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

211–220 of 275 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#211

Post by inigyou »

javanissen wrote: post #187
edgyquant wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike this analogy because a nation is not a person grocery shopping and anyway if a single grocery store was the only way to get food that would put me in a very lopsided relationship with them and the power dynamics in such a case are obviously bad for the person. Nations have interests and there’s a real conversation to be had that a country should ensure it has strategic industries so its existence is never a…

This is one view. Another view is that maintaining economic interdependence between countries — aside from making both countries richer via specialization and comparative advantage — is a great way to incentivize cooperation and prevent them from killing each other. Examples here: https://www.hoover.org/research/when-trade-wars-become-shoot...

Needs to be two-way though. What if we rely on China, but they don't rely on us? Well then they can destroy us at any moment. It needs to be MAD to be a deterrent.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#212

Post by senderista »

javanissen wrote: post #187
edgyquant wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike this analogy because a nation is not a person grocery shopping and anyway if a single grocery store was the only way to get food that would put me in a very lopsided relationship with them and the power dynamics in such a case are obviously bad for the person. Nations have interests and there’s a real conversation to be had that a country should ensure it has strategic industries so its existence is never a…

This is one view. Another view is that maintaining economic interdependence between countries — aside from making both countries richer via specialization and comparative advantage — is a great way to incentivize cooperation and prevent them from killing each other. Examples here: https://www.hoover.org/research/when-trade-wars-become-shoot...

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

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#213

Post by toomuchtodo »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #202
javanissen wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact that he has two and a half years left in office, along with Congress not willing to do anything, means industrial policy cannot be done. We can certainly try again when something changes, whether that’s the required turnover in Congressional representation (maybe midterms, maybe two more years from now) or federal administration regime change (January 2029). “We are at an impasse.” Until then, the country keeps burning down, as voted for by the electorate.

I do not see another path, but perhaps I am mistaken. I am always open to being corrected when wrong.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#214

Post by like_any_other »

pjc50 wrote: post #183
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…

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…

> America does still manufacture a huge amount of products

US industrial (absolute, not per capita) production hasn't grown since 2007: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INDPRO

But the population has increased by 13.5%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...

It's one hell of a gamble to rely so much on software "products", while anything that software actually runs on is made in Asia. Building up a software industry will be a lot easier than it was to grow the industrial and tech ecosystem. And that ecosystem will give sweetheart deals to homegrown software, while extorting yours. Sorry, did I say "will"? I meant it's already doing so:

Apple CEO Tim Cook "secretly" signed an agreement worth more than $275 billion with Chinese officials, promising that Apple would help to develop China's economy and technological capabilities - https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/07/apple-ceo-tim-cook-secr...

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#215

Post by villish »

mallets wrote: post #204
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 l…

> but agree on not "bullying" allies for no reason and little profit.

This is what confuses me most about Trumps tactics. These are longtime friends and allies who would’ve gladly worked together to try to improve any perceived imbalances.

I cannot fathom treating a friend this way. It makes no sense to me and is destructive.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#216

Post by throw0101a »

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…

> In Canada for example American poultry and dairy have as much as 200-500% tariffs.

In the US the dairy industry is supported through subsidies. In Canada the dairy industry is supported through supply management.

If the US would be willing to stop 'artificially' supporting their farmers (and allowing some to go bankrupt) then perhaps Canada would be willing to stop 'artificially' supporting theirs. Otherwise it's a tom-ay-to/tom-ah-to stand-off.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#217

Post by morkalork »

xutopia wrote: post #81
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…

Your framing is ridiculous. Canada sends raw materials to the USA and purchases it back once transformed. If anyone has been bleeding it is Canada.

Yes. And everyone that's pointed it out in the past go shouted down for one reason or another. Sending oil down south and buying refined gasoline back is asinine. Same with raw timber to buy back finished products. And now that the national-security chickens have come home to roost, it's waaaaaaay too late.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#218

Post by badc0ffee »

cma256 wrote: post #165

This is hilarious and I agree. I think an under-appreciated aspect of all this is the complete schadenfreude from everyone. The story goes tariffs only hurt yourself but then we see retaliatory tariffs in response. "Oh yeah I'm going to cut off my leg to show you whose boss!" Very funny. And then you have people predisposed to higher-taxes who are contorting themselves over the economic cost of this tax while support…

> The story goes tariffs only hurt yourself

That's how the story goes with someplace like China. If you impose tariffs on imports you have no cost-effective alternative for, yes, the tariffs will only hurt the importer, because buying habits will not change. (I suppose Chinese cars are a big exception here)

But in this case, the math is probably different because none of these tariffs affect products the US must realistically buy from Canada (e.g. oil and potash). So Canadian exporters will feel some pain and American importers will feel some pain.

What should Canada do in this case if the two can't come to a trade agreement? Continue to import from the US at the same rate as before?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#219

Post by edgyquant »

epolanski wrote: post #194
edgyquant wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Services can’t fight a war or feed you. A nation that wishes to be a real power must be able to guarantee it can feed and protect its people.

1. What's up with this obsession to be a "real" power? Plenty of countries in the world do just fine actually avoiding confrontation and minding their business. We should get back at competing at sports, culture, scientific achievements. I can understand the vanity of politicians making up enemies for the sake of it, a bit less what should be an educated crowd here to fall for this narrative. 2. We're talking about t…

1. This mindset is a result of American hegemony. Before WW2, before the 90s really, no one thought this was a possibility.

2. Right but if it is dependent on a foreign nation for something vital that means it no longer can confidently assert its independence

3. Don’t disagree at all

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#220

Post by Hammershaft »

tim333 wrote: post #173
Hammershaft wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You've posted that five times now. Bit excessive?

Unfortunately there are a lot more than 5 people saying the same misinformation in the comments.
Post reply on HN