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

131–140 of 275 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#131

Post by Hammershaft »

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 just an immensely dumb policy.

Unless we plan on manufacturing our own shoes and clothes, competitive advanced manufacturing is going to require cheap industrial inputs from around the world.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#132

Post by Hammershaft »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #130
epolanski wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't much you can do about it, you can't have the cake and eat it too. If you want to protect your whole "manufacturing", you also need to make peace with the idea that consumer and industrial prices will balloon. You can only compete, choose your battles, but you can't live in a world that does not exist.

No, bringing the price of 50" 4k TVs down to $300 does not make up for lost jobs. That's an easy choice, which is why it was never presented to the American worker but rather foisted upon us by shareholders in pursuit of profit and a government content to look the other way.

Advanced manufacturing requires cheap global inputs.

Before tariffs, unemployments was ~3.5% and real wages were rising, and part of why wages have been rising is because the cost of goods like TVs have been falling.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#133

Post by arwhatever »

kennywinker wrote: post #77
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 a…

Maybe even use the tariff proceeds to provide incentives to those very same domestic industries? (I am not an economist.)

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#134

Post by fugigigjfn »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #115

this ignores evolution theory: the cells in the leg, arm, brain, etc. share the exact same genome variation, so selection pressure rewards coherent action in the interest of the individual organism. thats not true for different players in some level-or-not playing field

That’s true and entirely irrelevant to the actual dynamics of the metaphor.

But I’m glad you had a chance to feel like a clever little boy

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#135

Post by smallmancontrov »

dvh wrote: post #112

Alt text: "You legs may have a comparative advantage at running, but we arms have a competitive advantage at swinging hammers, so unless you accept that we're the dominant limbs and stop hogging the oxygen, that running advantage won't be around for long."

Ricardo's comparative advantage result is contingent on the assumption that capital is not mobile across borders. This was a good assumption in 1817. Is it a good assumption today?

Furthermore, he's very up front about this in On the Principles, and from this information you can calculate the exact number of people who read the damn thing between the person repeating the talking point and the person originating the talking point.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#136

Post by CamperBob2 »

kennywinker wrote: post #92
CamperBob2 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, rather, you must raise your prices because Orange Foolius has tariffed your manufacturing inputs.

That’s what I said - it’s bad for everyone except domestic producers of tariffed stuff. So, bad for consumers, producers of downstream goods, etc.

No, what I'm saying is it's bad for "domestic producers of stuff" too.

Source: domestic producer of stuff (me.) My products require components and materials that we don't currently make here in the US and won't be making anytime soon. I can't do anything about that. So why am I getting hosed?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#137

Post by Hammershaft »

catigula wrote: post #103

Expert economists working in both the Biden and Trump administration support tariffs. The difference is the dumb way Trump is doing them and a smarter way of doing them. Obviously, this comic completely misses that nuance and promotes a pseudoscientific idea that tariffs are somehow bad.

Economists universally think tariffs are dumb policy.

https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tarif...

Literally 100% of the 50 expert economists polled by the Kent Clark Center think tariffs overall make Americans worse off.

Nobody in politics can say this simple truth because the rust belt states are critical swing states.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#138

Post by mindslight »

arwhatever wrote: post #133
kennywinker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Maybe even use the tariff proceeds to provide incentives to those very same domestic industries? (I am not an economist.)

If that were seriously on the table, we could have just used the proceeds from having the world reserve currency to do that. Instead, their open plan for that national asset is to squander it.

In general, stop trying to steelman the looters. Sometimes a con artist is really just a con artist.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#139

Post by Hammershaft »

0xy wrote: post #33

People are very quick to make kneejerk reactions to tariffs while assuming the other guys have different opinions. The Biden admin went after Canada repeatedly for unfair trade practices, and issued a blanket 10% tariff on Chinese goods. The only difference is to what degree they wield the tariff hammer, and in which direction it is swung. The one thing the current admin does have a point on is non-tariff meddling. N…

Economists universally think tariffs are dumb policy.

https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tarif...

Literally 100% of the 50 expert economists polled by the Kent Clark Center think tariffs overall make Americans worse off.

Nobody in politics can say this simple truth because the rust belt states are critical swing states.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#140

Post by Hammershaft »

aliasxneo wrote: post #18

[flagged]

Economists universally think tariffs are dumb policy.

https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tarif...

Literally 100% of the 50 expert economists polled by the Kent Clark Center think tariffs overall make Americans worse off.

Nobody in politics can say this simple truth because the rust belt states are critical swing states.

Post reply on HN