[dsco]

I've seen this comment a couple of times. What would be a better way of doing it? Also consider that if they would've had a more complex formula, what would be the cost of needing to explain it publicly? Would they then need to start defending the fairness of each tariff vs doing it the simple way and having a single formula across the board?

[Henchman21]

How about “not doing it at all”?

[rayiner]

How do you propose to fix deindustrialization?

[bandrami]

US industrial output is the highest it has ever been. Where did you get the idea that we "deindustrialized"?

[rayiner]

US industrial output is much lower than it has been relative to our consumption. We should mostly make in the country the industrial products we consume.

[nkozyra]

We are a consumer nation because we are more prosperous than our peers. It's the same reason you buy your food at a grocery store.

Generally, the clamoring for domestic production comes down to: 1. Employment. But because we are more prosperous, our employment is aimed elsewhere. We have jobs for people that are less dangerous, less manual, and better paid.

2. A fear that without domestic production, we're at a strategic or military disadvantage. But it's not that we _can't_ produce in an emergency, we can and have historically (see: oil in the 1970s). What protects us most is hegemony, which is threatened by things like across-the-board trade wars.

3. Nostalgia for the good ol days. Look, if you want to work in a factory, we have lots of them here, still. Nobody will stop you from putting on the hard hat. But in all likelihood you have a less stressful, less dangerous, and better-paying job today.

There really isn't an argument for this. Our trade was - as all trade is - mutually beneficial. Right now we're pushing the glass to the edge of the table when it was perfectly fine where it was.

One other important note: there are things we literally cannot produce domestically due to lack of natural availability (food products, certain textiles)

[rayiner]

How can a "prosperous" nation sustainably consume more than it produces?

[fauigerzigerk]

Manufacturing as a share of GDP is bound to fall. It is inevitably going the way of agriculture.

The US is in the envyable position of having developed a globally dominant service sector. Putting that at risk of retaliation by imposing tariffs on all imports, including the lowest margin stuff like screws and bolts is utter insanity.

https://www.ft.com/content/aee57e7f-62f1-4a57-a780-341475cd8...

[Henchman21]

> We should mostly make in the country the industrial products we consume.

You state this as fact that we should all agree on. Why should we do this? Why not rely on our allies and friends to do what they do well, while we continue to do what we do well? Is trade not the basis of peace? If we stand alone, we must ask why we must.

[rat87]

Why? That's what trade is for

[fzeroracer]

I'm curious, are you personally volunteering to work in the factories? Or is it a situation where we need industrialization to come back but you personally are not willing to see it through?

[bandrami]

I mean, is the poster in question a senior robotics engineer? Because that's whose going to be working in any factories that open. Maybe they'll have some security guards and janitors, I guess

[CalChris]

So you agree that we are not deindustrialized. Have a nice day.

[bandrami]

We really shouldn't though.

Cargo culting "manufacturing jobs" isn't actually a plan.

(I also notice nobody is talking about bringing back switchboard jobs or typing pool jobs)

[smallmancontrov]

By looking at where things are made rather than by using hedonic adjustments to multiply up INTC revenue until it hides the problem (or whatever the strategy is today now that INTC is flagging).

[bandrami]

Right, doing that shows US industrial output to be at its highest level ever.

[smallmancontrov]

Oh, you're one of the people who believes the "Made in America" stickers. That explains a lot.

[uoaei]

Made or assembled?

[kelipso]

Do people actually believe this? Maybe industrial output according to some cooked up numbers or specific industries.

[smallmancontrov]

Yes. People are very good at rationalizing self-serving beliefs. Here's how the numbers were cooked:

https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-manufacturing-...

[kelipso]

Interesting, so basically no growth since 2007 if you exclude computers, even with increased productivity. And the drop in employment is insane and it's no wonder that there is a huge political movement with fixing that as a pillar. Not even to mention regional problems that have been going on longer in the Rust Belt. Yeah I find it pretty disgusting when workers in service based industries like here have no sympathy for the workers in these industries.

[bandrami]

What made-up numbers are you using to pretend it's not true?

[kelipso]

I'm not the one making unbelievable statements. Were you one of those people who said there was no inflation at all until the last possible moment?

[jopython]

We lost 6 million manufacturing jobs over the past decade.

[bumby]

Jobs is not the same as production. Many of the jobs are lost due to automation. If you bring manufacturing back to the US you’ll be “hiring” a lot more robuts than humans.

[bandrami]

So? Manufacturing is not a jobs program. The output is what matters.

You might as well say we "de-agriculturized" because we automated farming.

[Balgair]

Um, by picking and choosing what goods need protection in the long term?

Like, we can't make more fish. Avocados take a few years to grow new trees. Steel mills don't just appear in Ohio.

