Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

bunniestudios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 357 posts

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#291

Post by disease »

endorphone wrote: post #230
IanDrake wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those where meant to be protectionist. We are playing hardball on trade renegotiation. The recently announced tariffs are leverage to get a fair deal at the negotiating table. There’s a big difference between the two motives.

"The recently announced tariffs are leverage to get a fair deal at the negotiating table." The US has a trade surplus with Canada, has a higher average tariff, has been the bigger beneficiary of trade, yet Trump has announced tariffs on Canada, to an enormous backlash (and Canadians seriously rethinking their integration in the US economy). This isn't leverage, or masterful negotiating. It's a hamfisted moron bashing…

Don't forget that Trump ran several businesses into the ground as well as 'Trump University' which was 100% a con job. I have a degree in economics and the bullshit coming out of Trump's mouth displays such a lack of understanding that I wouldn't even expect it from a middle-school student.

Before you think of Trump as some kind of economics genius maybe you should think about how much bile the Wall Street Journal had to swallow when they had to endorse Hillary Clinton for the presidency.

Trump is a legitimately great conman but nothing more.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#292

Post by IanDrake »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #280
IanDrake wrote: post #10

These new tariffs are posturing. Trump seems to understand how to negotiate and is willing to take short term hardship for long term gain. We need to have balanced trade agreements. Not balanced in the sense of trade amount, but balanced in the sense of tariffs and subsidies. Access to US consumers is a big bargaining chip. If China won’t deal, there are other countries that will. I think we all understood we had an…

Trump is clearly not a negotiator. If he was, he wouldn't be isolating all of our allies, instead of getting them to side with us to push change in China.

IMO, your confusing consensus with power. I don’t think consensus gives you power.

Ultimately consensus is only useful if all participants are willing to take the same action together. That is powerful.

But consensus that says “hey, China, you should have better dealings with us” but then none of the participants have the backbone to do anything, then there is no power and the concensus is worthless.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#293

Post by njarboe »

scroogly wrote: post #240
fredley wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I missed that completely. Well that's just bizarre...

There is massive cognitive dissonance in trying to explain a lot of current events because they are so beyond what you expect to make sense. Yesterday I was trying to explain to a friend about the children separated at the border and how the parents are then being deported alone and have to apply afterwards to try and find their children, and it took about seven attempts. She didn't understand what I was saying at fi…

The US courts have ruled that children are not to be incarcerated with their parents. It seems reasonable and moral that children are not punished for the crimes their parents commit. If the parents break the law and go to jail, the children go somewhere else, like foster care. When the parents get out of jail, they have to find their children to bring the family back together. This situation is not really hard to understand if you think that the government should enforce the current immigration laws.

The US immigration system has been so screwed up for so long that everyone just keeps kicking the problems down the road. Probably needs a complete deletion and start from scratch re-write, but that almost never works out like one hopes.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#294

Post by frockington »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #219
frockington wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the US subsidizes agriculture so heavily, so they can quickly spin up more farms

Oh, really? Where's all the farmland going to come from?

The United States? Can you clarify your question, I don't understand it.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#295

Post by frockington »

tinus_hn wrote: post #253
frockington wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A shut off would be disastrous for everyone involved so I doubt it would ever happen. Worst case scenario, the US would pick apart the EU. "Hey Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal, free trade if you exit the EU. We'll toss in protection from foreign invasion"

Leaving the EU takes a few years which exceeds your presidents attention span by a few years. Nobody would trust he’d honor an agreement for that long.

North Korea seems to and I don't think Quitaly needs much more incentive

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#296

Post by elihu »

jpindar wrote: post #97
dalbasal wrote: post #19

Out of all possible trade barriers, I think tariffs are generally the better option. The alternative is subsidies, quotas or "unofficial" barriers like product safety rules or other burry-you-in-bureaucracy setups. Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public) They're easier to understand. This one makes Chinese microwaves x% more expensive. It's clearer who is paying for it (consumers) and who benefits,…

>Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public) Tariffs are imposing taxes on the very businesses we're supposedly trying to save!

Something that bothers me about the whole free trade versus protectionism debate is that in any other context it's generally accepted that taxes harm the economy but that harm is offset by the services that government provides, and the argument is mostly over whether those government services are important enough to be worth the economic harm and whether there is a less harmful way to raise that revenue.

However, we don't seem to talk about tariffs the same way we talk about other taxes. Trade policies are considered good if they're good for the economy and bad if they're bad for the economy. The revenue aspects tend to get swept under the rug.

