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

91–100 of 274 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#91

Post by phaedryx »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #48
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.

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

Trade happens because both sides agree and make an exchange. I don't understand how "other countries rob us blind."

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#92

Post by kennywinker »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #85
kennywinker wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tariffs are bad unless you’re a domestic producer of a good that has just been tariffed, and now you have less competition and can raise your prices.

Or, rather, you must raise your prices because Orange Foolius has tariffed your manufacturing inputs.

That’s what I said - it’s bad for everyone except domestic producers of tariffed stuff. So, bad for consumers, producers of downstream goods, etc.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#93

Post by adverbly »

jccalhoun wrote: post #67
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…

I don't really have any idea if tariffs are good or bad. What I do know is that just announcing that they will go into effect with very little notice and then they won't go into effect and then they do but then they are decalared illegal because they weren't passed through the official methods isn't good.

> I don't really have any idea if tariffs are good or bad.

tariffs are objectively* bad from a "big picture" perspective.

There are some situations where they create winners and losers so that some people in some countries will win, but they always do more damage than good "overall"(or in aggregate across all parties).

A link to the math behind it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

*in almost all cases... For certain goods where you actually want to lower consumption such as cigarettes, then maybe arguably they are good? Same argument as for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#94

Post by MattCruikshank »

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.

Merriam-Webster: "The meaning of TARIFF is a schedule of duties imposed by a government on imported or in some countries exported goods."

Apparently the dictionary is "woke."

Wikipedia: "A tariff, or import tax, is a duty imposed by a national government, customs territory, or supranational union on imports of goods and is paid by the importer."

Oxford Economics: "Tariffs are taxes imposed by a government on goods and services imported from other countries."

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#95

Post by warkdarrior »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #48
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.

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.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#96

Post by phaedryx »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #41

I totally agree trade should feel fair. If the US sends jobs, money, food or goods to other countries, then we shouldn't get garbage back. Tariffs are a way of warning other countries "don’t take us for a ride." They help American workers, factories and towns that were hurt when jobs went overseas. Tariffs shouldn't feel like hurting yourself for no reason. They are an important tool for standing up for yourself when…

You act as if it's the countries that are doing the trading; it's not. It is the businesses and other entities within the countries that are doing it. They are doing it because it benefits them. If a company is doing overseas manufacturing it is because they benefit and it isn't the United States that made that decision.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#97

Post by picafrost »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #48
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.

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

> Maybe letting other countries rob us blind is worse.

I find this argument interesting because the US economy is the largest in the entire world by a fairly wide margin. That the US is being robbed implies it's operating from a position of weakness, which is an absurd idea.

Are other countries with factories really responsible for US companies outsourcing manufacturing to them? Do you want cheap goods or do you want your fellow Americans paid pennies?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#98

Post by peezd »

teachrdan wrote: post #73
Shiggy_ wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what the user above you said. They're explicitly pointing out that the US (and most of the western world) has abandoned the manufacturing sector of their economy, outsourcing work that used to employ millions of people to the developing world. This is a trade-off that can benefit both countries, but, it is wise to consider both WHO benefits from this, and what the LONG-TERM implications of this entails. I…

This is a false dichotomy. I personally believe that strategic tariffs should be used to protect our national interests, including providing meaningful employment. This administration has no interest in strategic tariffs. Instead, they are made overbroad (50% on everything from Canada vs, say, cheap imported steel) and they are made and removed capriciously (tariffs on English whisky dropped after King Charles' visit…

[...wanted to bring your dad's factory job back, he'd specifically target whatever industry he was working in AND ideally spend the tariff money boosting that industry.]

Which was more or less the intent of the CHIPS and Science Act for the semiconductors industry.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#99

Post by Shiggy_ »

teachrdan wrote: post #73
Shiggy_ wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what the user above you said. They're explicitly pointing out that the US (and most of the western world) has abandoned the manufacturing sector of their economy, outsourcing work that used to employ millions of people to the developing world. This is a trade-off that can benefit both countries, but, it is wise to consider both WHO benefits from this, and what the LONG-TERM implications of this entails. I…

This is a false dichotomy. I personally believe that strategic tariffs should be used to protect our national interests, including providing meaningful employment. This administration has no interest in strategic tariffs. Instead, they are made overbroad (50% on everything from Canada vs, say, cheap imported steel) and they are made and removed capriciously (tariffs on English whisky dropped after King Charles' visit…

Oh, I agree that the way that the tariffs are currently being levied is embarrassing on a national scale. Also on the fact that meaningful economic change won't happen when these tariffs will disappear/re-appear at the drop of a hat.

It's also worth pointing out that while, yes, there is 50% tariff on Canadian goods, this only effects ~5% of imported goods, meaning 95% of the Canadian imports are unaffected by this nonsense.

It's also worth pointing out that some of these tariffs actually are being used to help build out US industry, like the CHIPS act.

I don't think that we disagree on anything here, haha

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#100

Post by x0x0 »

xutopia wrote: post #81
smallmancontrov wrote: post #34

A current account deficit is a capital account surplus. Persistent deficits shift the balance between Asset vs Export sectors, dumping the export sector and pumping the asset sector. Put differently, we can pay for imports with shit that we make or shit that we own -- and this has implications for people in our country who make shit vs own shit. A better analogy for the trade deficit would be sitting on the couch sla…

Your framing is ridiculous. Canada sends raw materials to the USA and purchases it back once transformed. If anyone has been bleeding it is Canada.

And for aluminum in particular, the US is essentially importing dirt-cheap hydro energy.
Post reply on HN