situation.
An depressing but logical outcome I’ve seen other speculate is that some manufacturing will come back, but the compensation will be awful and between increasing levels of automation and widespread economic destruction everybody will be desparate and have no choice but to work these poorly paying manufacturing jobs. The US will become what China used to be.
Taxes play a significant role in progressive economic outcomes, but are definitely not the only major factor. Ex. tax progressivity between the US and Canada is comparable, but inequality is not. To reduce inequality, you also need to worry about the economic structure, rent seeking, elite capture, supporting domestic competition such that firms compete away profits, minimum wage, and labor rights.
Industrial manufacturing jobs aren’t inherently better paid than high skilled service jobs. They just had the benefit of inertia from the heavy union organizing that happened during the early days of industrialization. The hollowing out of the working class has come from a recalibration of negotiating power between workers and owners since the stagflation shock in the 70s and the Reagan revolution that followed, not the types of work the workers are doing.
Manufacturing output in the US hasn’t even declined that much, it’s just that the sorts of very high value added manufacturing we do now is largely automated. And even a lot of small-scale manufacturing is as well. You don’t need as many machinists when you can have one person program a CNC machine. You don’t need a bunch of people to knit scarves when you have automating knitting machines that can either operate industrially or take up about a bookshelf’s worth of space and have someone run an Etsy shop out of their garage all by themselves.
What exactly do you mean here by "the hollowing out of the working class"?
As far as I understand, this is about something like the Productivity-Pay Gap: You get the same or less compensation for increasingly more effective (profitable) work, meaning people with ownership (which are not lower/middle class, typically) disproportionately benefit, leaving the working class behind. This has been a phenomenon for decades now, especially in the US, but also other developed nations.
Despite the video containing criticisms, his choice to platform a title like this feels irresponsible right now given the potential impacts of these tariffs.
Tariffs are only meaningful in the context of an industrial policy which reinvests the proceeds in economic development of the sectors you're protecting. That's what Biden's CHIPS Act and other policies set out to do with China tariffs, over a span of a decade. The package was a genuine "three-legged stool", serving domestic economic needs, foreign policy, and monetary policy goals, on a realistic timeline. [Shame the effects were too delayed to impact the election...] These acts were specifically constructed to avoid beggar-thy-neighbor impacts to allies, though some were unhappy.
I don't have words or energy to express how damaging the Trump regime will be to global stability.
I think this video did a good job describing the merits and likely potential failures of Trump's trade policy.
On a related note, the US needs to build a more independent economy, some way or another. Given the fiscal crisis we're in, it's a virtual certainty that America will see sustained high levels of inflation. The two most important things to focus on will be ensuring that American wages and wealth keep up with this inevitable inflation and that American bonds remain a desirable option to buyers. I deeply disagree with the tax cut insanity that has contributed to this crisis, but the merits of Trump's tariff policy, at least directionally speaking, I don't think should be scoffed at.
Forcing a country to do without international trade can be done as punishment. It's called trade sanctions. The effects can be pretty severe, particularly for smaller countries. Tariffs are not as bad as cutting off trade, and the US is very large. So it's not as severe, but we will still likely see a recession if it isn't called off.
I don't think full independence from the entire world is possible without doing severe damage. Detangling from China is hard enough when cooperating with allies rather than alienating them.
Also, I don't see inflation as inevitable - not sure where you got that from? The Federal Reserve is pretty good at containing it. But these tariffs might result in a "stagflation" dilemma. The way to stop inflation is to raise interest rates, the way to prevent a recession is to lower interest rates, and you can't do both.
Stealing this from the other thread:
And, make no mistake, the tariffs are tantamount to an act of war, as Warren Buffet just referred to it recently. The peace of the modern world comes from interlinked economies freely exchanging resources for mutual benefit, with the threat of being sanctioned into oblivion for breaking the peace, whereas in the past simply taking resources to center them within national borders was incentivized. These tariffs are a declaration of intent, and the world will respond in kind.
Already we're seeing Japan, Korea and China setting a unified front of economic retaliation. And Canada and Japan are both now in the program to succeed the EuroFighter Typhoon, meaning they are setting plans to abandon the use of US fighter jets.
I only hope the rest of the world will eviscerate the US with finance before it can shift gears to using arms, and force a change of course.
Obviously tariffs aren't an act of war. Nobody's going to war over them. So I don't know what "tantamount to an act of war" is supposed to mean. We call it a "trade war," but that's a metaphor.
The sitting US President considers it at least part of his plan to annex Canada. I don't understand how it's not tantamount to an act of war.
"President-elect Trump said Tuesday he was not considering using military force to make Canada part of the United States after repeatedly musing about the idea of the country becoming the 51st state.
Instead, Trump said he intended to consider using “economic force” against the neighbor to the north" [0]
[0] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5071665-trump-economic-force-canada/
I don’t know what “economic force” is supposed to mean and I don’t trust what Trump says. But since he says right there that he isn’t going to start a war, it’s bizarre to interpret that as evidence that he will start one.
The plan to annex Canada seems to be missing some steps. Maybe it’s more of a concept of a plan?
Respectfully, I am running out of ways to tell Americans that annexation of my country is not acceptable, and tantamount to a declaration of war.
Stating you will use "economic force" via tariffs, instead of military force, to follow through with the threats of annexation does not make it more acceptable
Strong agree - I've been boycotting US goods (especially payment platforms) since the government has explicitly stated that it doesn't rule out using military means to break other nations' sovereignty. I will advocate for the same and weigh it as a significant factor in my political voting decisions. Honestly, the "West" has been way too US-centric for too long, so I see this self-harm by a US president as providing the energy for a movement towards a more independent EU that can erect its own systems that work to project EU soft power, rather than simply reflecting US power as the de facto "west" soft power.
