Rules:
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
There are people who don't know how tariffs work?
If America is the sole buyer, then the tax would be shared between both countries. (Lower demand will lower the price that the foreign supplier can ask for, making up some of the extra tax cost). But since USA is doing these tariffs on so many countries, other countries will just lay new trading routes.
So yeah, USA will feel it.
My job has been impacted by Trumpas well. Stock prices falling and tariffs have caused them to do layoff of 2500 people. I fucking hate this so much. I work with many international customers and Trump/Musk has been brought up constantly and in my line of work people typically avoid political discussions but it's kinda nice to hear our allies don't actually hate Americans and know what the real problem is.
Your telling me the US government can't just demand other countries pay them money for no reason?
/j
Okay so, continuity error.
In the beginning his hours are being cut almost entirely, and at the end they're in no danger of being cut?
It's not good story but this is either a weird grammatical error or this is one those "things that didn't happen" stories.
Not that I doubt people think that other countries pay for tarrifs because Daddy Trump has been saying that for months and months but .......
Man, I wonder how basic reading comprehension played a role in the last election.
Actually the blame on this is his lack of paragraphs .
Thoughts should be separated!
Read again - it was two different people he was talking about. It's implied that they have different job positions so their hours were impacted differently.
Orrr... ya missed the "another one of our guys" part
So bring on the downvotes, but can anyone tell me what the alternative plan was to bring manufacturing back to the states? And wasn’t that always going to make things more expensive?
Granted, this is being done with complete reckless regard, and the effects could’ve been spread out, but what’s the alternative?
People will tell you subsidies and positive reinforcement but honestly that is just more government spending to make a few rich. The answer is, there isn't an alternative. All options aren't great.
Manufacturing working conditions are horrible. As a country develops workers rights, unions, safety regulations, etc, it becomes almost impossible to compete on a global scale for manufacturing. Naturally the manufacturers in countries where those things don't exist do very well.
In certain countries, the labor is just a few steps off of slave labor, which we all know is highly profitable and highly unethical. In other countries their dollar is so weak that net exports are the obvious choice for profitable businesses. Manufacturing thrives in these conditions and attracts a great deal of foreign investment - because hey, if the shipping costs are outweighed by the operational savings - it's a sound business plan!!
Tariffs upset that equilibrium and guess who pays American tariffs? AMERICAN COMPANIES. The government gets a benefit, US becomes less likely of an export destination for countries to trade with, the dollar gets messed with in funky ways, and there is some amount of global loss of productivity due to this forced shift.
Basically, I view tariffs as a tax on the benefits of cheap overseas labor.
I think you’re right. And I think the unspoken policy off anti-tariff politicians is, ‘We’re never bringing those jobs back.’
can anyone tell me what the alternative plan was to bring manufacturing back to the states?
what’s the alternative?
A better plan would have involved local subsidies and tax rebates for various industries that have the ability to be cheaper than existing outsourced infrastructure if they were to be developed with a large enough economy of scale, to incentivize them to engage in local production.
And for industries in which we wouldn't experience lower prices even with larger local economies of scale, such as those involved in mining mineral deposits we simply don't have enough of here in the states, we just... wouldn't do anything to tariff anybody or provide incentives if it wouldn't be something we were capable of benefiting from via local production?
And wasn’t that always going to make things more expensive?
These other methods would make things more expensive too, (albeit much less so) but they would directly incentivize local production, and crucially, only cost money when production was actually made locally. Nobody would get a tax rebate or subsidy if nobody was actually starting local production. With tariffs, however, everyone begins paying a higher cost, regardless of if local manufacturing is even happening, let alone if it's cost effective or possible in the first place.
Tariffs are just an inefficient way of incentivizing local production compared to other options, because they primarily exist to punish other countries and their economies, rather than uplift our own. They can be used to incentivize local production, but if not properly linked with subsidies, rebates, and job programs, they aren't terribly effective at doing that, and they will almost always lead to higher prices on an ongoing basis.
You’re singing my song. Everything you’re saying is spot on.
I think the eventual solve will be small batch manufacturing capability, progressively complex according to population density. But those means of production will need to be nationalized for planning & control, and it’s simply not possible under capitalism.
But the current power structure is built on “market solutions” by using collective punishment to force capitalists to make concessions without directly regulating them. It’s the whole reason the fed manipulates interest rates.
