Live data from Hacker News

US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

bbc.com

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#841
post #750

It's true that free trade is hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole, particularly with the USD being the reserve currency. The flow of goods is balanced by a flow of US dollars to other countries, which are ultimately cycled back into the US financial system - enabling budget deficits and an abundance of capital to invest in high growth industries. The flip side of this is that it also drives inequality - the…

this glib analysis neglects the part where decades of plans and budgets have been addressing " build out social systems" while simultaneously building crony networks of political appointees, guarding the hen house. Short term pain is loudly announced for the purpose of defeating the political opponent, not addressing the long standing inefficiencies in a swollen and obese wealth exchange centered in the USA.

tons of cynical one-liners from partisans drown out efforts to really examine the impacts over medium and long term. A horrible problem with this move is that it is not entirely wrong from a fundamentals point of view? It certainly creates winners and losers, no question about it.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#842
post #806
post #750

It's true that free trade is hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole, particularly with the USD being the reserve currency. The flow of goods is balanced by a flow of US dollars to other countries, which are ultimately cycled back into the US financial system - enabling budget deficits and an abundance of capital to invest in high growth industries. The flip side of this is that it also drives inequality - the…

The deficit is 2 trillion. Income taxes on individuals are 2.4 trillion. How much do you expect to raise taxes to cover that gap? You double my taxes and I’m in the welfare line. Further, and this is not referenced enough - the US must rollover ~9 trillion in treasuries this year. The lower the interest rate to do that, the better. Otherwise it increase the deficit even more. The only way this ends is one of two path…

Taxes should be raised on the rich. Elon Musk alone is worth $330 billion. There is plenty of money to pay for what we need. The question is whether we can muster the political will to do it.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#843
post #670

Aside from everything else one thing what strikes me as particularly insane is how it’s not even defensible as a protective measure. My favorite everyday olive oil comes from Tunisia. They now have a 38% tariff on them. There are no out of work olive farmers in the US. The orange man wanted tariffs, the orange man is going to get tariffs. Now we have to hope the American people aren’t so dumb as to still be convinced…

If Jan 6th didn't dissuade people, I don't think anything will. Additionally, his base will not blame him, they will swallow whichever of the many narratives the propagandists are currently cooking up that suites their fancy.

Spoke to a friend who is a big Trump supporter just yesterday - his view is that we shouldn't react to short term impact, these policies and tariffs should be viewed and judged in the long term. These tariffs will remake american manufacturing. I dont know if thats the current faux news talking point.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#845
Number one rule of combat is that you need a very good homegrown industrial base. In order to be great country it needs to be combat-ready. If you apply that lens, what Trump is doing will start making sense. He is trying to revert globalisation and free trade in order to make the USA manufacturing superpower again. Not sure whether this will be successful or not, as China already has an order of magnitude advantage in manufacturing.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#846
post #750

It's true that free trade is hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole, particularly with the USD being the reserve currency. The flow of goods is balanced by a flow of US dollars to other countries, which are ultimately cycled back into the US financial system - enabling budget deficits and an abundance of capital to invest in high growth industries. The flip side of this is that it also drives inequality - the…

> for the government to lower the cost of high-quality education

Devils advocate point, and one nobody wants to talk about: what if everyone can't be a high-skill employee?

Imagine if the highest earning jobs required immense physical endurance and strength. Nobody would argue that everyone can do that. It would be obvious that only a subset of people are capable of doing those jobs. For some reason, with intellectual labor, we are able to pretend that there is no threshold and everyone can do it. It's an idea that makes people feel good but what if it's just not true? Can everyone be made above average in something with enough education?

If we're creating an economy where decent jobs only exist for people in the top ~20% of the ability curve, how do we handle that? How do we maintain a democracy? Sometimes people float the idea of UBI, but that could turn out extremely dystopian with a huge underclass of UBI-collecting people in a state of hopelessness and boredom. That doesn't work much better for democracy than a huge underclass of under-employed and unemployed people.

To make matters worse: the fact that our past strategy works so well for increasing GDP means it it tends to inflate assets, including things like housing prices. The end result is a country that looks, to more than half its inhabitants, like a vacation town where outside capital inflates the cost of everything way above what local wages can support. It might not be a coincidence that San Francisco, New York, and other capitals of high margin high skill industries have real estate prices that lock ordinary people out of even "starter homes."

I absolutely do not support Trump's execution here -- it's ham-fisted, reckless, and badly thought out. If we are exiting this neoliberal model, Trump's exit from it is a little bit like Biden's exit from Afghanistan. Still it is obvious to me that the current system is not working for more than half of Americans. It's fantastic for the top ~20% or so and leaves everyone else behind.

