| |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I do not know why anyone would bet that the executive order defined tariffs would stay. It was and still clear as a day that Trump uses them to force people to the negotiation table. Obviously, negotiated deal may look different. Regardless, tariffs as an instrument have their merit with Trump or without Trump. Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around it. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > do not know why anyone would bet that the executive order defined tariffs would stay If nobody bets on the tariffs staying then manufacturing doesn’t come back. The restoring of manufacturing is the bet. > US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back Sure. These tariffs don’t do that. | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Sure. These tariffs don’t do that. How do you know? Are you from the future? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Are you from the future? …we are currently in the future of the previous tariffs. Also, come on, you’re yourself arguing these tariffs aren’t worth betting on. What do you think investing in a factory is? | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > …we are currently in the future of the previous tariffs. Which ones? > Also, come on, you’re yourself arguing these tariffs aren’t worth betting on. What do you think investing in a factory is? I can’t bet on negotiation tactic, only on the outcomes and formal agreements. As soon as those would be finalized we would know. Now we do not know how the trade policy would look like. I would assume that investment banker knows the difference. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Which ones? Liberation Day. > can’t bet on negotiation tactic, only on the outcomes and formal agreements How about money actually invested [1][2]. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/C307RX1Q020SBEA [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/C307RX1Q020SBEA | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Liberation Day. From four months ago? | | |
| ▲ | sjsdaiuasgdia 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I can't tell which of these you meant - "From four months ago? That's way too short a time for any tariff impacts to show up." vs "From four months ago? That's ancient history, it doesn't matter." If it's the first, the link the other person provided shows a dip in manufacturing facility investment over the last 2 quarters. Maybe there will come a future point of stability where investors can feel confident, maybe not. Trump seems willing to use tariffs as a weapon for any disagreement with other countries, not just trade imbalances. There's little guarantee any trade agreement will be honored by the administration. If it's the second, well, that's the problem. The tariff landscape has been in constant flux over the last several months [0,1,2]. You don't build a factory overnight. You want to understand what your supply chains and costs look like and have some confidence in what they'll look like by the time the factory is ready to start producing. There remains little guarantee that the landscape won't continue to change, and Trump's weaponizing of tariffs is part of that. [0] https://e3.365dm.com/25/04/1600x900/skynews-trump-tariffs_68... [1] https://news.ucr.edu/sites/default/files/styles/scale_825/pu... [2] https://www.crugroup.com/globalassets/campaigns/commodity-ma... | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > From four months ago? That is when that was. Also the ones from six months ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around it. Strategically, it needed to keep manufacturing. It is too late now. Its labor and capital is already fully deployed towards innovation. Innovation that is now realizing that it is being stifled without a local manufacturing base, granted, but at this point pulling labor and capital away from innovation in order to build a manufacturing base again will only stifle it further as the rest of the world, which is quickly closing the innovation gap, keeps moving forward. The US cannot afford to see that happen. So, in order to save face, what the tariffs will end up doing is open the doors for foreign capital and labor to flood into the US instead. While that will put factories in eye's view, it does not "bring back manufacturing" or resolve the strategic need. It merely lets what was strategically trying to be defended against inside the house, which is an even worse position. | |
| ▲ | gambiting 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >>Regardless, tariffs as an instrument have their merit with Trump or without Trump. Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around it. Well no. Not really. Not for everything anyway. Some things like electronics - sure, but it's a matter of national security not economy - it doesn't have to make financial sense, it just has to exist so that the country can have that ability no matter what happens. As a simple(and really oversimplified) example - let's say that tariffs force clothes manufacturers to bring tshirt making back to the States. The $5 T-Shirt now costs $30 due to tarrifs. So ok, someone makes a factory in US because now it makes sense, employs american workers, pays them good wage - ok, now they make t-shirts cost $20 because they are made domestically. Cool - that's great, but now the rest of the world still buys $5 tshirts, while Americans buy $20 ones that can't even be exported anywhere because why would anyone buy them if they have cheaper alternatives. All you've done is you increased the cost of your products to the american consumers. Some can argue - ok, that doesn't matter, what matters is that manufacturing is now back in the states and american people have employment. And sure, there is merit to that argument - but it reminds me of how my own country used to work under communist rule, people would go "comrade party leader, people have no jobs", "ok, we'll build a factory here so you can have jobs". Can the factory make anything that is actually worth making? Doesn't matter, what matters is that people got jobs and "manufacturing is happening here" - for an economy based on capitalist principles, that sounds like a disaster for US. But hey, what do I know. Just an external observer. | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Well no. Not really. Not for everything anyway. So, you and I are in agreement that for some things it makes sense, right? Both strategically, and economically. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | For some things, it might make sense. Across the board tarrifs like this current administration is doing them is just idiocy. | |
| ▲ | sethammons 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nearly every economist agrees with targeted and strategic tariffs. Nearly every economist disagrees with blanket tariffs. They think this for reasons. Historic ones. Logical ones. Modeled ones. Do some basic research. Talk to an AI. This is not advanced material. |
|
|
|
|
