8 ms·

I've seen this comment a couple of times. What would be a better way of doing it? Also consider that if they would've had a more complex formula, what would be

by dsco 1y ago

I've seen this comment a couple of times. What would be a better way of doing it? Also consider that if they would've had a more complex formula, what would be the cost of needing to explain it publicly? Would they then need to start defending the fairness of each tariff vs doing it the simple way and having a single formula across the board?

rtkwe 1y ago
Consider actual tariffs? A trade deficit isn't a tariff or trade barrier it's just the natural flow of commerce from them selling more stuff than they buy. They're dressing it up like these countries are charging US imports these crazy tariffs but they're not at all, especially not across the board. That's imminently doable but would require more work than plugging in 2 numbers from the US trade delegation website so we get this complete lie instead. Trump has had it in his head for ages that trade deficit == tariff (or is lying about that to make his supporters swallow this as the US just fighting back) and it's a completely broken understanding of trade.
- rayiner 1y ago
  > Consider actual tariffs? A trade deficit isn't a tariff or trade barrier it's just the natural flow of commerce from them selling more stuff than they buy That’s just defining what a trade deficit is, it doesn’t explain why trade deficits arise. For example, other countries have cheaper labor and laxer environmental regulations. Simply looking at the country’s tariff rates on U.S. goods doesn’t account for the whole picture.
  - nkmnz 1y ago
    Yeah sure, Europe is absolutely known for their lax environmental regulations…
    - scrollaway 1y ago
      GP said other countries, not "Europe". And Europe does have cheaper labor. Even in western europe you can find a 5x-10x difference in certain salaries especially in white collar industries. Assume good faith.
  - tremon 1y ago
    Other countries also have different population numbers. To take a random example, why would e.g. Uruguay (population 3.5M) buy as much from the US (population 100x) as the US is able to buy from them? Besides, if the trade volume is what determines the tariff, why would any country want to have a trade surplus with the US? The best solution for other countries is to artificially limit their exports, or find more reliable trading partners.
    - zuminator 1y ago
      On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but then you look at say China with a 35x population over Canada yet Canadians don't just buy as much from China as vice-versa, they buy CAD$65 billion more. So I don't think the argument that larger countries necessarily have a deficit against their smaller trading partners holds water. I do agree that this madness will only encourage other countries to conduct their trade elsewhere.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      > Other countries also have different population numbers. To take a random example, why would e.g. Uruguay (population 3.5M) buy as much from the US (population 100x) as the US is able to buy from them Because the U.S. can buy from Uruguay only as much as 3.5 million people in that country can produce.
      - jethro_tell 1y ago
        So, we aren’t factoring in natural resources and the different values they have either then?
      - rtkwe 1y ago
        First we don't import any where near all of Uruguay's exports, in fact we're only about 8% of their actual exports which should tell you this isn't the reason we buy more from them than they do from us. Next that's always going to be imbalanced because they produce goods cheaper and can't afford as much as the equivalent chunk of people in the US.
  - rtkwe 1y ago
    > cheaper labor and laxer environmental regulations So we've exported our worst paying, most environmentally damaging industries? I mean the rivers catching fire was probably exciting but I'm not exactly pining to bring that back... Tariffs can only set those industries up for internal markets, other countries will just continue to buy from the cheaper source so the protected industry has to continue to be protected. Additionally who's going to work these labor intensive industries? We're already at 4.1% unemployment, there's not vast masses of people waiting for low paying work as seamstresses and one of the other major prongs of the Trump ideology is reducing immigration drastically so we're going to squeezed on that end too. Finally we've done mass tariffs before and it always ends badly. Remember Smoot-Hawley? it deepened the Great Depression because people thought they could turn to protectionism to prop up and bring industry to the US. It just doesn't work when broadly applied.
Henchman21 1y ago
How about “not doing it at all”?
- rayiner 1y ago
  How do you propose to fix deindustrialization?
  - bandrami 1y ago
    US industrial output is the highest it has ever been. Where did you get the idea that we "deindustrialized"?
    - smallmancontrov 1y ago