Yes, of course it’s terrible. But whatever words you use to say that making threats is unacceptable, you’re not going to start a war over it. This is going to have to be settled in other ways, and a good thing too.
I feel like the rest of the comment seemed to explain that, but maybe I’m reading too much into it?
My understanding of the comment:
prior to the significant period of relative peace since before WWII, if a country wanted access to a resource it didn’t have, it would take that resource by force
since WWII, that paradigm shifted, and if a country wanted a resource, it traded for it
by signalling that the US is no longer freely trading with the rest of the world, it will
totally just choose to not have that resource anymore that’s finerevert to taking that resource by forceTherefore, it’s a few steps removed at the moment, but extrapolating the signal of a US that is no longer open to free trade, it suggests the US might be leading towards a future where it takes resources by force, which itself is a step removed from war (for a given definition)
You can speculate that maybe someone will start a war, but it hasn’t happened yet.
An act of war doesn't necessarily start one. It's just designed to or very likely to provoke one.
Ultimately you'll have to argue with Warren Buffet about what he intended, but given the stance of the US government on "getting" Canada, Panama, Greenland one way or another, I'm inclined to agree with Buffet.
But how likely is it to provoke one? We’re talking about someone starting a war with a nuclear power, so it’s not like when a country is looking for an excuse to go to war. Traditional ideas about what provokes a war don’t really apply. Trump can say outrageous, terrible things and it’s not going to start a war. That’s why he can get away with it. Tariffs aren’t going to start a war either.
What starts a war nowadays? Missile attacks can do it, but not always, or Israel would be at war with Iran.
Quoting Buffett is like quoting Lincoln or Einstein, but if you look at the full context of the quote (source), there’s not much there. He wasn’t making a serious argument:
This is vague and nobody would be impressed if it weren’t Warren Buffett saying it. He’s 97, so we should make allowances. For historical context, it would be better to talk to a historian.
I mean the news I heard this morning all referred to Trump "starting a trade war"
It is, IMO, designed to provoke that. Combine with the aggressive language, I'm not convinced he's not going to start a war.
Also, I didn't say Buffet was impressive, I said you'd have to ask him what he meant specifically. I remain not Warren Buffet and unable to clarify what he meant.
Even if you think we should be less dependent on countries like china (a position i've held for a long time), this is kinda the main point. You say things like "we're going to ramp up tariffs over 2 years" AT MINIMUM so industries can at least try to prepare.
A big issue though is that all these federal level plans that might take 6-10 years to roll out are getting harder and harder to do, when the average corporate leadership just says "well...yeah they say that, but how likely will that be true after next election?", and to be fair that's a reasonable point in our current environment.
It's a difficult situation, but I'd be shocked if Trump's approach to solving it 1. actually intends to solve anything and 2. works at all.
It's fascinating seeing the benefits that China's system of government can bring in two ways. First, the ability to just take executive decisions (like US executive orders, to be fair) and move policy in a certain fashion. Second, the long-term thinking that is way beyond, e.g. France's quinquennat or the UK's parliaments, that does allow for policy shifts that can take decades to be fully materialised. These tariffs are most likely just a flash in the pan for corporations - although a very painful one.
It's such a shame that the country doesn't place similar importance on human rights and freedoms.
I mean, this is back to “the trains ran on time in Italy”.
Benevolent dictators/tyrants/whatever are absolutely able to get things done. That’s the whole problem. Your quality of life is now directly reliant on the whims of a few, with basically no recourse if it screw’s you.
The upside of not having to worry about The opinions of others is you get stuff done faster
Yes, that's just it. It's not even slightly a new realisation, is it? I think it's just that the current episode is a really stark example.
I always thought it was interesting to compare the output of dictatorships with planned economies vs democracies with (somewhat) free markets. I’ll refer to these as planned vs free below.
It’s obvious that a planned economy like China’s can do some better planning across quarters and years and efficiently jump ahead. You can see this in how they are rolling put electric cars for example. I think the problem is that the planned economies over time get behind because the freer societies have more and better inventions. This may be because there is more greed incentive and less fear of failure in the free society. Also planned economies, and dictatorships in general, have much more corruption and that eats a lot of long term gains. Anyway there is always a pattern that the closed societies end up stealing most of their tech. I understand that both China and Russia occasionally make stunning advances without stealing, but historically they are fewer than in the west.
Unfortunately with Trump we get the worst of both worlds. We get all the corruption and incompetent yes men controlling things, but no vision or careful planning.
Out of genuine lack of economic expertise: Is it still correct to refer to China's economy as a 'planned economy'? I was under the impression they've evolved into more of a hybrid model that's pretty different from a soviet-era planned economy.
We've had substantial growth-mediated containment of inflation. But the US can't grow its economy infinitely, so it cannot realistically grow itself out of the crisis.
Adjusting interest rates will adjust the velocity of money, which indeed would not be an effective tool in the conditions that would create a stagflation environment. If we substantially increase domestic manufacturing, we could avoid much of the worst of stagflation (that we'll likely see in some form or the other regardless of trade policy), especially since we won't have to worry about energy imports nearly as much as we did in the 70s.
While I agree that growth can't be infinite, predicting the top of the S-curve is very difficult. Nowadays, uncertainty is so high (between Trump and AI) that I wouldn't care to guess where we'll be in couple of years.
But so far, this crisis doesn't seem as bad as the pandemic was?