Live data from Hacker News

Trade (and Tariffs)

xkcd.com

141–150 of 275 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#141

This is a pretty reductive take. 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. Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. Unfortunately fools wielding a tool like this can cause a lot of damage, but that's true for any tool.

Have you ever heard of comparative advantage?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#142

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…

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)

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just because the dumbest president in American History can't do industrial policy doesn't mean that industrial policy can't or shouldn't be done.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#144

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.

The Biden administration kept the Trump tariffs. His own policy-makers, technocrats, said that they were a necessary geopolitical tool, cited China's extensive use of tariffs (amongst other states), and noted that they must be used to protect manufacturing and in tandem with allied states.

https://www.commerce.gov/news/fact-sheets/2024/05/fact-sheet...

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251096758/biden-china-tariff...

https://www.internationaltradeinsights.com/2024/07/biden-adm...

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#146
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…

In 1817, capital did not cross borders. Borders crossed capital.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#147

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.

1. For the n-th time: manufacturing jobs are being lost to automation. Globally, not just in America. This is true in Asia as well.

Manufacturing is facing the same fate of agriculture: machines and robots will keep displacing people. Nothing is going to stop it.

2. There is no such world where we'll choose to do things less efficiently to artificially save few jobs. And it's not about your TV being 100$ more expensive, it is about everything you touch and see being considerably more expensive, with a cascade effect on the businesses that need the equipment.

3. Average Joe in US is as much a shareholder as some imaginary person you have in mind. And a company's duty is towards shareholders first, workers second.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#148

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…

Yes, by all means, figure out how to reshore American production of potash, aluminum and heavy crude near northern refineries.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#149
If tariffs are so obviously and universally bad, then why do tariffed countries respond with retaliatory tariffs instead of letting the first country shoot themselves in the foot and getting on with their own business?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#150

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…

I don't think proposed plan with tariffs will be effective, because once scaled up and generating enough revenue, MBA will come and outsource everything, to make more money

Not if you make it extremely costly with tax policy and tariffs.
Post reply on HN