I can tell you! It's just not a quick, easy, single bill that we can pass. It takes a fundamental change in the way Americans think, it's gonna take at least 2 generations to make this move.
Here's the plan: we're gonna promote cooperation. We're gonna get people to notice the systematic problems in the way they are treated by their authorities. We need to aggressively be better than our enemies, both in practice and knowledge.
Here's the method: (Essay ahead).
We need to disrupt almost every single system that currently exists. They're basically all fucked. Start with the ones that get the most people motivated - their basic needs first, entertainment second, their wellbeing third. That feels wrong and it is, we need 2 generations to fix this because we've been beat down by this system so bad the priorities aren't even correct anymore. I've been using this tagline recently "People in homes, food in bellies, minds entertained and health maintained."
You as an individual can and, if you want to have an impact of saving literally the world and not just America, probably should start doing your part for this plan. Give away what you can, but never what you need. And be careful, because you might need that later. Never let that get in the way, though, of giving what you can. Bring your neighbors grocery money when you have a bit of extra cash, and offer to start a food co-op to make sure they never go hungry. It sucks, because I know damn well I wanna go spend that extra 20 bucks to treat myself and you probably do too. But if you go give it away instead, it'll come back to you. Not immediately, and not always symmetrically. But it will come back to benefit you in some way. We need to shift the focus towards the community instead of the individual. I have plans for the other steps, if you'd like I can go into them. But the food co-ops are the best first step IMO
Why would it take generations to fix an issue that only started a few decades ago? What a load of shit.
A few generations to fix
An issue that only started a ~~a few decades~~ 2 generations ago
Because generations are only 25 years, not the 100 that your generation will survive. These issues started, or at least became severely worse, about 3 generations ago with Reagan.
It took that long because they were attempting the slow boil method. We can course correct immediately.
There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.
We can but how do you as an individual plan to convince Americans to start the revolution? Personally, I think we need to build them up and show them the systemic issues they're dealing with in order to convince them.
~~There are decades where nothing's happens~~ There are decades where you don't pay attention to what's happening in the background, and ~~there are weeks where decades happen~~ weeks where those decades of planning come to fruition.
I’m not an accelerationist, but if I was then I would say Trump is doing it quite well. If this keeps up, people will be more open than you’d think to revolution.
I don't disagree with you, and I've made this point to someone else as well. I'm not a revolutionary yet because people haven't been burned enough to be convinced by a revolutionary yet
Bring on the downvotes but the correct answer is don't. Free trade causes jobs in each country to align with recardiant advantage in those countries. We have the jobs we want now. Unless we are in the middle of a depression we don't want government to "provide more jobs". We don't need more jobs. We want better jobs. The whole reason why manufacturing has slowed down in the US is that the global market for manufacturing doesn't pay as well per man hour as other opportunities we already have.
Tariffs disrupt existing jobs to bring back old jobs. Old jobs we shouldn't want as much as the jobs we have now.
If you want to work a job that someone else is doing right now you should probably expect to make close to what they are making while doing it. Actually less because you are increasing supply. Do we want Americans to make Chinese wages? Now some manufacturing in the US doesn't pay Chinese wages because its work only we can do, hence why it is here, and pays American wages. But if you want to "take back manufacturing" then you are talking specifically about manufacturing they have already demonstrated they can do. So any of that manufacturing will pay at most a Chinese wage. Why the hell would you want those jobs?
Where did you get the idea that tariffs are supposed to increase domestic production in any way?
It's not that simple and presenting it as such is disingenuous. Your fellow employee asked an important question, why cant we produce our own stuff? Relying on a frienemy to manufacture what your country needs to function is an extreme oversight of national security. Europe is experiencing that lesson as we speak.
Assuming the theory that tariffs pushes local manufacturing is true: We could produce our own stuff, but it takes time between the institution of the tariff and when a factory starts producing , so there's still going to be a lot of expensive stuff in the mean time.
More expensive steel (for example) means lots of things like cars get more expensive, which means fewer people can afford them...which means fewer cars to produce...which means less need for related industries (textiles, plastics, rubber, etc.), which (in general) means fewer employees needed to build those cars and supply those related industries....which means more people with less money....which means those people are going to buy fewer things, which means less money for all of the other businesses... and so on. It just spreads. Everything depends on everything else.
You can't just build a factory and start producing say, steel, overnight. And what happens if the tariff is dropped right after you finish your factory? You're going to get hosed, so it's a huge risk - especially with someone as inconsistent as Trump.
