American Disruption • Hacker News Board

Re: American Disruption

#101

Post by shishy » Wed, Apr 09, 2025, 4:58 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #10

> There is one other very important takeaway from disruption: companies that go up-market find it impossible to go back down, and I think this too applies to countries. There's a lot of talking past each other here. This observation, framed a bit differently, is precisely the argument for radical disruptive change. If there's a structural ratchet mechanism, where outsourcing a particular kind of manufacturing work me…

> If there's a structural ratchet mechanism, where outsourcing a particular kind of manufacturing work means the US can never do it effectively again, doesn't every tick of the ratchet pose significant risks?

Yes, and in an earlier post Ben made that argument and said that the broader conversation on tariffs has been straw manning and wasn't trying to understand where they were coming from. He did more or less agree that the post-ww2 and post-nixon economic setup created this and articulated why it's problematic.

His thesis is just that this approach is wrong, and that it's hard to unpack the reasons because you don't know what to trust: is what the admin says a PR problem, a bad argument, directional or literal, etc.

Here's the older post (the one I shared in this thread was a continuation): https://stratechery.com/2025/trade-tariffs-and-tech/

Re: American Disruption

#102

Post by torginus » Wed, Apr 09, 2025, 4:58 PM UTC

cyberax wrote: post #78

Jochim wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Uber example is also an outright lie. They acquired those customers by burning billions of dollars to deliver rides below the cost of providing them. Then they raised prices beyond their competition to account for their ridiculous overheads.

> They acquired those customers by burning billions of dollars to deliver rides below the cost of providing them. That is exaggerated. Uber was losing something like $0.50-$1 per ride in 2018. Uber/Lyft were (and still mostly are) just _better_ than taxis.

Uber was a 9 year old company in 2018

Re: American Disruption

#103

Post by anon84873628 » Wed, Apr 09, 2025, 4:59 PM UTC

arcbyte wrote: post #37

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #4

Sure, but aren't we past rational debate on this point? Not only are the new trade policies irrational, it's quite possible that they're intentionally irrational as a bargaining or maneuvering tactic. We're not going to reason or argue our way out of this one. As I commented yesterday, there's a playbook for reshoring that's being totally ignored: First you invite industry to reshore via subsidies and preferential ac…

> First you invite industry to reshore via subsidies and preferential access to government contracts. If necessary, the government must directly invest in new firms. Summarized: the government gives money to companies, or more charitable "invests". I would totally agree with you on this path forward BUT FOR the fact that thos nation is dead broke. Completely dead broke. There's no responsible money to do this with. N…

It's not though. The US has been getting compensated for its military investment all around the world.

The explicit architecture of the petrodollar system is that the US will protect international shipping, and in return all petroleum contracts will be priced and executed in dollars. This makes the USD the international reserve currency, and every country participating in international trade needs to hold USD.

How can they put those USD to work? By buying up safe US government debt and other financial instruments.

The US has been rewarded with near unlimited borrowing ability assuming it remained the most stable, powerful, and trusted partner. We could use that to fund practically any investment we want.

Re: American Disruption

#104

Post by Hilift » Wed, Apr 09, 2025, 5:04 PM UTC

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #4

Sure, but aren't we past rational debate on this point? Not only are the new trade policies irrational, it's quite possible that they're intentionally irrational as a bargaining or maneuvering tactic. We're not going to reason or argue our way out of this one. As I commented yesterday, there's a playbook for reshoring that's being totally ignored: First you invite industry to reshore via subsidies and preferential ac…

> Sure, but aren't we past rational debate on this point?

There is no point debating the administration or supporters. Peter Navarro hatched this idea, and he is nearly alone in his logic.

However, a broader debate is useful. A professor in Europe recently pointed out that Nixon did the same thing in the 1971. The intent was to destabilize and reset the dollar value compared to other currencies. He basically set off a grenade in the office. He proposed "New Federalism", and "Nixon's decision to end the gold standard in the United States led to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. According to Thomas Oatley, "the Bretton Woods system collapsed so that Nixon might win the 1972 presidential election.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#Economy

By the way. Bretton Woods and Treasury monetary policy after WW2 was crafted by Lauchlan Currie. Currie was a renowned economist and worked at US Treasury from 1934. In WW2, Currie was Franklin Roosevelt's chief economic adviser. Currie was also a Russian agent. His US passport and US citizenship was revoked in ~1954 and he lived the remainder of his life in Colombia.

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

Re: American Disruption

#105

Post by anon7725 » Wed, Apr 09, 2025, 5:16 PM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #85

torginus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how else they could've done that - if they decide not to tariff some countries, countries that did get tariffed could trivially reroute their goods to go through said exempt country - I'm not even sure goods would need to move physically to said country or they could get away with cargo ships registered under them and/or ports handed over to be the territory of said country.

tariffs are assessed based on the country of origin. you can't skip a tariff by routing your goods through another country. or maybe you can, but that's called smuggling and the only way to do it is outright fraud and lying on the import forms. if your product is sourced from china, you pay the tariff on china whether you are importing it from a canadian supplier, a cambodian supplier, or a chinese supplier.

> the only way to do it is outright fraud and lying on the import forms.

It seems like the incentive to do this has just gone up immensely.

