It's an import tax he's talking about. Presumably the idea is that US producers will gain from decreased Mexican imports. How that will help pay for the wall I don't know.
Honestly, I'm not sure it's worth it trying to analyze Trump's policy at this point. He seems to have taken a page from the Russian playbook, in that he seems intentionally chaotic and unpredictable, in order to keep the opposition reactive.
Ok, having done a bit of morning reading, I'm inclined to think the tax is a red herring. This is about the wall. Trump wants to get started with building it, maybe to be seen keeping his promises, maybe because it'll employ US workers. But it's expensive, so he needs some story for how it's going to be paid for, specifically how Mexico will pay for it. Even if that doesn't pan out, by the time it's clear the cost was paid by the US taxpayer, he'll have moved onto bigger things that will distract from the issue.
Alternatively, I'm wrong, and the wall really is just a huge put-on, used as leverage against e.g. the mexicans, or part of a more obscure campaign.
No, taxing imports favors US-made stuff, which benefits US manufacturers. That's the point.
Edit: ... That's the point of protectionism. I'm not arguing that it's the better policy. It's just what he seems to be doing. As with the flap over Carrier. As much as I disagree with much of Trump's plans, it is bizarre how US policy for decades aided manufacturers in exporting production overseas.
It doesn't benefit their employees, though, since consumer prices will rise as a result. As that happens, either the standard of living goes down, or wages go up, which raises consumer prices again.
So far, the wealth of the majority of western population has been based on cheap consumer goods. Those goods are cheap because the people making them have a lower standard of living than the people buying them. So if Trump reduces imports, that implies that to keep cheap goods, the standard of living for the portion of US population producing those goods must go down relative to the rest of the population.
Automation can alter that to a great extent, but the profits from that may just go to the owner class, not the workers.
Maybe so. But there's also the issue of underemployment. It's a pretty good bet that the Americans who used to make steel and cars and stuff didn't earn more doing whatever they did after those jobs went south/overseas. And that's probably one of the reasons why they voted for Trump.
Yeah, they were talking about this on Freakonomics yesterday - a lot of those people working steel or textiles wound up in low paying retail or service sector jobs.
Some of those jobs might come back. Maybe not as numerous due to automation and stuff, but it might be something at least.
Hmm, maybe I should switch to microcontroller programming...
Honestly, I'm not sure it's worth it trying to analyze Trump's policy at this point. He seems to have taken a page from the Russian playbook, in that he seems intentionally chaotic and unpredictable, in order to keep the opposition reactive.