re: I love how everyone is suddenly an economist when it comes to tariffs

quote:

---

I didn't ask for theoreticals. I asked for a good faith argument showing that we are in a worse position than those allegedly "benefiting" from the trade deficits.

---

You mean like the relative glideslopes of US and Chinese economies over the quarter century since China was awarded MFNTS?

quote:

---

Trump wants to bring back manufacturing jobs. Tariffs were his plan to make that happen.
We continue to see job declines in manufacturing. Tariffs aren’t working.

We will see an advancement in robotics.

How do you propose we increase our manufacturing jobs like trump wants?

---

Investment in American industry will yield more jobs. But they aren't "shovel ready". I understand the desire to denigrate anything Trump wants to do as unsuccessful. But you don't build manufacturing plants overnight.

And the more factories that we build with investment, the more supply side opportunities open up regionally.

Automation is real. It is going to continue to erode manufacturing jobs (even as manufacturing production increases).
But the stateside factories we do have will yield those supply side opportunities that would never occur if the plants are overseas.

Im a realist. Some plans don't work.
I was originally skeptical of the tariffs. And the short term and long term effects can be argued in good faith by both sides. No one knows what the success rate will be.

But I do know that there are specific industries which must be brought stateside for national security interests. Tariffs can help massage that transition through incentives.

I do know that stateside industry will continue to automate. So there needs to be an even harder push to get more industry stateside to massage the transition for employment (if robotics are the future, why not have more production stateside?).

And I do know that there are bad actors on the global arena. And there is no viable international police to keep them in check. Tariffs are a powerful tool which should be available to the america first interest when bad faith actors arise. Trump is correct that America has been retarded for leaving that playing card off the table for so long.

I think the Tarrifs could work in the long run. The problem is they would have to endure across multiple presidential terms to really get the necessary effects.

quote:

---

quote:

They want access to our markets they should pay to cover the overhead that created the markets…it is simple… you gotta pay to play…
Would you frame this philosophy as protectionism?

---

Extortion.
Or America First.

Globalism isn't working. Wagging a finger at Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and China doesn't work the way that they (UN, NATO, EU) do politics.
"Insert your country here" First is the best approach.
If every country is out for their own interests, they will (or should be) stronger if they do it properly.

When everyone is stronger, you have better deterence for bad faith actors around the globe.
More independence from Russian oil
More independence from Taiwan chips.
More independence from overseas drug manufacturing.

The truth that was uncovered during the pandemic was that America will not hurt Americans for the global benefit. The same for other countries back to us.
The truth uncovered during Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that the EU and Nato were impotent. So was the brain function of our presidential administration.

If we don't do business differently, we are going to repeat the same blunders. And the countries who do behave "insert your country here" First will continue to take advantage of the world's self restrictive SOPs.

quote:

---

I asked for a good faith argument showing that we are in a worse position than those allegedly "benefiting" from the trade deficits.

---

Here's what I'd suggest as you're not going to take my word for it.
Check in with your favorite AI.

Ask your AI "If US policy was focused on manufacture preservation domestically enough to have maintained trade balance for the past 35yrs, what would our national debt look like?"

----------------------------------

It is a complicated question.

Insist the AI consider that:
• An inherent stronger manufacturing base means more corporate tax revenue, payroll and income tax revenue.
• Associated lower social spending (fewer displaced workers means less reliance on disability, food assistance, Medicaid, etc. which expanded significantly in the Rust Belt following US deindustrialization).
• Stronger GDP growth compounds, so even a modest sustained improvement in the growth rate meaningfully changes the debt-to-GDP ratio.
• Trade deficits vs the USD as the world reserve. i.e., Internationals recycling their export earnings into US Treasuries allows the US to borrow cheaply for decades. Without that demand for Treasuries, interest rates would likely have been higher, and debt servicing costs greater.
• A more balanced trade position might have meant a weaker dollar over time, which raises import costs and can be inflationary — potentially forcing tighter monetary policy and slower growth at various points.
• The consumer benefits of cheap imports- which functioned as a kind of hidden wage subsidy - would have been absent. Americans would have spent more on goods, leaving less for savings and investment, possibly dampening growth.
• If the US had maintained manufacturing scale, it might have done so through protectionist policies that invite retaliation and reduce export competitiveness in other sectors like agriculture and services, where the US has genuine advantages.
• There's also a counterfactual on spending: Congress has historically expanded spending to fill whatever borrowing capacity was available. It's not obvious the political system would have banked the savings rather than spent them.

How are those sissy fit 10 no 15 now tarrifs working by the dow today?

He did this after the SC gave him an off ramp.
Can't get out of his own way and yall love it, smh

quote:

---

reads funny, I suppose you mean "After 20 years, I have come to accept that strange men on a political discussion board I will never meet, enjoy talking about me having sex with other men"?

---

There’s still a misplaced modifier. I should have kept it simple: random strangers enjoy discussing me having sex with other men.

While calling people who disagree with them politically “cucks.”

quote:

---

You can buy a $500 trillion zimbabwe note on ebay for about $20 usd. I'd say the appetite for zimbabwe dollars is pretty well satisfied.

---

using the Zim as an example? My man. I respect you and your intellect, but using the Zim is disingenuous.

quote:

---

I would frame it as level playing field……

---

Is the goal is that we shouldn’t run trade deficits? Then what would a “level” playing field actually look like? Perfectly balanced trade with every country? Balanced in total?

Trade deficits don’t just fall out of bad deals. They reflect that the U.S. is a magnet for global capital. Foreign investors park money here, which strengthens the dollar. A strong dollar makes imports cheaper and exports relatively more expensive. Even under symmetrical rules, that dynamic doesn’t change.

So I’m honestly asking: is the objective balance for its own sake? Or is there a specific harm you think the deficit is causing? Higher prices? Lower wages? Strategic vulnerability?

If the concern is dependency in certain critical sectors, that’s a focused argument. Or is it simply that we buy more than we sell?

Why do we want a level playing field with Malaysia, for example?