We can't keep doing that if we want a democracy. If we exclude 50-80% of the population from anything meaningful or any economic stability, we will get one of two things. Either we'll get the kind of totalitarian state that is required to maintain that kind of inequality in perpetuity, or we will get a string of revolutions or a failed state. People will not just sit around in hopelessness forever. Eventually they will be recruited by demagogues. Ironically Trump has been one of the most effective at this. I'm sure more will eventually show up though. There's a big market for them.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#847
post #750

It's true that free trade is hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole, particularly with the USD being the reserve currency. The flow of goods is balanced by a flow of US dollars to other countries, which are ultimately cycled back into the US financial system - enabling budget deficits and an abundance of capital to invest in high growth industries. The flip side of this is that it also drives inequality - the…

Nope. It's true that free trade WAS hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole. Now free trade is hurting USA economy and that's why USA play against the rules they were promoting for so long.

> Now free trade is hurting USA economy and that's why USA play against the rules they were promoting for so long.

Explain how is it hurting US economy?

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#848
post #625

Everyone is quick to deride this move as stupid. I don’t disagree that there are downsides to the approach, but there is a set of very real national problems that this might address. For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well…

As a software engineer dealing with bits and bytes all day, it's easy to lose sight of the hard and sharp parts of reality. My wife is a chemical engineer who actually goes into a factory and is constantly dealing with production issues in actually making soap, ice cream, chemicals flow (different factories over her career).

JD Vance had an interview somewhere (I think in the NYTimes?) where he claimed that national prosperity is downstream of military might which is downstream of industrial base. It made me stop and think, because that does line up with what I was taught about how the Allies won WW2, and the US beat the Soviets in the Cold War: we outproduced them. I'm not sure if this is "fighting the last war", though, since I imagine a lot of warfare going forward is going to be technological and with things like drones, etc.

It's just so easy to deal with our economic abstraction, of dollars flying around, and computer work, and services and so on, that I sometimes do wonder about your point here about the actual physical, production of goods, and how important that is. Can you have a long term, stable, healthy, successful country that doesn't (and can't) produce anything physical?

We clearly can still make some stuff. I have a great squat rack and barbell set from Rogue Fitness, which makes stuff here in the USA (captured in this beautiful advertisement video[0]), and it's awesome. But I also have a made-in-the-USA wood pellet smoker which is garbage, and which I kind of wish I had just bought from China.

All to say, yeah, I think there's the potential for there to be something along the lines of what you're saying. That said, the implementation is maybe not great. Even taking the Tesla Texas Gigafactory, which was built in warp speed (construction to first cars in about 1.5 years), that's only leaving 2 years before a potential next administration could roll back the tariffs if they wanted.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aCMGqA6_XY

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#849
post #750

It's true that free trade is hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole, particularly with the USD being the reserve currency. The flow of goods is balanced by a flow of US dollars to other countries, which are ultimately cycled back into the US financial system - enabling budget deficits and an abundance of capital to invest in high growth industries. The flip side of this is that it also drives inequality - the…

Nope. It's true that free trade WAS hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole. Now free trade is hurting USA economy and that's why USA play against the rules they were promoting for so long.

Free trade is not hurting the economy. American domestic policy impacting the distribution of the produce of the economy is, even in times of strong aggregate economic performance, hurting the felt effects of the economy on large swathes of the population, but throwing up protectionist policies that collapse both the global and local production possibilities curves doesn't help that; it just shrinks the pie without doing anything to deal with the bad distribution which makes people feel like the pie is shrinking even when it is growing. The results you can expect from that should be obvious without experiencing them, but it looks like we are all going to learn about them through painful experience real soon now.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#850
post #750

It's true that free trade is hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole, particularly with the USD being the reserve currency. The flow of goods is balanced by a flow of US dollars to other countries, which are ultimately cycled back into the US financial system - enabling budget deficits and an abundance of capital to invest in high growth industries. The flip side of this is that it also drives inequality - the…

> lower the cost of high-quality education

And how do you propose we do that? By giving schools even more money at taxpayer's expense?

> raising taxes at the high end

40.1% of US taxpayers on the low end of income distribution pay no income tax, 16.5% pay neither income nor payroll taxes. Top 1% pays 40.4% of all income tax (while holding about 30.8% of net worth, 13.8% of the total is held by top 0.1%). Top 1% (with the possible exception of a few billionaires) already pays through their nose.

Post reply on HN