[whatshisface]

You're thinking about the bolt factory that will open, but what about the factories that close? Putting, as you say, businesses in peril, gets rid of jobs.

As for the carve-outs, there isn't a single US industry that doesn't rely on imports from lower down the supply chain.

[h0l0cube]

Protectionist policy, if applied consistently, will actually lead to more jobs (and higher wages) eventually, but also higher inflation and job losses in the short term, and a more insular economy. It's foolish to go so hard, and so fast – or this is just a negotiation tactic – so I think the Trump administration is going to compromise by necessity, but in time supply chains will adjust to the new reality, and tariffs can increase.

[mlyle]

> and higher wages) eventually

Higher real wages?

Do gains from trade not exist?

Comparative advantage: Country A has an easier time making X than Y, and country B has an easier time making Y than X, so country A should trade some of their Xs for Ys, and both countries end up richer.

I think there's some reasons to dial back interdependence a little, but I don't think it's a path likely to lead to greater wealth or real wages.

(And certainly no reason to make erratic changes at large scale, focusing on allies and neighbors first).

[h0l0cube]

I don't believe I have to point this out, but this is not a policy that I think is good, it's just one that will have the intended affect of onshoring manufacturing jobs. And I'm not talking about higher wages for quants, or MBAs, or HR, or software evangelists, or door-to-door salespeople, or cashiers at Dollar General, I'm talking about for people who are underemployed, unemployed, or doing some nonsense busywork because the manufacturing sector has been eroded away over the last 4 decades.

> And certainly no reason to make erratic changes at large scale, focusing on allies and neighbors first

Those people who benefited from globalization, and who didn't care about the working class, are exactly who brought us to this moment. And I have a huge shrug to those who are loath to accept that. If only it was attended to sooner by a more sensible administration.

[whatshisface]

That's an assumption, I'm trying to challenge it. Taxes usually take money out of the economy and lead to less activity. Why should a (very high) tax on transportation be different? These are not the sorts of things we can afford to just do without making sure they will work.

[h0l0cube]

> Taxes usually take money out of the economy

This is an oversimplification, they can change incentives, and sometimes increase investment.

> lead to less activity

I do agree money will be divested from the US as they become more and more expensive to deal with (leading to "less activity"), and like I said this will rechannel the economy between the rest of the world. The trade-off is that the US becomes a manufacturer and exporter again (leading to "replaced activity"), some manufacturing capability is duplicated (leading to "more activity" though redundant/less productive), and the currency devalues.

But I'll admit I'm well out of my depth here, and I'm being booed off the stage. All the same, I don't think I'm wrong here. Protectionism isn't new, and lots of countries do it, it's just novel that the world's largest economy and bastion of free trade is doing it to such an extreme.

[whatshisface]

I don't think getting booed off the stage is a good way to end the discussion. The US is already a major exporter, of the goods we have an advantage at producing: simple foods, refined oil, advanced machines. Forcing farmers to plant avocados in potato fields isn't really going to help anybody, and neither is transferring oil refinery engineers to working on optimizing garmet factories. This will all take place against a backdrop of a poorer world with fewer dollars to spend on our goods, so it won't help our export sales either. Europe and China need to earn the dollars they buy our wheat with somehow - and without buying from them, I don't see how they'll do it.

[h0l0cube]

It seems like an almost impossible task, especially if compromises aren't made on tariffs (I expect they will be). The US does have military leverage as the sole supplier of advanced weaponry to many countries, but I think the USD would need to massively downgrade for America to become an net-export market once again.

Once again, I'm well out of my depth to be able to speculate here. But ostensibly globalization hasn't worked for the working class of America, and that has led to the current state of affairs.

[pessimizer]

It's a debate that has been had by many people far more informed than anyone who will see this thread, many times over decades or even a few centuries. Rather than challenging it on a very basic level (it's a tax, all taxes are bad, why should this tax be different), just look up the other debates and read them.