Hacker News Reader

Comment by forapurpose | Hacker News Reader

Reading HN, you'd think the Dems support almost everything Trump does.

But the issue is what is the U.S., via President Trump, actually doing, not what is one Senator talking about. My impression is that Trump is pushing tariffs in order to increase nationalism through conflict, i.e., to maximize divides at national borders. It's the same reason he's creating problems for immigrants, including legal ones. (I know HN doesn't like politics, but sometimes politics is factually part of the issue; if HN didn't like IP, we couldn't just omit it from a discussion of routing without being dishonest about what was going on.)

Warren's comment isn't evidence that it's necessary, or evidence of anything but her opinion. Is there any evidence, such as a broadly accepted economic analysis, that it's 'necessary'? That there is a problem? What problem? How are tariffs the best way to solve the problem?

View on HN

>My impression is that Trump is pushing tariffs in order to increase nationalism through conflict

That’s not my impression. I perceive the tariffs as a response to the yawning trade deficit between China and the U.S., as well as China’s state-sponsored IP theft from U.s. companies, currency manipulation, technology transfer requirements for foreign companies, Party cell embedding requirements [0], and various other protectionist policies.

As for evidence of necessity: the U.S.-China trade gap is hundreds of billions of dollars, on top of all that other stuff.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/command-an...

>yawning trade deficit between China and the U.S.

But why does a trade deficit between two specific economies (even the largest ones) mean anything in and of itself? And how would punitive tariffs, which are sure to be responded to in kind, help citizens of the US? If we have a trade deficit with a country, meaning we take in more of their goods than they take in of ours, how is this a good idea?

I find it helpful in our current political climate to start by asking, "What if this isn't a completely new paradigm 4D game of political chess but rather idiots doing dumb things?" Given we have seen this particular game played hundreds of times in the past by similarly economically-illiterate ideologues, assuming a different result this time because It's the Future seems hopelessly naive.

We have to assume at some time that Economics is something more people think they can easily understand but in reality they asolutely do not. Cue the "Trade deficits? Huh that sounds bad". What about trillion dollars Budget deficit? "Lower taxes oh yeah so good" <Sound of brain frying>

> Given we have seen this particular game played hundreds of times in the past by similarly economically-illiterate ideologues

what particularly are you referencing here? The U.S. can impose tariffs because no one is capable of a state funded coupe against us due to our military strength. If you are referencing the 'failed' protectionism in Latin America in the 70s, it never really had time to run its course before clandestine intervention.

Protectionism has a long history and trade is a very well-studied issue in economics. The research says there is no doubt that free trade creates greater aggregate economic benefits, generally speaking, and the incredible performance of the world economy over the last few decades bears that out.

Just as a small note: the EU imposed tariffs on Chinese steel based on WTO policy violations. The problem with trump tariffs is more one of method than anything else.

The endless campaign to create equivalency between Trump's actions and (someone else who is respected) is incredible in its ambition. Trump must be hardly distinguishable from anyone else, based on HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com