[WalterBright]

It's more complicated than that.

For example, the company can raise its prices. How well that works depends on whether there is competition for the company's product. If the competition is also hit by the tariffs, then they're on an even playing field. If the competition is using native parts, then the competitor gets the business.

[iancmceachern]

This is one of the great misconceptions.

There are often no "native" alternatives.

Even the machines that make the chips are nearly all made in one country and then shipped around the world.

The amazing, modern nature of our modern world is built on the collective effort and knowledge of humankind globally.

Globally.

[WalterBright]

There's concern that if all our chips come from one country, they could cut the supply off and make demands. That's called an "embargo".

It's also done to protect local industries, hence the term "protectionism". For example, Canada's large tariffs on American milk are there to protect the local Canadian milk producers.

AFAIK, Trump's tariffs are meant to serve the following purposes:

1. so critical supplies, like chips, will be produced domestically

2. to raise money for the treasury

3. to convince countries that have high tariffs to lower them in exchange for the US to reciprocate in lowering ours

4. to incentivize foreign manufacturers to invest in factories in the US

5. to use them as a negotiating tool for other terms favorable to US interests

These are not crazy things. We'll see how things play out.

[Teever]

What leads you to believe that the implementation of tariffs under this administration was done for the purposes that you have enumerated?

It seems that you're operating under the normally reasonable assumption that these policies were implemented after careful consideration with specific goals in mind. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the people involved in this are doing what they're doing for well-thought out reasons or ones that are meant to benefit America.

[WalterBright]

> What leads you to believe that the implementation of tariffs under this administration was done for the purposes that you have enumerated?

That's what the administration has stated as the goals of them.

For example, many foreign companies have announced plans to invest in creating factories in the US. How that will eventually work out will take some time to see.

> I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the people involved in this are doing what they're doing for well-thought out reasons or ones that are meant to benefit America.

That's a pretty fantastic assumption. I cannot think of a single instance of any President imposing a policy meant to hurt America. Of course, in my opinion, a lot of Presidents have pushed policies that I regard as destructive, but they didn't mean it to be.

[Teever]

You're implicitly assuming three things here:

1. That stated goals reflect real motivations

2. That every president and their administration operates with a coherent, disciplined strategy

3. That competence can be assumed by default.

Unfortunately these assumptions simply don't match anything we've seen from this administration.

There's a difference between good intentions, stated intentions, and effective execution of policy and there's nothing to indicate that these things are aligned here.

There's also nothing to indicate that the American democratic process guarantees a President who always has Americas best interests in mind and there's nothing to indicate that every person who has filled that roll has had that as their primary motivation.

[realo]

From my non US-ian vantage point, it really looks like the current US administration is really trying hard to help Putin as much as it can to destroy the USA we used to know and like.

And the rest of the world as well, as collateral damage.

[thepryz]

Agreed. Tariffs should be used like a scalpel, precise and targeting very specific things to encourage development or even the playing field. The tariffs that have been implemented so far are more like a sledge hammer, used to extort and intimidate.

[rootusrootus]

> 2. to raise money for the treasury

And admitting that is why SCOTUS will kill them. Raising money for the treasury is Congress' job, not the executive's.

[simonh]

They’re not crazy goals, but the way these tariffs are being implemented does not further most of them.

3 and 5 are undermined by the fact that even nations with positive trade surpluses with the US, and countries like Japan with Trump first term negotiated trade treaties (which for Japan included major concessions already) are being hit with these tariffs.

1 and 4 are a problem because many of the inputs into building out US manufacturing capacity come from abroad and are hit by tariffs. Secondly many of the manufacturing inputs into making products in these factories would come from abroad and be tariffed, unless those supplies are bootstrapped domestically first but there is no policy to ensure this. Thirdly as soon as the tariffs go away, these factories would become uneconomical, so they are a gamble on that not happening in the lifetime of the factories.

Finally, who’s going to build and operate this huge new manufacturing sector? Infrastructure construction relies heavily on immigrant labour that’s being driven out, so does actual manufacturing, and there are no hordes of unemployed Americans lining up for manufacturing jobs. It’s addressing a problem that largely doesn’t exist, to build out less efficient more expensive ways to make stuff, in a way that can’t work anyway.

Manufacturing investment surged in the last few years with the introduction of the CHIPS and Inflation Reduction acts. It’s going to be hard to disentangle the continuing effects of that from the effects of the Tariffs, but it’s hard to see how the Tariffs can have a positive effect.

[WalterBright]

> but it’s hard to see how the Tariffs can have a positive effect.

Any change in policy will make things worse before they get better. For example, if you have surgery to remove a tumor, you'll endure a fair amount of pain and misery before getting better.

[realo]

I am Canadian. Since the USA started their economic war with Canada, I changed some habits, like my other fellow canadians.

1) Stopped buying USA wine totally

2) Canceled our plans for vacations in the USA

3) Stopped buying USA orange (or any citrus) juice

4) Carefully check the provenance of any fruit or vegetable in the supermarket and actively avoid anything that comes from the USA

... and the list goes on.

I am not alone!

How do those immediate and tangible consequences serve the interests of the USA producers and companies affected, exactly?

[DaSHacka]

A bunch of easily psyopped morons aren't a large enough majority of the general consumer populace to be worth considering. For every 1 of someone like you, there's 50 people who blindly grab the cheapest product off the shelf that gets the job done.

The presence of a few nationalistic morons doesn't wholly negate the goals mentioned by GP, and in fact, may be more important than ever.

[iancmceachern]

There is no way Taiwan would ever embargo the US re:chips.

Making and shipping chips all over the world is what keeps Taiwan safe. They would never jeopardize that.

[DaSHacka]

What happens when China finally decides to take back what they believe is 'rightfully theirs' and stops it for them? It's not exactly a position you want to be in.

[iancmceachern]

The entire rest of the world defends them.

[DaSHacka]

That's certainly an optimistic outlook

[AnthonyMouse]

> If the competition is also hit by the tariffs, then they're on an even playing field.

That assumes the customers are price insensitive. If you're making vintage parts for hobbyists and archivists, maybe they're not; maybe they don't get a raise just because the price went up and your thing is the thing they cut out of the budget when it all won't fit anymore.