New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring • Hacker News Board

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#231

Post by barrkel » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC

phd514 wrote: post #203

throwawayjava wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that Switzerland provides a model for high tariffs creating wealth is... especially ironic. Switzerland is one of the least tariff-encumbered economies in the world, reguarly topping out various free trade indicies [1]. And in Switzerland's case, that's almost certainly causual. Average salaries in Switzerland are so high because of the disproprtionate role Switzerland plays in EU and global banking -- a…

It doesn't make a lot of sense that Switzerland is the EU's version of MA or NY or that Zurich is the EU version of NYC or SF given that Switzerland is not in the EU and quite happy that way, too.

Switzerland has a big complex web of treaties and agreements with the EU that make it almost, but not quite, a member. Neither the EU nor Switzerland are entirely happy with the situation; the EU doesn't like all the tradeoffs that need to be balanced just for Switzerland rather than in the standard EU bundle, while Switzerland doesn't like things like freedom of moment being made a condition of market access.

See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/22/switzerland-vo...

More than 120 treaties as of that writing, with guillotine clause - break one, break them all.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#232

Post by jeffreyrogers » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 4:12 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #198

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #165

There seems to be a lot of groupthink on HN. Pretty much every comment in this thread that views tariffs remotely positively is being downvoted. I view them slightly negatively, but protectionism (not necessarily tariffs) does help struggling or new industries develop if coupled with good export policies (see China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan for examples), so the idea that tariffs have no arguments for them seem…

Did you read the article? The tariff is not protecting US businesses. It is encouraging as much manufacturing as possible to take place overseas, because the tariff does not apply to finished products.

Yes, I did. The article does a good job of explaining the downsides. As I explained, I'm moderately opposed to the tariffs, but protectionism does work in some cases and there are certainly arguments for tariffs. I would be interested in hearing them rather than seeing discussion of them stifled.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#233

Post by gbacon » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 4:13 PM UTC

sveme wrote: post #43

bryanlarsen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I disagree." In other words you think that subsidies and senseless bureaucratic obstacles are better than tariffs? The OP is not saying that tariffs are a good thing, he's saying that tariffs are so obviously bad & stupid that they're easier to get rid of and negotiate away. Subsidies and senseless bureaucratic obstacles are just as damaging as tariffs but they are harder to get rid of.

Regulatory requirements on product safety and environmental standards are not senseless bureaucratic obstacles.

At least the ones that actually improve commensurate with the increased cost product safety or environmental impact rather than protecting the established players aren’t.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#234

Post by firic » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 4:15 PM UTC

afpx wrote: post #146

Anyone able and willing (and brave enough) to explain like I’m five why Trump’s decisions could possibly be rational and helpful as opposed to just reactionary and impulsive, as they appear to be?

Sure, I'll try. Keep in mind that I will only mention the benefits. Read other sources for the disadvantages so that you can make a decision.

* America feels that caring for the environment is important so there are laws preventing companies from polluting "too much". In China they don't have as strict laws. Therefore manufacturing in America is more environmentally friendly than in China. Therefore, it is worth the tax on the consumer to keep the environment cleaner.

* America believes that people deserve basic workers rights that are not offered in China. Without tariffs companies offering workers rights could not compete against those who aren't.

* In the case of a war, China may stop providing American with steel when they need it the most. By encouraging Americans to make steel plants, in the case of a war, America will be able to produce the steel.

* China is very powerful, so much so that they could be a threat to America. However most of China's economy comes from export. Tariffs will hurt America, but will hurt China much more, thereby making them less of a threat against America's world dominance.

* Canada tarrifs some of Americans goods. That is not good for America. By retaliating with tariffs, Canada may agree for both sides to stop tarrifs. (that is most likely not applicable for this case since Trump didn't announce that as his demands)

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#235

Post by scroogly » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #151

jpindar wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public) Tariffs are imposing taxes on the very businesses we're supposedly trying to save!

Over time tariffs will spur increased domestic replacement manufacturing vs Chinese imports. If the US were primarily harming itself with tariffs, other nations wouldn't be reacting the way they are. They all know the game is up and they're all desperately looking to hold onto their advantages. US manufacturing costs are nearly on par with China at this point because of the vast inflation in costs that have occurred…

>They all know the game is up and they're all desperately looking to hold onto their advantages.

Don't knock it, that game made the US the richest country in the world.

And yes, that game does look just about done right now.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#236

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 4:17 PM UTC

psergeant wrote: post #166

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #165

There seems to be a lot of groupthink on HN. Pretty much every comment in this thread that views tariffs remotely positively is being downvoted. I view them slightly negatively, but protectionism (not necessarily tariffs) does help struggling or new industries develop if coupled with good export policies (see China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan for examples), so the idea that tariffs have no arguments for them seem…

Another word for “groupthink” is “consensus”

[deleted]

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#237

Post by gbacon » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 4:19 PM UTC

cdumler wrote: post #118

frockington wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe nobody should have tariffs. Understanding that is never going to happen, it should at least be a starting ppoint

I'm glad that you believe it, but it's not a reasonable position. The primary reason for some U.S. tariffs is the legitimate reason of national security. We provide tariffs on certain foods, mineral resources, and military products because we want to guarantee that we do not loose production ability. Should we suddenly find ourselves in a world war, we would not be creating these production lines from scratch. Theref…

The only winning move is not to play.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#238

Post by Kenji » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 4:20 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #19

Out of all possible trade barriers, I think tariffs are generally the better option. The alternative is subsidies, quotas or "unofficial" barriers like product safety rules or other burry-you-in-bureaucracy setups. Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public) They're easier to understand. This one makes Chinese microwaves x% more expensive. It's clearer who is paying for it (consumers) and who benefits,…

> Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public)

What's the difference between "bring in taxes" and "costing the public"? It's literally the same thing. Surely you know who foots the bill either way - the public.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#239

Post by gbacon » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #119

endorphone wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the US plays by free trade? Intellectual property rights/copyright laws, both linchpins of US policy, are the very definition of government intervention. The US aerospace and manufacturing industry is overwhelmingly subsidized by the military complex, a lot of it done under the auspices of "national security". For the US to complain about Airbus or Bombardier is simply incredible. US agriculture is outra…

> US agriculture is outrageously subsidized. I'll go into a specific example in a moment Yeah, corn. That's why everything is HFCS heavy in the US. And I do mean everything. Things that didn't need to have so much sugar like bread, ketchup, other sauces, soup, etc. It's easier to get it than to avoid it. And american's health suffer for it.

Be thankful that you’re getting your bread and soup ration for today, citizen.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#240

Post by scroogly » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

fredley wrote: post #227

sipherhex wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first part of your statement is generally accurate. However, the article is discussing tariffs the US has chosen. This is not something China is doing.

I missed that completely. Well that's just bizarre...

There is massive cognitive dissonance in trying to explain a lot of current events because they are so beyond what you expect to make sense.

Yesterday I was trying to explain to a friend about the children separated at the border and how the parents are then being deported alone and have to apply afterwards to try and find their children, and it took about seven attempts. She didn't understand what I was saying at first because she assumed I must have misspoke, as doing that doesn't compute.