      By looking at where things are made rather than by using hedonic adjustments to multiply up INTC revenue until it hides the problem (or whatever the strategy is today now that INTC is flagging).
      - bandrami 1y ago
        Right, doing that shows US industrial output to be at its highest level ever.
        uoaei 1y ago
        Made or assembled?
        bandrami 1y ago
        I mean, both? We actually track this stuff, you know? Or at least we did until DOGE fired everybody who does that
        uoaei 1y ago
        Then what is the breakdown between products manufactured here and those merely assembled?
Balgair 1y ago
Um, by picking and choosing what goods need protection in the long term? Like, we can't make more fish. Avocados take a few years to grow new trees. Steel mills don't just appear in Ohio. The worst part is that, even if you believe Donny, he's so mercurial with these tariffs that no one is going to give you a loan to do anything about any of this. This Katy Perry doctrine [0] he's established is just poison to any sort of capital investment. You've got no idea if any of these tariffs will make it to Monday, let alone to the time it takes the mortgage on your t-shirt factory to be paid off. And then you've got a new administration in four years and no idea if they will keep that protection for you either. How are you going to plant a whole vineyard and get it profitable in 4 years when grape vines take 7 years to mature to fruit bearing? There's no point to any of this, even if you believe him. [0] 'Cause you're hot, then you're cold You're yes, then you're no You're in, then you're out You're up, then you're down You're wrong when it's right It's black, and it's white We fight, we break up We kiss, we make up
- griffzhowl 1y ago
  Overall I agree, but I'm not sure there's literally no point. American primary producers will likely benefit - people who own mines, oil wells, farms, etc., and some American manufacturers too as long as they source enough of their raw materials from within the US that the price hikes on resources from overseas don't bite them too much. Still an overall loss that will be borne by American consumers, but a small section of the population who are already wealthy will greatly benefit...
  - davidw 1y ago
    The point is, as this Senator explains, not economic, but to gain leverage over companies and countries: https://bsky.app/profile/chrismurphyct.bsky.social/post/3lluxkmx7wc2m https://bsky.app/profile/chrismurphyct.bsky.social/post/3llu... "Do _____ and maybe we can cut you some slack on the tariffs" If there is a point and it's not just absolute stupidity.
    - Balgair 1y ago
      I think he's on to something, but then I come back to Hanlon's Razor: Never assume conspiracy when stupidity will do. Sure, they might be trying to do this. But I'd give that a ~3% chance. There is no 'there' there. They are 'burning down your house to cook a steak.' The emperor has no clothes. There are many more ways to say it, but as truly unbelievable as my mind keeps insisting it is, these people are just plain-jane morons.
griffzhowl 1y ago
The problem is it's economically illiterate. Trade deficits aren't bad in themselves - they can be a sign that you're getting a good deal. Consider the case where a country with low wages exports raw materials to the US, and doesn't buy back as much from the US. This is the situation for lots of poorer countries who are exporting cheap raw materials to the US, and the US gains from these situations. Trump's policy simply makes all these raw materials more expensive. Another way of reducing trade deficits would be to make Americans so poor that they can't afford to buy things from overseas. Eliminating trade deficits in itself isn't a rational economic goal. Having said that, American manufacurers on average will likely benefit (though maybe not if their raw materials are too much more expensive), but this benefit will only come at the cost of American consumers, who are denied cheaper options from overseas by the tariffs
- rayiner 1y ago
  You’re calling Trump “economically illiterate,” but what you’re saying will happen is exactly the motivation of Trump’s policy. He just thinks it’s a good thing rather than a bad thing. Trump’s bet is that the upsides will be borne disproportionately by his base, while the downsides will be borne disproportionately by Democrats’ laptop-class base. It’s not irrational to think that will be the result.
  - selimthegrim 1y ago
    Trump also thinks imports subtract from GDP.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    I was just talking last night about how ironically the things Trump is doing fall not to far from what Bernie bros have dreamed of. Heavy tariffs and no income tax is pretty much the conservative version of liberal hand outs.
    - tzs 1y ago
      What do they expect to happen if the heavy tariffs either move the manufacturing of those products to the US or make the imports expensive enough that consumers switch to domestic manufacturers? That tanks the revenue from the tariffs, which would make them an ineffective replacement for income tax.

