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

Trade (and Tariffs)

xkcd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 272 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#71

Post by Gangway0829 »

tshaddox wrote: post #69
inigyou wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually you, like most of us, have a trade deficit with the grocery store and the movie theater, and a trade surplus with your employer. Which one is more enjoyable to have?

It’s a silly question, since (short of a major life change or economic system change) you need the grocery store and the job to have decent quality of life. You need to trade your labor for money, and you need to trade your money for food. I would argue that there isn’t a huge difference in the fundamental nature of those two trades. Framing them in terms of “trade deficits” is pointing out which direction money is m…

Indeed that is true, which is the point of both OP(or at least my takeaway). Attaching a moral value to trade deficits or surpluses, as the current administration seems to be in favor of doing, is fairly nonsensical.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#73

Post by teachrdan »

Shiggy_ wrote: post #64
inigyou wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put differently, Trump is explicitly attempting to destroy the reason the American stock market generally goes up.

That is not what the user above you said. They're explicitly pointing out that the US (and most of the western world) has abandoned the manufacturing sector of their economy, outsourcing work that used to employ millions of people to the developing world. This is a trade-off that can benefit both countries, but, it is wise to consider both WHO benefits from this, and what the LONG-TERM implications of this entails. I…

This is a false dichotomy.

I personally believe that strategic tariffs should be used to protect our national interests, including providing meaningful employment.

This administration has no interest in strategic tariffs. Instead, they are made overbroad (50% on everything from Canada vs, say, cheap imported steel) and they are made and removed capriciously (tariffs on English whisky dropped after King Charles' visit to the White House).

If Trump really wanted to bring your dad's factory job back, he'd specifically target whatever industry he was working in AND ideally spend the tariff money boosting that industry. This is precisely the strategy countries like Japan used to reach first world status.

Instead Trump uses tariffs like a cudgel -- much closer to what the XKCD comic depicts. There is no chance his tariffs will lead to your father's factory ever being reopened, as that would require, at the bare minimum, a tariff that investors know will stay in place for years, as opposed to one that could be lifted with the visit of a charismatic member of nobility.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#74

Post by saghm »

derwiki wrote: post #4
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #3

I think a lesson is going to be taught, all right. Unfortunately the feedback loop in nations is much slower than in bodies.

That’s the whole trick: if the feedback cycle is long enough, the next person gets blamed for it, not the current.

And likewise for the next person trying to take the credit for things that the previous one did when the effects take time to manifest: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/15/trump-washin...

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#75

Post by saghm »

tzs wrote: post #56
inigyou wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> completely destroys small business Citation needed, I'm in the EU and there is small business

There was a big discussion of this recently here, which will give you more information, but yes, it is in fact destroying a large number of EU small businesses. The EU has recognized this and they are scrambling to fix it in legislation due later this year.

So we've gone from "completely" to "partially", and the source is still just handwaved?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#76

Post by padjo »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #48
hartator wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tarrifs are the worst decision a politician can make. The main reason we have open-ish border for people and goods is to reduce the risk of war. You are not going to wage war with a country that do business with. This undermines this idea.

Maybe letting other countries rob us blind is worse. The US has hardly any factories left. Is that "peace" or is that just losing, slowly? Open borders can be GREAT, but they can also be a point of vulnerability if we lose control of them

Who exactly is robbing you blind? Could it be your own billionaire class?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#77

Post by kennywinker »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #34

A current account deficit is a capital account surplus. Persistent deficits shift the balance between Asset vs Export sectors, dumping the export sector and pumping the asset sector. Put differently, we can pay for imports with shit that we make or shit that we own -- and this has implications for people in our country who make shit vs own shit. A better analogy for the trade deficit would be sitting on the couch sla…

It’s reasonable to want to bring back american manufacturing. But the random, temper-tantrum, market-manipulation tariffs are not going to do that. America isn’t going to all of a sudden produce tonnes and tonnes of xmas decorations every year just because of a 50% tariff on all chinese goods that may or may not be around in 6 months. All that’s going to happen is xmas decorations are going to be more expensive.

An actual plan would be targeting specific industries where america has the ability to scale up, and having congress pass tariffs that slowly ramp up over time to allow a smooth transition.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#78

Post by jpadkins »

hartator wrote: post #44
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #41

I totally agree trade should feel fair. If the US sends jobs, money, food or goods to other countries, then we shouldn't get garbage back. Tariffs are a way of warning other countries "don’t take us for a ride." They help American workers, factories and towns that were hurt when jobs went overseas. Tariffs shouldn't feel like hurting yourself for no reason. They are an important tool for standing up for yourself when…

Tarrifs are the worst decision a politician can make. The main reason we have open-ish border for people and goods is to reduce the risk of war. You are not going to wage war with a country that do business with. This undermines this idea.

Then why did Canadian politicians tax milk products at > 200%? https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/trade-commerce/tariff-tarif/2024...

(starting long before the current trade war)

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#79

Post by 9x39 »

analog31 wrote: post #68
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe letting other countries rob us blind is worse. The US has hardly any factories left. Is that "peace" or is that just losing, slowly? Open borders can be GREAT, but they can also be a point of vulnerability if we lose control of them

They're not robbing us blind. They're taking care of our manufacturing so that we can invest in things like the financial industry, fossil fuels, and AI.

This is great until you're at war (economic or kinetic) with who does your manufacturing.

But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#80

Post by kennywinker »

budman1 wrote: post #14
neaden wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?

Although it is not a law of nature, and it is not linear across the hours.. In general if I work M-F more work will be done that if I just work on Monday morning.

So you’re saying if I work at mcdonalds 60 hours a week i’ll make more than an investment banker working 40 hours a week? Awesome, i’m filling out a job application now!
Post reply on HN