The worst part is that, even if you believe Donny, he's so mercurial with these tariffs that no one is going to give you a loan to do anything about any of this. This Katy Perry doctrine [0] he's established is just poison to any sort of capital investment. You've got no idea if any of these tariffs will make it to Monday, let alone to the time it takes the mortgage on your t-shirt factory to be paid off. And then you've got a new administration in four years and no idea if they will keep that protection for you either. How are you going to plant a whole vineyard and get it profitable in 4 years when grape vines take 7 years to mature to fruit bearing?

There's no point to any of this, even if you believe him.

[0] 'Cause you're hot, then you're cold You're yes, then you're no You're in, then you're out You're up, then you're down You're wrong when it's right It's black, and it's white We fight, we break up We kiss, we make up

[griffzhowl]

Overall I agree, but I'm not sure there's literally no point. American primary producers will likely benefit - people who own mines, oil wells, farms, etc., and some American manufacturers too as long as they source enough of their raw materials from within the US that the price hikes on resources from overseas don't bite them too much. Still an overall loss that will be borne by American consumers, but a small section of the population who are already wealthy will greatly benefit...

[davidw]

The point is, as this Senator explains, not economic, but to gain leverage over companies and countries:

https://bsky.app/profile/chrismurphyct.bsky.social/post/3llu...

"Do _____ and maybe we can cut you some slack on the tariffs"

If there is a point and it's not just absolute stupidity.

[Balgair]

I think he's on to something, but then I come back to Hanlon's Razor: Never assume conspiracy when stupidity will do.

Sure, they might be trying to do this. But I'd give that a ~3% chance.

There is no 'there' there.

They are 'burning down your house to cook a steak.'

The emperor has no clothes.

There are many more ways to say it, but as truly unbelievable as my mind keeps insisting it is, these people are just plain-jane morons.

[davidw]

Fair points. I go back and forth.

[mrguyorama]

I genuinely thought his cabinet was at least competent, they have credentials like they are at least, but then fucking Signal happened and made it obvious what they actually are:

The exact same kind of fail-upwards, born on third thinking they hit a triple, grindset grifter, loser mid-level management nepobabies.

[Balgair]

> The exact same kind of fail-upwards, born on third thinking they hit a triple, grindset grifter, loser mid-level management nepobabies.

Could not have put it better myself.

Welcome back.

[bodiekane]

> people who own mines, oil wells, farms, etc.

Huge swaths of midwestern farmers will go bankrupt if tariffs are imposed. Subsidies and exemptions are being specifically added to prevent the complete collapse of multiple red state economies due to the harm from the tariffs.

Even things like oil and mines aren't guaranteed safe, because of complexities around where refineries are, loss of export market, or weakness of dollar offsetting any nominal gains when looking at actual purchasing power.

[coliveira]

Exactly, tariffs may be a wise way to protect parts of your industry that need protection and investment. The Chinese for example have been using this tactic for decades. But you need to choose which sectors to invest in. The way Trump is doing is nothing more than an instant devaluation of the dollar purchasing power.

[griffzhowl]

The problem is it's economically illiterate. Trade deficits aren't bad in themselves - they can be a sign that you're getting a good deal. Consider the case where a country with low wages exports raw materials to the US, and doesn't buy back as much from the US. This is the situation for lots of poorer countries who are exporting cheap raw materials to the US, and the US gains from these situations. Trump's policy simply makes all these raw materials more expensive.

Another way of reducing trade deficits would be to make Americans so poor that they can't afford to buy things from overseas. Eliminating trade deficits in itself isn't a rational economic goal.

Having said that, American manufacurers on average will likely benefit (though maybe not if their raw materials are too much more expensive), but this benefit will only come at the cost of American consumers, who are denied cheaper options from overseas by the tariffs

[rayiner]

You’re calling Trump “economically illiterate,” but what you’re saying will happen is exactly the motivation of Trump’s policy. He just thinks it’s a good thing rather than a bad thing.

Trump’s bet is that the upsides will be borne disproportionately by his base, while the downsides will be borne disproportionately by Democrats’ laptop-class base. It’s not irrational to think that will be the result.

[apawloski]

How will adding a tax to every single consumer good benefit his base?

[rayiner]

Because the taxes will encourage shifting production to the U.S.

[apawloski]

How much do production workers get paid in China? How will our production goods be affordable at American labor rates? This strategy just makes everything more expensive - nothing cheaper.

[rtkwe]

Exactly and even if it does work to reshore factories (which will take years and we'll just ignore the question of where all the workers for these factories will come from, and that the goods needed for making those factories are also being tariffed) they'll only be competitive in a protected market so they're only really producing for the US market which will be stunted because costs would have inflated through the roof!

[xyzzyz]

Sorry, who is saying that this will make things cheaper? I haven’t seen Trump or Vance argue this.

[_DeadFred_]

What kind of financing has Trump made available so that the average American company (companies of what 5-20 people) can setup multi-hundreds of millions of dollars mining operations, smelters, manufacturing plants? Because it's gonna be a stretch for the average 5-300 person factory around me to vertically integrate into a billion dollars of supply chain infra business.