by dsco 1y ago

rtkwe 1y ago

Consider actual tariffs? A trade deficit isn't a tariff or trade barrier it's just the natural flow of commerce from them selling more stuff than they buy. They're dressing it up like these countries are charging US imports these crazy tariffs but they're not at all, especially not across the board. That's imminently doable but would require more work than plugging in 2 numbers from the US trade delegation website so we get this complete lie instead. Trump has had it in his head for ages that trade deficit == tariff (or is lying about that to make his supporters swallow this as the US just fighting back) and it's a completely broken understanding of trade.

rayiner 1y ago
> Consider actual tariffs? A trade deficit isn't a tariff or trade barrier it's just the natural flow of commerce from them selling more stuff than they buy That’s just defining what a trade deficit is, it doesn’t explain why trade deficits arise. For example, other countries have cheaper labor and laxer environmental regulations. Simply looking at the country’s tariff rates on U.S. goods doesn’t account for the whole picture.
- nkmnz 1y ago
  Yeah sure, Europe is absolutely known for their lax environmental regulations…
  - scrollaway 1y ago
    GP said other countries, not "Europe". And Europe does have cheaper labor. Even in western europe you can find a 5x-10x difference in certain salaries especially in white collar industries. Assume good faith.
- tremon 1y ago
  Other countries also have different population numbers. To take a random example, why would e.g. Uruguay (population 3.5M) buy as much from the US (population 100x) as the US is able to buy from them? Besides, if the trade volume is what determines the tariff, why would any country want to have a trade surplus with the US? The best solution for other countries is to artificially limit their exports, or find more reliable trading partners.
  - zuminator 1y ago
    On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but then you look at say China with a 35x population over Canada yet Canadians don't just buy as much from China as vice-versa, they buy CAD$65 billion more. So I don't think the argument that larger countries necessarily have a deficit against their smaller trading partners holds water. I do agree that this madness will only encourage other countries to conduct their trade elsewhere.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > Other countries also have different population numbers. To take a random example, why would e.g. Uruguay (population 3.5M) buy as much from the US (population 100x) as the US is able to buy from them Because the U.S. can buy from Uruguay only as much as 3.5 million people in that country can produce.
    - jethro_tell 1y ago
      So, we aren’t factoring in natural resources and the different values they have either then?
    - rtkwe 1y ago
      First we don't import any where near all of Uruguay's exports, in fact we're only about 8% of their actual exports which should tell you this isn't the reason we buy more from them than they do from us. Next that's always going to be imbalanced because they produce goods cheaper and can't afford as much as the equivalent chunk of people in the US.
- rtkwe 1y ago
  > cheaper labor and laxer environmental regulations So we've exported our worst paying, most environmentally damaging industries? I mean the rivers catching fire was probably exciting but I'm not exactly pining to bring that back... Tariffs can only set those industries up for internal markets, other countries will just continue to buy from the cheaper source so the protected industry has to continue to be protected. Additionally who's going to work these labor intensive industries? We're already at 4.1% unemployment, there's not vast masses of people waiting for low paying work as seamstresses and one of the other major prongs of the Trump ideology is reducing immigration drastically so we're going to squeezed on that end too. Finally we've done mass tariffs before and it always ends badly. Remember Smoot-Hawley? it deepened the Great Depression because people thought they could turn to protectionism to prop up and bring industry to the US. It just doesn't work when broadly applied.

Henchman21 1y ago

How about “not doing it at all”?

rayiner 1y ago
How do you propose to fix deindustrialization?
- bandrami 1y ago
  US industrial output is the highest it has ever been. Where did you get the idea that we "deindustrialized"?
  - smallmancontrov 1y ago
    By looking at where things are made rather than by using hedonic adjustments to multiply up INTC revenue until it hides the problem (or whatever the strategy is today now that INTC is flagging).
    - bandrami 1y ago
      Right, doing that shows US industrial output to be at its highest level ever.
      - uoaei 1y ago
        Made or assembled?
        bandrami 1y ago
        I mean, both? We actually track this stuff, you know? Or at least we did until DOGE fired everybody who does that
        uoaei 1y ago
        Then what is the breakdown between products manufactured here and those merely assembled?

