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

201–210 of 275 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#201

Post by smallmancontrov »

tim333 wrote: post #166
smallmancontrov wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't know it makes much difference. People could walk from country to country in Europe back then and still can, likewise you could move money and equipment and still can.

The limiting factor on deploying capital abroad was never the ability to move gold or even equipment, it was the ability to have faith that over many years the remote authorities would continue to enforce your remotely held claims on the operation.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#202

Post by smallmancontrov »

javanissen wrote: post #186
smallmancontrov wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It doesn’t really matter what Ricardo said in 1817: every US academic economist surveyed in 2018 by the Kent Clark Center disagreed that US aluminum and steel tariffs would increase the welfare of the American people ([0]), and this is with the benefit of >200 years in advances in economic scholarship and analysis since Ricardo. [0] https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tarif...

The fact that the dumbest president in American history is bad at industrial policy does not mean that industrial policy cannot or should not be done.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#203

Post by vladms »

zahlman wrote: post #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?

Maybe reducing trade with a country that is taking bad/strange/stupid decisions might be worth it. If your industry can change some trade partners (and diversify) it might a plus.

In Canada's case the reliance of one trade partner (see https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/explore/overtime/?exporter=cou... ) is probably a weakness that retaliatory tariffs can influence.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#204

Post by mallets »

oceanplexian wrote: post #182

Please explain why tariffs a "good thing" to protect a French winery but a "Bad thing" when it is used to protect an American worker. Everyone loves the EU and Canada and their tariffs. In Canada for example American poultry and dairy have as much as 200-500% tariffs. Usually it is seen as a big win to prevent undercutting the working class with cheap foreign labor. But as soon as it has any association with Trump al…

It's breaking EXISTING free trade deals that's angering people. And also using them as geopolitical cudgels against allies. Every country has protectionist measures in various sectors, trade deals are decades-long work to chip away at them in a way that's agreeable to everyone involved.

Liberals and progressives don't agree on most things related to (free) trade, but agree on not "bullying" allies for no reason and little profit.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#205

Post by scott_weber »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #189
pjc50 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The insane thing about this discussion is that America does still manufacture a huge amount of products that are used all over the world, and the people that make them are paid salaries that are the envy of the world! Many of the people working in this industry are posting on this site! It's just that because those products don't come in boxes anymore but are distributed over the Internet people think they don't coun…

The balance of trade accounts for "export of computer services," because of course it does, and the account is in deficit in spite of these, because of course it is. The insane thing is that you tried to offer this "insight" without even bothering to check!

My read of "manufacture a huge amount of products" was that it's not even about software. America is still the world's second largest manufacturing economy, and per capita produces more than China!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing

Most of this manufacturing is just not consumer facing.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#206

Post by vladms »

oceanplexian wrote: post #182

Please explain why tariffs a "good thing" to protect a French winery but a "Bad thing" when it is used to protect an American worker. Everyone loves the EU and Canada and their tariffs. In Canada for example American poultry and dairy have as much as 200-500% tariffs. Usually it is seen as a big win to prevent undercutting the working class with cheap foreign labor. But as soon as it has any association with Trump al…

Who is "Everyone"? EU is trying in various ways to reduce tariffs, like (biggest example I know): Mercosur, to quote "both the EU and Mercosur will gradually reduce import duties on 91–92% of exports" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93Mercosur_Partnershi...).

Of course European farmers complain (they will get competition and potentially lower quality products), so yes, some people like the current tariffs.

Behind every tariff there will be an interest group. If you are producing X in a country and there is an import tariff on X you are happy. If you are buying X you are not happy.

There can be strategic industries that you want to encourage, but the issue is if tariffs are applied with a plan or not. Opinions might differ on this one but history will tell.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#207

Post by inigyou »

0xy wrote: post #54
inigyou wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/eu-ppwr-pause-request-us... This regulation forces very small businesses to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to comply and register in EACH EU country (what the hell's the point of the union, exactly?). Even if they sell only 10 widgets to Belgian buyers, they need to register in Belgium and pay the fee. Insane. So a small business selling 5-10k of widgets in EU now has to pa…

Why does the restaurant across the street from my house need to register in Belgium?

Sounds like you've identified an opportunity to make a company that helps EU startups navigate bureaucracy. You could do all the packaging registration on their behalf.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#208

Post by inigyou »

edgyquant wrote: post #153
peezd wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[...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.] Which was more or less the intent of the CHIPS and Science Act for the semiconductors industry.

The chips act used tax dollars and subsidies to incentivize companies to build here. This and tariffs on semis are not much different the only difference is with a tariff you only pay the tax when you buy imported goods

Subsidies ensure a certain sector has money. CHIPS pays for semiconductor fabs no matter what. Tariffing foreign semiconductors doesn't ensure there will be money for semiconductor fabs here - there could just be no semiconductors at all.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#209

Post by like_any_other »

javanissen wrote: post #186
smallmancontrov wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It doesn’t really matter what Ricardo said in 1817: every US academic economist surveyed in 2018 by the Kent Clark Center disagreed that US aluminum and steel tariffs would increase the welfare of the American people ([0]), and this is with the benefit of >200 years in advances in economic scholarship and analysis since Ricardo. [0] https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tarif...

If only all those academic economists were as loud about how to keep tech and industrial capacity from withering and moving to China, as they are with their criticism of attempts to prevent that. They don't even complain when China engages in protectionism, dumping, and general "market distorting" subsidies. Listening to them, you'd never learn that none of the advanced economies got that way by following their laissez-faire trade prescriptions [1].

And of course they limit their analysis to "welfare of the people", first-order, ignoring how loss of industry will (and is already) come back to bite us. As if our only interests were those of passive consumers.

[1] " ... none of the world's most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Criticis...

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#210

Post by inigyou »

kemayo wrote: post #57
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?

The experience of the trade deficit with the grocery store and the movie theater is more enjoyable, overall. I get films and ice cream and a good time out of it. From my employer I get a lot of sitting in meetings -- they have to pay me to make me put up with that! My point is that reducing it entirely to "did I gain or receive cash-money from this?" isn't a particularly useful framing.

Yeah that's the point. If you can get away with having a trade deficit not balanced by a surplus, that's a good thing because you get more movies and ice cream for less meetings. Trade deficits are good, people are just sending you free stuff.
Post reply on HN