[sourtrident]

It's wild - tariffs meant to shield U.S. interests end up giving Apple and Foxconn headaches, shifting their entire strategy. Reminds me of closing one door only to notice everyone's sneaking in through the window. Protectionism might feel good, but tech always finds another route around.

[jonplackett]

They don’t really want to collect tariff $. They want to force production in the US, which the article says is what they are going to do. That’s not a window being jumped through, that’s the intent. Or am I missing something here?

[tzs]

But Trump is also saying that he wants to get rid of income taxes and replace them with tariffs. That suggests that they do want to actually collect tariff dollars long term.

[c0nducktr]

Only if you believe he's being honest.

[andrewmcwatters]

No, you're not missing anything. That's the intent.

[WinstonSmith84]

That's the intent ... of the sales pitch, you're meant to believe in, yes.

The reality is however quite different. Frankly for tariffs to work, you need a clear battle plan. There isn't any. Chaos has never been good for business and cherry picking one (positive) example isn't statistically relevant either

[2muchcoffeeman]

Is there actually an equitable plan for that? Because everyone I turn around a raid is on then off then on then off.

[unavoidable]

You have to look past the stated intention. It's quite clear by logical deduction that it cannot be the stated purpose.

If the policy is intended to bring back US manufacturing, it would not be haphazardly implemented where the rates/industries/countries affected change by the hour. The best example are auto tariffs and steel/aluminum tariffs, which are going to absolutely destroy US auto manufacturing (where do we think the steel and aluminum used in cars are coming from?). An actual "reshoring" policy would be (1) targeted and (2) scheduled well in advance. So it obviously isn't that.

It also can't be part of a drug policy, since whatever Trump is saying about Canada is clearly false (Canada accounts for less than 1% of illicit fentanyl trade and is a net _importer_ of illegal drugs and guns _from_ the US), thus no policy can really impact this trade.

It also clearly can't be part of an energy policy, since US refineries are designed to accept a huge amount of Canadian and South American heavy crude (very little of which is produced in the US), so the oil tariffs can't possibly "onshore" more production of heavy crude.

The long-held theory by some that he's wrecking the economy for insider trading also doesn't make sense, because his favoured allies like Musk are losing tons of money right now, and an "insider trading" strategy would be much more regularly spaced rather than changing by-the-hour.

That leaves, by deduction, only a few possibilities:

* Trump really is intentionally wrecking the economy, for known or unknown reasons:

* He's wrecking the economy by instruction from a foreign agent (e.g. Putin - certainly indirect evidence exists)

* He's wrecking the economy because his donors told him to (e.g. Musk, other billionaires - unlikely because why would they want that? They would rather have the stock market go straight up, right?)

* He's wrecking the economy so that his "friends" can trade on the market with insider information (see above - seems unlikely based on the pattern)

* He's wrecking the economy so that his "friends" can buy things cheaply (would have been plausible but for the widespread collateral damage he's causing)

* Trump actually genuinely believes in tariffs (he's a product of the 80s after all)

* Trump actually genuinely hates Mexico, Canada, Europe, and China (seems plausible based on his personality and that of his political base)

* Trump really has no idea what he's doing (judge for yourself)

[m463]

> scheduled well in advance

I suspect they only have 4 years.

[Terr_]

> They don’t really want to collect tariff $. [...] Or am I missing something here?

You may have missed where Trump and apparatchiks repeatedly stated they want to collect so many billions of dollars from tariffs that it replaces Federal Income Tax. [0]

Do they really want that in their souls? With the benefit of the past few years, I say that's the wrong question. Hanlon's Razor [1] fails on some pathological inputs, flavors of bullshit that cause it to time-out and situations where the costly result has no practical value. Sometimes it's just malcompetence.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/20/economy/trump-abolish-irs/ind...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

[m463]

I think apple still makes the mac pro in the US.

[brookst]

I’m skeptical the tariffs were mean to shield US interests rather than just being intended to do exactly what they’re achieving: isolating the US by driving investment and allies away, while contributing to a recession where oligarchs can further consolidate power and wealth.

If you look at them as an attack on the US, everything makes a lot more sense.

[whoisthemachine]

I think the idea is definitely to trigger a recession, but I doubt they care about "allies"; this crowd loved the zero-interest rate days. A strong enough recession should bring those back without the drama of the president forcing the fed chief to do so through coercion.

[__MatrixMan__]

Agreed, it's exactly what I'd do if I wanted the US to withdraw from global relevance.

[9283409232]

This is the correct way of thinking about it. The tariffs aren't meant to drive economic growth, they are meant to tank the economy and drive a wedge between the US and allies. The ultimate goal is to start a recession and an extra bonus goal would be to get US army bases in Europe shut down. That would make Putin extra happy.

[tempodox]

Yep, when Trump is through America will lie in ruins.

[oceanplexian]

> Isolating the US by driving investment and allies away

Foreign government's have an easy solution to solve the problem.

Don't unfairly advantage your goods and services against American products and we won't do the same. Free trade shouldn't mean "Free trade for one side". Free trade should be contingent on reciprocity, both in terms of social and economic alignment.

[__MatrixMan__]

...as mediated by individual buyers and sellers deciding whether they'll pay a price based on the quality of the goods. Not based on some kind of dick waving contest that's happening in the corridors of power.

By now it's clear that "fair" in this administration is defined by whoever is the biggest bully in the room, so

> unfairly advantage your goods and services against American products

is just a fancy way to say: "let us push you around."

[BLKNSLVR]

Trump signed the trade deal with Canada in his first term. Now he's calling it unfair.

Trump stated that the Canadian tariffs were a reaction to fentanyl crossing the Canadian border into the US.

That has nothing to do with trade fairness or Canadian protectionism.

[3vidence]

Ahh yes, America uses tarrifs to force a new trade agreement and then says that trade agreement is bad.

The US just isn't planning things anymore and trying to justify it makes people look silly.