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

101–110 of 274 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#101

Post by bigyabai »

jpadkins wrote: post #78
hartator wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tarrifs are the worst decision a politician can make. The main reason we have open-ish border for people and goods is to reduce the risk of war. You are not going to wage war with a country that do business with. This undermines this idea.

Then why did Canadian politicians tax milk products at > 200%? https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/trade-commerce/tariff-tarif/2024... (starting long before the current trade war)

It's a surplus tax, and one that apparently doesn't exist for the majority of dairy imports: https://archive.is/kKsYc

  that tariff would only apply if we were able to reach and exceed the quota on U.S. dairy exports agreed to under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). 

  [...] the U.S. has never gotten close to exceeding our USMCA quotas

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#102

Post by cooggog »

warkdarrior wrote: post #95
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe letting other countries rob us blind is worse. The US has hardly any factories left. Is that "peace" or is that just losing, slowly? Open borders can be GREAT, but they can also be a point of vulnerability if we lose control of them

> The US has hardly any factories left. Feel free to start your own factory in US, nobody is stopping you. Just keep in mind that for commoditized products (most consumer stuff, for example), prices are all that matter. "Buy American" is not a product feature.

Some years ago. I learned about a new -ish technology that fascinated me. I started to research ways to get in on the development of this technology: i.e. what sort of opportunities might there be for a startup or small business in the space.

The answer I found was very sobering and mildly depressing. There was no room for developing the technology itself. That had already been done by large companies with the capital and resources to commoditize things early.

Instead, the real opportunities were found in business/management consulting selling the product and tangential things, like having a construction company to help build out infrastructure needed for the technology.

At this point I think technology no longer interests me because it doesn’t have a place for me.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#103

Post by catigula »

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.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#104

Post by peezd »

apexalpha wrote: post #24
neaden wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is just not correct. First off a factory can run 24/7 regardless of the shift length, which is what will determine the total productivity. Second off it assumes there are no trade offs in terms of more errors or anything else by having longer shifts. Third off it assumes that factories in different countries are going to be equally effective with each other, instead of different nations/areas within nations s…

It's not a perfect example of course but the gist that tariffs do and should protect workers is true. Tariffs aren't inherently bad, they're a tool.

Protecting Workers, I'd add a couple more; it's not smart to be fully dependent on a trading partner or partners for critical and essential products, such as food, tariffs can help ensure you maintain domestic industry. Also helping to control dumping by an aggressive trade partner to ensure a domestic industry isn't destroyed.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#105

Post by thisisit »

apexalpha wrote: post #7

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.

> Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool.

At the cost of consumers paying for goods/services?

Your take is as reductive as the take in the comics.

People in a nation working 5 days a week for 8 hours are getting paid less and less over time. Heck lot of people now need double shifts to make ends meet totaling up to 12 hr or even more. They can only afford a Christmas light from the nation mass producing it by working 6 days a week, 12 hr shift.

And lets not pretend this was only about protecting workers. There were multiple agendas:

1. Bring back jobs 2. Remove trade barriers between countries 3. Make US rich by collecting huge amount of tariffs

All three can't be true at the same time. If jobs are brought back then you aren't going to collect huge amount of tariffs because nothing is being produced outside. If trade barriers are removed then that comes at a cost of slashing tariffs so you can't really collect huge amount of tariffs.

The foolish reasoning highlighted in the comics is the reason there is so much trade war.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#106

Post by toast0 »

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…

> The only difference is to what degree they wield the tariff hammer, and in which direction it is swung.

Which is a huge difference. Targetted tariffs can induce compliance with desired trade practices and influence purchasing towards more desirable sources.

Global blanket tariffs on products without domestic sources of substitute goods is effective for increasing domestic prices and encouraging foreign producers to enhance their ex-US trade networks.

If you wanted to encouage local manufacturing, you would add tariffs on finished goods, but leave raw materials untariffed. You might consider tariffing raw materials with ample local capacity. You might carefully consider tariffs for machine tools and other finshed goods which are necessary for manufacturing where there's not current local production capacity.

You might consider reciprocal tarrifs that were actually reciprocal tariffs... you tarrif me, I tariff you. Not tarrifs on countries that have an export surplus because they can't afford to import goods from the US.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#107

Post by drop_star »

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.

I think the 'tariffs' in this comic are related to the current regimes application of them. Not representative of tariffs as a whole.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#108

Post by edgyquant »

MattCruikshank wrote: post #31
edgyquant wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately in our hyper partisan, sound bite, climate you can’t discuss the trade offs of tax policies anymore you either support the party line or you’re the enemy.

It would certainly help if people wouldn't believe flat-out lies. Like, "other countries pay the tariffs." No. They don't. How can we have nuanced conversation about the trade-offs, if the leader of one political party blatantly lies about a fundamental detail of how tariffs work? 600% reduction in the price of drugs? We can't even start a discussion with people who believe this. At all. They reject any information,…

I have never met anyone who thought other countries paid the tariffs. Im sure they exist but this seems more like something retractors say to make themselves feel smarter than people in support of tariffs. People who care at all about tariffs tend to know how they work.

The president says a lot of really stupid things and those stupid things are highlighted, but that’s not indicative of the average and one of the main talking points about tariffs is that they increase costs in order to incentivize local suppliers

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#109

Post by edgyquant »

phaedryx wrote: post #88
MattCruikshank wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would certainly help if people wouldn't believe flat-out lies. Like, "other countries pay the tariffs." No. They don't. How can we have nuanced conversation about the trade-offs, if the leader of one political party blatantly lies about a fundamental detail of how tariffs work? 600% reduction in the price of drugs? We can't even start a discussion with people who believe this. At all. They reject any information,…

I wish we would call them "taxes on imports" instead to reflect what is actually happening.

100% agree

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#110

Post by edgyquant »

MattCruikshank wrote: post #32
apexalpha wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am European... Tariffs are completely normal here we protect our workers all the time. It seems I've 'stung the wasps nest' on HN by not denouncing them outright it seems.

How many 100% tariffs do you have on every good from an entire country? A scalpel is one thing. Dynamite is something else.

Context is important. 100% tariffs on Canada is stupid, 100% tariffs on China because we don’t want any industry dependent on a major military adversary is something worth discussing even if the answer is to not do that in the end
Post reply on HN