[ImJamal]

Trump did decent in the rust belt. Many of them have lost their good paying manufacturing jobs. If, and this is a big if, we can bring back manufacturing in the US they can get their jobs back.

[RankingMember]

If I'm company leadership, I'm not doing anything but trying to limit damage while this guy's in office. His tariffs can turn on a dime- his petulance is business poison.

[apawloski]

What is the time scale we are talking about when we talk about this change?

[ImJamal]

GM announced they are going to hire some temporary workers and expand overtime for existing workers before the end of this month.

I'm sure there are more companies, but that is all I've seen so far.

[_DeadFred_]

What plan has Trump put in place to built the infrastructure needed for this? What funding available to businesses? Oh none you say.

[griffzhowl]

I don't think it's his base that will benefit. More the owners of factories, mines, oil wells, etc.

[selimthegrim]

Trump also thinks imports subtract from GDP.

[rtkwe]

> You’re calling Trump “economically illiterate,”

I mean he's gone bankrupt 6 times including managing to bankrupt a casino a business where on average people give you money to get less money in return... He also confuses simple economic terms like equating trade deficits with tariffs.

[Workaccount2]

I was just talking last night about how ironically the things Trump is doing fall not to far from what Bernie bros have dreamed of. Heavy tariffs and no income tax is pretty much the conservative version of liberal hand outs.

[tzs]

What do they expect to happen if the heavy tariffs either move the manufacturing of those products to the US or make the imports expensive enough that consumers switch to domestic manufacturers?

That tanks the revenue from the tariffs, which would make them an ineffective replacement for income tax.

[rtkwe]

Consider actual tariffs? A trade deficit isn't a tariff or trade barrier it's just the natural flow of commerce from them selling more stuff than they buy. They're dressing it up like these countries are charging US imports these crazy tariffs but they're not at all, especially not across the board.

That's imminently doable but would require more work than plugging in 2 numbers from the US trade delegation website so we get this complete lie instead. Trump has had it in his head for ages that trade deficit == tariff (or is lying about that to make his supporters swallow this as the US just fighting back) and it's a completely broken understanding of trade.

[rayiner]

> Consider actual tariffs? A trade deficit isn't a tariff or trade barrier it's just the natural flow of commerce from them selling more stuff than they buy

That’s just defining what a trade deficit is, it doesn’t explain why trade deficits arise. For example, other countries have cheaper labor and laxer environmental regulations. Simply looking at the country’s tariff rates on U.S. goods doesn’t account for the whole picture.

[tremon]

Other countries also have different population numbers. To take a random example, why would e.g. Uruguay (population 3.5M) buy as much from the US (population 100x) as the US is able to buy from them?

Besides, if the trade volume is what determines the tariff, why would any country want to have a trade surplus with the US? The best solution for other countries is to artificially limit their exports, or find more reliable trading partners.

[zuminator]

On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but then you look at say China with a 35x population over Canada yet Canadians don't just buy as much from China as vice-versa, they buy CAD$65 billion more. So I don't think the argument that larger countries necessarily have a deficit against their smaller trading partners holds water.

I do agree that this madness will only encourage other countries to conduct their trade elsewhere.

[rayiner]

> Other countries also have different population numbers. To take a random example, why would e.g. Uruguay (population 3.5M) buy as much from the US (population 100x) as the US is able to buy from them

Because the U.S. can buy from Uruguay only as much as 3.5 million people in that country can produce.

[rtkwe]

First we don't import any where near all of Uruguay's exports, in fact we're only about 8% of their actual exports which should tell you this isn't the reason we buy more from them than they do from us.

Next that's always going to be imbalanced because they produce goods cheaper and can't afford as much as the equivalent chunk of people in the US.

[jethro_tell]

So, we aren’t factoring in natural resources and the different values they have either then?

[nkmnz]

Yeah sure, Europe is absolutely known for their lax environmental regulations…

[scrollaway]

GP said other countries, not "Europe". And Europe does have cheaper labor. Even in western europe you can find a 5x-10x difference in certain salaries especially in white collar industries.

Assume good faith.

[rtkwe]

> cheaper labor and laxer environmental regulations

So we've exported our worst paying, most environmentally damaging industries? I mean the rivers catching fire was probably exciting but I'm not exactly pining to bring that back...

Tariffs can only set those industries up for internal markets, other countries will just continue to buy from the cheaper source so the protected industry has to continue to be protected.

Additionally who's going to work these labor intensive industries? We're already at 4.1% unemployment, there's not vast masses of people waiting for low paying work as seamstresses and one of the other major prongs of the Trump ideology is reducing immigration drastically so we're going to squeezed on that end too.

Finally we've done mass tariffs before and it always ends badly. Remember Smoot-Hawley? it deepened the Great Depression because people thought they could turn to protectionism to prop up and bring industry to the US. It just doesn't work when broadly applied.