Balgair 1y ago

Um, by picking and choosing what goods need protection in the long term? Like, we can't make more fish. Avocados take a few years to grow new trees. Steel mills don't just appear in Ohio. The worst part is that, even if you believe Donny, he's so mercurial with these tariffs that no one is going to give you a loan to do anything about any of this. This Katy Perry doctrine [0] he's established is just poison to any sort of capital investment. You've got no idea if any of these tariffs will make it to Monday, let alone to the time it takes the mortgage on your t-shirt factory to be paid off. And then you've got a new administration in four years and no idea if they will keep that protection for you either. How are you going to plant a whole vineyard and get it profitable in 4 years when grape vines take 7 years to mature to fruit bearing? There's no point to any of this, even if you believe him. [0] 'Cause you're hot, then you're cold You're yes, then you're no You're in, then you're out You're up, then you're down You're wrong when it's right It's black, and it's white We fight, we break up We kiss, we make up

griffzhowl 1y ago
Overall I agree, but I'm not sure there's literally no point. American primary producers will likely benefit - people who own mines, oil wells, farms, etc., and some American manufacturers too as long as they source enough of their raw materials from within the US that the price hikes on resources from overseas don't bite them too much. Still an overall loss that will be borne by American consumers, but a small section of the population who are already wealthy will greatly benefit...
- davidw 1y ago
  The point is, as this Senator explains, not economic, but to gain leverage over companies and countries: https://bsky.app/profile/chrismurphyct.bsky.social/post/3lluxkmx7wc2m https://bsky.app/profile/chrismurphyct.bsky.social/post/3llu... "Do _____ and maybe we can cut you some slack on the tariffs" If there is a point and it's not just absolute stupidity.
  - Balgair 1y ago
    I think he's on to something, but then I come back to Hanlon's Razor: Never assume conspiracy when stupidity will do. Sure, they might be trying to do this. But I'd give that a ~3% chance. There is no 'there' there. They are 'burning down your house to cook a steak.' The emperor has no clothes. There are many more ways to say it, but as truly unbelievable as my mind keeps insisting it is, these people are just plain-jane morons.

griffzhowl 1y ago

The problem is it's economically illiterate. Trade deficits aren't bad in themselves - they can be a sign that you're getting a good deal. Consider the case where a country with low wages exports raw materials to the US, and doesn't buy back as much from the US. This is the situation for lots of poorer countries who are exporting cheap raw materials to the US, and the US gains from these situations. Trump's policy simply makes all these raw materials more expensive. Another way of reducing trade deficits would be to make Americans so poor that they can't afford to buy things from overseas. Eliminating trade deficits in itself isn't a rational economic goal. Having said that, American manufacurers on average will likely benefit (though maybe not if their raw materials are too much more expensive), but this benefit will only come at the cost of American consumers, who are denied cheaper options from overseas by the tariffs

rayiner 1y ago
You’re calling Trump “economically illiterate,” but what you’re saying will happen is exactly the motivation of Trump’s policy. He just thinks it’s a good thing rather than a bad thing. Trump’s bet is that the upsides will be borne disproportionately by his base, while the downsides will be borne disproportionately by Democrats’ laptop-class base. It’s not irrational to think that will be the result.
- selimthegrim 1y ago
  Trump also thinks imports subtract from GDP.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  I was just talking last night about how ironically the things Trump is doing fall not to far from what Bernie bros have dreamed of. Heavy tariffs and no income tax is pretty much the conservative version of liberal hand outs.
  - tzs 1y ago
    What do they expect to happen if the heavy tariffs either move the manufacturing of those products to the US or make the imports expensive enough that consumers switch to domestic manufacturers? That tanks the revenue from the tariffs, which would make them an ineffective replacement for income tax.