Holman wrote: Thu Apr 03, 2025 7:18 pm
I just don't understand Trump's theory that tariffs will somehow bring back American manufacturing. I am not an economist but...
1) Won't it take quite a long time to (re)build manufacturing infrastructure in the US? Industrial-scale factories take years to build, and the capital behind them has to be certain that they will be long-term and profitable.
2) The reason so many jobs have been moved overseas (by their corporate owners, not by foreigners "stealing" them) is that many foreign workers are willing to accept wages lower than Americans would tolerate. How could neo-domestic manufacturing function without massive price hikes if Americans won't take the jobs without reasonable wages?
3) If the scheme is actually successful, and imports are replaced by domestic production, doesn't that mean that tariffs eventually dwindle to nothing? Aren't tariffs as a revenue source essentially self-evaporating? What happens then?
I think I do know the answer to these questions. How hard would it be for the media to actually get this news out there?
The current tariffs as imposed by the Trump administration indeed make little sense. That's not to say tariffs and protectionism is always a bad idea, and there is a kernel of truth as to how the effects of free trade have been devastating to industrial towns throughout the western world. Britain, for example, though it applies to many european countries, to this day have many former industrial towns who still haven't been able to shift their economy away from industry into services or other sectors, and are stuck with low income, low education and high unemployment. There radicalism grows.
1. If there are empty factories, mills and the like that could become profitable in the short term if only they could find domestic buyers, targeted tariffs could make sense. George W Bush tried to impose 25% steel tariffs to boost domestic steel production, but was met with reciprocal tariffs from EU among other places and rescinded them. These jobs would be low-paying and would probably be a detriment to the overall US economy (as steel prices would increase, risking inflation) but might boost local economies of poor and struggling communities in the rust belt. As it is, many working-class folks in Europe as well as US feel left behind by globalist free trade, and rightly so, so it's not as irrational as it may seem for them to cheer for targeted tariffs.
But the way in which Trump is going about it, slapping general tariffs to try to bully trade partners is all wrong. If anything, he should have approached the international community with humility, saying "we have struggling working-class communities in America whom we want to support, which is why we're imposing targeted tariffs on steel in order to support those who want to open closed steel mills in Michigan. How can we cooperate with you, our beautiful allies in the EU, to minimize the damaging effects these tariffs will have on our shared economies?" and work out some kind deal. That might even have worked to the degree where EU countries started to talk about the negative effects free trade has had on struggling European communities, and leaders may even have begun to follow American leadership in this endeavour. It's a wasted opportunity, and it's a real shame because there are real issues with international capitalism and free trade the way it's set up currently.
2. Yes, the prices of those products would increase, risking inflation. Compared to Europe, consumer goods are relatively cheap in the US compared to average purchasing power, while public services are overpriced (healthcare and education). If consumer goods increase in price, which they will with these general Trump tariffs, US economy will take a massive hit.
But tell that to the steel workers who were laid off and can't find a new job.
3. Yes, and that's if the tariffs are successful. You shouldn't do tariffs to generate revenue per se, it's functionally a subsidy (a cost, an investment risk of sort).