I wonder if this is just an example of successful marketing by large corporations (who are the ones who bear most of the cost of tariffs and trade barriers); that they've managed to get people who are otherwise fine with taxing corporations to be opposed to taxes when trade is involved.

That said, I agree with Bunnie that imposing tariffs on components but not finished goods is dumb, and will hurt hobbyists and companies that assemble electronics in the United States.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#297

Post by throwawayjava »

echotango wrote: post #272
selectodude wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trade deficit means that, on net, you've sent a bunch of pieces of paper to a country and they have given you actual stuff in return. So then they give that money back to you by investing in your country. >Having Saudi Oil Sheiks own all the Soccer teams in England is the result of the UK trade deficit. More English soccer teams are owned by Americans than all the russians oligarchs and arab sheiks combined.

>investing in your country >foreign direct investment >sheiks owning the sports teams and chineese businessman owning all the prime housing We're saying the same thing

> We're saying the same thing

That's because you still haven't answered the original question:

>>> Is a trade deficit important to not have?

E.g., consider your examples:

>sheiks owning the sports teams and chineese businessman owning all the prime housing

Given that I'm not the type of person who buys sports teams and prime housing (of the sort purchased by Chinese businessmen), why should I care about that style of FDI? I mean, I guess it must suck for the American ultra-rich that they now have to compete with the Chinese ultra-rich for access to ultra-veblen goods like owning sports teams, but... why the hell should the rest of us care which mega-rich person owns the local sports team!? What possible material impact could that ever have on us?

The only type of FDI that effects my life is FDI in productive assets, like factories, and those are strictly good for me (more and better-paying jobs).

"So we lost the Toyota factory but on the plus side the sports team isn't owned by a Sheik" seems like a really dumb trade-off. What am I missing here...?

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#298

Post by IanDrake »

endorphone wrote: post #257
IanDrake wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your TDS is altering your perception of the world around you. I’m no Trump fan, but at least I can be objective. Stop reading the headlines and start reading between the lines. It’s a skill that will serve you well in life. Last time I checked most people in the US were against the TPP including Clinton. A good trade deal doesn’t require 5,600 pages. I’m not worried about trade imbalances in absolute dollars, I’m con…

Your first two lines are indistinguishable from parody. "A good trade deal doesn’t require 5,600 pages." A Trump talking point, like every one of your posts. But you're surely no Trump fan... Yes, of course trade agreements are voluminous. Saying that it's suspicious because it's big is the sort of nonsensical claim that sells to idiots. TPP was very unpopular, humorously because of sections added by the United State…

You’re all over the place. You like the TPP, the TPP is crap because of the US (under Obama) added things you don’t like, Trump is an idiot for not signing it.

Agreements that can’t be read and comprehended in one day aren’t good agreements. I stand by that, no matter what Trump says, no matter what you say.

I’m not arguing about trade imbalances on a surplus/deficit amount. I don’t care about the amount. I care about access to markets and a level playing field. There is no hypocrisy there.

The difference between you and I, is that I’m willing to admit where you are right. The US subsidizes farmers and other industries. I imagine those are up for negotiation too.

I also admit Trump acts like a horses ass. I’m just willing to let that slide if he’s an effective horses ass.

I also haven’t implied you’re stupid.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#299

Post by IanDrake »

tinus_hn wrote: post #290
IanDrake wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree. To be belligerent when there is no need isn’t helpful. Trump is certainly guilty of that. But willingness to turn your rhetoric into action is more important so that others understand that you mean what you say. For example, if you say nice things, but demonstrate that you don’t mean what you say, then what do all those nice things you said amount to? Nothing.

I’ll concede that Trump indeed doesn’t say nice things. But there is little point in understanding what he says because tomorrow he could just as well say the complete opposite. Most of it is just empty posturing anyway so there isn’t a lot to understand. I think most countries are just trying to shield themselves from his damage until his term ends.

>empty posturing

Trump has followed through on his posturing several times now. I think he’s shown the world he’s not joking around.

I think it’s legitimate to criticize his actions, but I don’t thing it’s accurate to say his posturing is empty.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#300

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

frockington wrote: post #294
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, really? Where's all the farmland going to come from?

The United States? Can you clarify your question, I don't understand it.

Your comment assumes that there's all this fertile farmland just sitting around unused, ready to "spin up new farms." I'm disputing that and asking you where all the (unused) farmland is going to come from.
Post reply on HN