Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

American Disruption

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 210 posts

Re: American Disruption

#31

Post by cowpig »

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…

Agree, and I find this totally bizarre.

The Trump administration's power is based in the Russian propaganda machine and xenophobia. Blanket tariffs (except towards Russia and Belarus, not mentioned in Ben Thompson's article of course) are in service of those two power bases.

Re: American Disruption

#32

Post by morsecodist »

jonnat wrote: post #25
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…

Worse than projecting one's values onto a rationalization of the new tariffs is to simply take the administration's rhetoric at face value. That other countries are "taking advantage of us" is just a talking point. We have to look at how the tariffs fit historical conservative programs. Republicans have long wished to replace our progressive income taxation with a flat tax system, but that's simply not achievable, ev…

I don't take their explanation at face value. I think you very well could be right in your analysis here.

It is more interesting to me that actual targeting is based on trade imbalance. They could easily have used the same rhetoric and targeted the tariffs based on something else. I think the way they are targeted is sufficient to rule out a lot of explanations I have seen proposed like I mentioned above. What you are mentioning seems super plausible to me I just can't be sure yet.

Re: American Disruption

#33

Post by Aurornis »

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…

> it's quite possible that they're intentionally irrational as a bargaining or maneuvering tactic

This is the rationalization being projected onto the situation, but it doesn’t make logical sense.

The administration launched a trade war with 100+ fronts and left no time to negotiate with all of them, let alone the biggest players.

The biggest players are already calling the administration’s bluff with counter-tariffs. If there was an expectation to use the threat of irrational tariffs as a bargaining chip, they didn’t leave enough time to do it.

Re: American Disruption

#34

Post by throwanem »

turnsout wrote: post #30
eduction wrote: post #14

This essay seems to be built on a flawed analogy. Clayton Christensen’s model of disruption (or models, counting his low end version) involves innovation by both the incumbent and disruptor. The disruptor’s innovation is immediately appealing to the low end of the market while the incumbent is focused on the high end. His example of Hong Kong factories manufacturing Fairchild chips doesn’t fit this template even thou…

Not to be a hater, but this is Ben Thomspon's style. Dial up the word count until people think your analysis is comprehensive, to disguise the fact that you're not saying anything substantive.

See also Scott Siskind and Curtis Yarvin.

Re: American Disruption

#35

Post by lanfeust6 »

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…

Broadly that is true of the administration's motives, but as concerns trade with China, they are obviously aware of both the national security and competitiveness angle. Not only did Biden take the lead on that already with the exact above rationale, China is currently more steeply targeted.

Re: American Disruption

#36

Post by throwanem »

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…

In which metaphor the thesis would implicitly be that we can't for some reason disassemble the "ratchet" and carefully retract or remove the "pawl," but have to chuck a "lit stick of dynamite" into the "workshop."

No, there is still a lot of work to do before we get close to making this make any sense.

Re: American Disruption

#37

Post by arcbyte »

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. None.

Re: American Disruption

#38

Post by mjevans »

clodushid wrote: post #17
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…

The primary architect of trumps tariff strategy in his first and second term is Peter Navarro. If you want to understand the tariffs today, just go read one of his many books. His goals are pretty simple: reindustriaize America No more free trade China is evil and the worlds enemy It should be no surprise to anyone observing trump since he took office that the end goal was always to decouple from China.

We're more likely to 'on shore' with 3D printer like automated fabricators (think next baby step between CnC machines and Replicators).

As far as any mention of jobs? Those are long gone and never coming back.

Trade still makes sense for raw inputs and any outputs though.

Re: American Disruption

#39

Post by hooverd »

mjevans wrote: post #38
clodushid wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary architect of trumps tariff strategy in his first and second term is Peter Navarro. If you want to understand the tariffs today, just go read one of his many books. His goals are pretty simple: reindustriaize America No more free trade China is evil and the worlds enemy It should be no surprise to anyone observing trump since he took office that the end goal was always to decouple from China.

We're more likely to 'on shore' with 3D printer like automated fabricators (think next baby step between CnC machines and Replicators). As far as any mention of jobs? Those are long gone and never coming back. Trade still makes sense for raw inputs and any outputs though.

Yea, they're not talking about high value manufacturing. They practically want to burn that down; it's all about bringing low value textile production back.
Post reply on HN