[nonethewiser]

I too have found the discourse around tariffs lacking. This is a common and blatant logical fallacy I see:

- Tariffs are bad. They hurt the country enacting overall it in the long run.

- It's correct to respond to the US tariffs with tariffs in response.

Additionally, people seem to not understand that a country that exports more to the US than it imports stands to lose more when the US/that country have the same level of tariffs.

At a large scale, if global trade breaks down the United States will be comparatively (not absolutely) better off because they can support themselves (consumption, food, raw materials).

None of this is an endorsement of tariffs. I think the US is in a pretty good spot and things could get a lot worse. Tariffs absolutely will make expensive things more expensive, and it will hurt. But the discussion I've seen online has reduced itself to some sort of weird orthodoxy that doesnt even make sense.

[pcthrowaway]

I think this is only the case if there aren't replacements available from other countries.

I feel like China is going to be the biggest winner of this tariff war.

Just as an example (from Canada), we had long had a 50% tariff on Chinese EVs which helped U.S. EV manufacturers stay competitive. Now I think we're going to relax that (which IIUC was only implemented to appease our relationship with the U.S. in the first place) and cheaper Chinese EVs should start appearing on the market.

Good for Canadians, good for China. Not as good for the U.S.

[drivebyhooting]

What’s good for China is not good for Canada in the long run. There are many reasons you can think of.

A small and often overlooked one is that a Chinese hegemony would decrease the língua franca status of English.

[pcthrowaway]

Sure, but I don't see much of a difference from importing from China vs. the U.S. in terms of real impact.

I don't really care so much for the "lingua franca status of English" (even though it's the only language I speak fluently). While yes, this is one of Canada's main languages (not that we don't have a lot of Cantonese/Mandarin speakers too), China itself would be a good example that one can succeed without speaking the language which has the "lingua franca status"

Perhaps it's worth noting that the number of fluent Mandarin/Cantonese speakers in Canada is probably not much lower (as a percentage - ~4% in 2016 and I can imagine it's only increased since then) than the number of fluent English speakers in China (5%)

edit: 4% is actually the number of Canadians who spoke Mandarin or Cantonese as a first language in 2016 (which again, is likely higher now). The number of fluent combined Chinese language speakers is almost certainly higher then, even if just a little bit.

[drivebyhooting]

Millions of Chinese learn English in school from a very early age to have access to the global labor market.

You have a huge unrecognized privilege in being a native English speaker.

[pcthrowaway]

Not sure why you're making this personal. I do of course realize the privilege in speaking English as a first language, being born in a developed nation, as a white cis-man, and so on.

To cling to the idea that English need continue to be the most important global economic language though, is a type of linguistic and economic supremacy I don't care to partake in.

[drivebyhooting]

If you were playing a strategy game you would definitely value your country’s language remaining the língua franca.

The same logic applies in the real world. It’s not personal. It’s the most impersonal thing possible.

[dryrun]

But keeping with the US is not better both in the short and the long term, for lack of possible trust after what just happened over the course of three months.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

It's also good for Canada because the local industry will be forced to compete with China with the consumer benefiting.

[nonethewiser]

China is quite reliant on food and energy imports (two critical preconditions for everything) and their consumption rates arent great which is not good for an export based economy.

They could be a beneficiary if global trade doesnt go nuclear. And it probably wont. If it does they are in big trouble.

[BenFranklin100]

Just about any undergraduate textbook will discuss tariffs and why they are nearly universal regarded as poor policy. See Samuelson for instance. The online discourse is poor because the vast majority of people, even those who are educated, have never cracked open a 1st year Econ textbook.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

I think most people are not thinking on purpose, and just accepting the dogma of one side or the other.

[nonethewiser]

>Just about any undergraduate textbook will discuss tariffs and why they are nearly universal regarded as poor policy.

I think its poor because people see tariffs not immediately derided and they swoop in to denigrate them. Please re-read my entire comment.

[lakhim]

Its not a fallacy but game theory playing out - known as beggar thy neighbour policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour

[nonethewiser]

That is very relevant overall and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. But what I'm talking about are people who declare tariffs as an absolute bad and then go on to say enacting them is rational and good. In the beggar thy neighbor policy, the behavior is not considered an absolutely bad thing. This happens with tariffs as well, but people can be even more dogmatic about it.

[lakhim]

Think of it like an invasion - shooting people is probably as close to an absolute bad thing as you can get, but if you're getting shot at its pretty much time to start shooting back

[nonethewiser]

Oh I get that.

We have these claims:

- Shooting someone is absolutely bad in all scenarios

- Its correct to shoot someone if they are trying to shoot you

I agree with the second point completely. The problem is if you say that, you should go back and revise the first point, because clearly its not absolutely bad.

In the case of tariffs, once you acknowledge that reciprocal tariffs are good, you run into a problem because the US generally has lower tariffs on other countries than other countries have on it.

[dragonwriter]

War is bad. It is correct to respond to aggression initiating war with defensive war.

Trade wars are like regular wars, in that respect.

[nonethewiser]

OK. So you support the US enacting reciprocal tariffs.

edit: lots of evasion from this point below

[dragonwriter]

The US is not proposing reciprocal tariffs, it is proposing broad tariffs premised on xenophobic fantasies placing blame for US fentanyl consumption and other US failures on foreign governments.