| ▲ | stevenwoo 15 days ago | |||||||
The closing statement was a more cogent strategy for building manufacturing in the USA (from a tabletop gaming person!) than anything we’ve heard from those in charge in 2025. | ||||||||
| ▲ | add-sub-mul-div 15 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
This is why they distract you with pronouns. https://www.ft.com/content/b1079606-5543-4fc5-acae-2c6c84b3a... https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2184 https://www.investopedia.com/biden-s-parting-gift-to-small-b... https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statement... https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/biden-... https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration... | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | energy123 15 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
It's giving too much. The US should not manufacture games, whether by subsidy or tariff. Full autarky is bad policy for the US. What it does get right though is policy certainty is important. Tariffs won't bring back much manufacturing if capital thinks that they're going to be revoked, either by congress/courts or by the next administration. | ||||||||
| ▲ | gamblor956 14 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
It really isn't. The U.S. can't "reward" local manufacturing (through subsidies, etc.) enough to offset the absolutely massive subsidies that China gives out like candy. (See, e.g., what China has done in the solar panel and steel spaces. Conservative estimates place the value of Chinese subsidies in those two markets alone at nearly $1 trillion dollars over the past decade.) The point of tariffs is to eliminate the financial benefit of using lower-cost foreign providers for sourcing products for local sale. The problem with the Trump tariffs are not that they exist, but that they are being thrown about without any thought into who or what should be subject to tariffs. | ||||||||
| ||||||||