There are also more creative ways to get around country of origin labeling, as I understand it. For example, do 90% of the work in the high-tariff country and the final 10% in the low-tariff country which becomes the point of origin.

Re: American Disruption

#106

Post by pnut » Wed, Apr 09, 2025, 5:17 PM UTC

throw4847285 wrote: post #71

morsecodist wrote: post #13

Talking about the merits of these tariffs kind of misses the point. The person who wrote this article is very smart. I am sure they are smarter than I am. He has produced a pretty solid analysis of trade policy. But in articles like this people ascribe their own motivations and goals to the tariffs that aren't actually there. Buried in this article is the assumption that the motivation of tariffs and trade policy is…

It is considered socially unacceptable to armchair psychoanalyze other people, but I think we can waive that when it comes to the most powerful politician on the planet. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/opinion/trump-tariffs-rat... In some cases, Occam's Razor says, "this person is not acting rationally" and you have to weigh that possibility even if it is uncomfortable. Desire for dominance is common, and is not r…

Looking at trump's actions as desire for dominance makes them seem rational, in the sense that they have a common motivation.

From that perspective, he's at least acting consistently, and has been rewarded over his lifetime for it.

Punch people/organisations/nations in the mouth repeatedly until they beg for mercy, then keep pounding them until they forfeit their dignity and pledge allegiance.

Everyone, everywhere, all the time. The weaker the better. Until stopped.

Re: American Disruption

#107

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Wed, Apr 09, 2025, 5:18 PM UTC

arcbyte wrote: post #37

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #4

Sure, but aren't we past rational debate on this point? Not only are the new trade policies irrational, it's quite possible that they're intentionally irrational as a bargaining or maneuvering tactic. We're not going to reason or argue our way out of this one. As I commented yesterday, there's a playbook for reshoring that's being totally ignored: First you invite industry to reshore via subsidies and preferential ac…

> First you invite industry to reshore via subsidies and preferential access to government contracts. If necessary, the government must directly invest in new firms. Summarized: the government gives money to companies, or more charitable "invests". I would totally agree with you on this path forward BUT FOR the fact that thos nation is dead broke. Completely dead broke. There's no responsible money to do this with. N…

There's no money because your parties always vote for tax cuts and never for revenue raising measures.

And because of the dollars currency hegemony, the world helps you do it. Just let the tax cuts expire and increase the federal tax rates on higher incomes.

Even if you didn't want to do this, the world will literally fund whatever nonsense you want and you could deficit spend to restore manufacturing.

You as a country have a bunch of options (more than most) and it's sad to watch ye flail around ineffectually.

Re: American Disruption

#108

Post by xyzzy_plugh » Wed, Apr 09, 2025, 5:19 PM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #85

torginus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how else they could've done that - if they decide not to tariff some countries, countries that did get tariffed could trivially reroute their goods to go through said exempt country - I'm not even sure goods would need to move physically to said country or they could get away with cargo ships registered under them and/or ports handed over to be the territory of said country.

tariffs are assessed based on the country of origin. you can't skip a tariff by routing your goods through another country. or maybe you can, but that's called smuggling and the only way to do it is outright fraud and lying on the import forms. if your product is sourced from china, you pay the tariff on china whether you are importing it from a canadian supplier, a cambodian supplier, or a chinese supplier.

If your product is imported through China as the supplier, depending on how you structure your arrangement, it can be sourced from wherever you like, at least on paper.

Re: American Disruption

#109

Post by mattbrewsbytes » Wed, Apr 09, 2025, 5:24 PM UTC

Hilift wrote: post #104

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #4

Sure, but aren't we past rational debate on this point? Not only are the new trade policies irrational, it's quite possible that they're intentionally irrational as a bargaining or maneuvering tactic. We're not going to reason or argue our way out of this one. As I commented yesterday, there's a playbook for reshoring that's being totally ignored: First you invite industry to reshore via subsidies and preferential ac…

> Sure, but aren't we past rational debate on this point? There is no point debating the administration or supporters. Peter Navarro hatched this idea, and he is nearly alone in his logic. However, a broader debate is useful. A professor in Europe recently pointed out that Nixon did the same thing in the 1971. The intent was to destabilize and reset the dollar value compared to other currencies. He basically set off…

I thought the major shift after WWII with Bretton Woods was that throughout all of human wars up to that point, the winner usually took the land in some way or another and the US wasn't interested in that and more interested in a global economic stability pegged to the US dollar. And the US decided policing trade routes and peace across western countries was more important than claiming spoils of war.

Re: American Disruption

#110

Post by notatoad » Wed, Apr 09, 2025, 5:25 PM UTC

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #108

notatoad wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tariffs are assessed based on the country of origin. you can't skip a tariff by routing your goods through another country. or maybe you can, but that's called smuggling and the only way to do it is outright fraud and lying on the import forms. if your product is sourced from china, you pay the tariff on china whether you are importing it from a canadian supplier, a cambodian supplier, or a chinese supplier.

If your product is imported through China as the supplier, depending on how you structure your arrangement, it can be sourced from wherever you like, at least on paper.

again: that's fraud, it's illegal, and the consequences begin with getting your whole shipment seized.

if you want to smuggle products illegally, that's on you. but the parent's assertion was that tariffs can be trivially bypassed by changing the country of origin. maybe we have different understandings of "trivial", but for me it being illegal makes it non-trivial.