Because we don't have every resource in the world contained within our small slice of a single continent? Not to mention, it isn't 19-dickety2, so Europe and the rest of the world aren't brain-draining into the US as much as they once were, thanks to local-stability and our newfound US-instability. And, speaking of which, thanks to the morons grabbing the wheel and directing us into a brick wall, well...that brain-drain we benefitted from since the Nazis...yeah, the opposite is happening now. Turns out smart people don't want to live under fascism...weird, I know. Why can't they just hate the same people I hate?!?!?
This isn't even even economics 101, this is just what trade is. You have something I need and I have something you need. If we both have extra and we trade, we both win.
So, how about you produce everything you need without anybody's help, subsistence living. Drop your phone drop, your clothes. Go out into the woods, pick your own food and find your own clean water.
Because that is exactly the position Donald Trump has put our whole country in in relation to the rest of the planet.
So, if you don't want to get along with society, if you want to do everything on your own, more power to you. But don't make claims that other folks are being disingenuous because you didn't bother to understand what trade is.
Subsistence living
I don't disagree with your point but I think this argument could have been more compelling. The way you've phrase it here almost makes these tariffs sound good to a socialist and we don't want to accidentally push people to the other side. Basically, your intentions are great but execution could have been just a hair better if you don't mind a bit of pedantry from someone who has studied debate for a few years:
A lot of us want to be producing everything we need and giving away/trading what we can. That sounds ideal. We need to be certain how how we do it though. Tariffs are a bandaid to a bigger, more systematic issue. We need to build up the infrastructure required to take care of our people, create the systems to ensure our people are taken care, and export every bit of excess. We also need to make sure people don't say they're going to do that (Like the orange and the melon did) and then turn around and do the opposite (like the orange and the melon did).
If you'd like, I can give you a some more specific pointers on what to say to be more effective as well (bring solutions along with problems)
The way you’ve phrase it here almost makes these tariffs sound good to a socialist
Hey, democratic socialist here, this does not sound good at all, nor does it sound remotely socialist to me.
That's because you're probably smart enough to hear what they're meaning and not take it at face value. Not everyone is, so we need to pick very careful words. Subsistence living is something that sounds nice to a lot of socialists, so we can't call our enemies policy subsistence living. We need to call it what it really is, isolationism. They didn't build the infrastructure required for subsistence living first
I've never seen subsistence living as a core belief of any large number of socialists. At least, no larger than the average amount of people in the general population that also find subsistence living to be a good idea.
Most socialists understand that many goods can't be fully produced by any one individual, and that we get a benefit from working together as a group. Hell, most of Socialist ideology revolves around groups of workers owning the means of production, and a government/society that shares resources between people to keep everyone as reasonably comfortable as possible.
The notion that subsistence living is something that more socialists would support than the average person isn't exactly something I've seen to be true in my personal experience. In fact, I see a lot more of that on the very much anti-socialist right, what with all the homesteading and "rugged independent man" stereotypes you'll see thrown about over there.
You're right, subsistence living in an individual level is impossible. There's a lot of Americans though, and they could do subsistence living if they worked together. Again, you and I aren't disagreeing. We just need to make sure to use the right words. Even if subsistence living isn't a commonly held thought, it's one with a more positive connotation than Isolationism. We should use words with negative connotations to describe negative bills
All right so you were just being pedantic.
Because my examples did not make it sound appealing lol
And I personally prefer to use neutral words, as folks have a lot of defense mechanisms toward words with negative connotations.
Meaning, they will just tune it out.
Yes, you're right. I'm being pedantic. I should have forewarned that, my bad.
And you're also right that people tend to tune out negative words. At first, sure. But, assuming you're American, I bet I could cause some cognitive dissonance in you if you I use the right ones. Isolationism isn't one of those yet, but in 30 years we need that word to sound the same as "Feudalism"
No you did mention maybe you're being pedantic, that's why I brought it back up. I wasn't trying to be a bitch lol
And yeah, isolationist really is a more accurate term. However I'm thinking that the right has indoctrinated their voter base against it.
I don't have hard evidence for that argument, it's just the vibe I get living here.
I can't say for sure how much indoctrination has happened, but I remember hearing "isolationism" as a sort of bogeyman in history classes. So there's at least that for some people
Yeah, I picked up that connotation learning about world war II and how that played out.
But I don't exactly trust our education system to have gotten that message to everybody. Especially with all the noise from the white nationalists.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}