|
|
|
|
|
|
by simonh
295 days ago
|
|
|
Unfortunately it’s more complicated than that. Take car manufacturing in the US. The country doesn’t make enough steel, copper, etc to supply the industry, so domestic production depends on tariffed imports of these and various specialist components. Plus many parts cross the borders to and from Canada and Mexico for various stages of the manufacturing and testing process, incurring a tariff every time. This means domestic cars and many other goods will get a tariff markup on a large proportion of their parts anyway. In many cases it will be cheaper or roughly equivalent to pay a single tariff on a finished product from abroad. In theory it should be possible to bring in staged tarrifs, and use tax breaks and subsidies on on-shore necessary domestic production over time to transition the industry, but that’s not happening and there’s no sign it will happen. The administration doesn’t seem to be aware this is even an option. |
|
|
No, it's not. The US making not enough steel is not an immutable law of the universe. It is a result of the same kind of industrial decline which tariffs would reverse by making it more economic to produce steel locally.
It only wouldn't work on products which the US has no fundamental ability to make like bananas (which yes, Trump did...).
>This means domestic cars and many other goods will get a tariff markup
Yeah, that's kind of how tariffs work - there's always a markup.
>In many cases it will be cheaper or roughly equivalent to pay a single tariff on a finished product from abroad.
That depends entirely on how you structure your tariffs. If it is the case you've structured them incredibly poorly.
>In theory it should be possible to bring in staged tarrifs, and use tax breaks and subsidies on on-shore necessary domestic production over time to transition the industry, but that’s not happening
I believe I covered that when I said that the tariffs were "being wielded with the skill and grace of a crack addled ferret".