Hacker News Reader

Comment by YesThatTom2 | Hacker News Reader

NO!! Don't you understand??

Yes, we'll suffer for 50 years, BUT in that time the supply chain will be created in the U.S. and our grandkids and their children will be able to benefit from having all that industry in the U.S. instead of China.

And if I'm wrong, I won't be alive to be able to say I'm sorry to my grandkids who are now living in a barren wasteland.

The best solutions are the ones you won't be around to see fail.

By the way... this strategy will work as long as the entire rest of the world doesn't figure it out, keep their tariffs low, and have the supply chain move to them instead. So PLEASE don't let anyone in the EU, Africa, South America, Canada, Central America, or Indonesia see this comment! We only have to keep this secret for another 49.9 years!

P.S. I'm not joking. That's is the strategy he's following.

View on HN

The strategy he’s following is to throw bones to his base and make the people of the country pick up the tab. If you’re applying an economic lens here, you’re solving the wrong problem.

This. If anyone doesn't understand why ljw1001's comment is the correct interpretation, I highly recommend Beuno do Mesquita and Smith's "The Dictator's Handbook".

https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-...

Is the cover for "The Innovators" a rip-off of this cover on purpose, or by coincidence?

https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Geniuses-Revolution-Isaacs...

Adapted by CGP Grey for people who don't read:

The Rules for Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

IMHO, the reason is not really to protect US manufacturers. It is about long-running negative balance of trade between US and the rest of the world.

Protectionism rhetoric is a sugar-coat for Americans who will have to foot the bill by paying more for imported goods, but honestly, who else should?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Balance_of_trade

But isn't the reason these products are made in China because it's inherently both more efficient and cost-effective?

You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries?

And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway?

> And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway?

I would assume no. If you see the packaging of almost-everything (apart from food/drinks), chances are that they are made in China (and designed in X-Y-Z country).

I think you might be right. Cars, computers, TVs seem to be big imports. But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries.

But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries.

We have domestic rare earth metal resources. Right now, we don't mine it here, because it's too expensive to get rid of the resulting Thorium. If there was only a market for that stuff...

The USA doesn’t mine it because refining it is economically not competitive compared to Chinese producers who give a damn about pollution laws.

Not sure if Trump and his appointees do either

Trump is just one president against a well-established Nixonian institution. He might be able to do damage, but we won't get to China-level pollution in just one term.

>You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries?

In this case yes. This is competition between nation-states we're talking about, viewing the entire relationship through the narrow lens of economic efficiency is missing the forest for one specific tree.

So then these are protectionist policies and not in the spirit of pure capitalism. And these policies are in place for "the good of the nation" as such any policy good for the nation is supposed to be a rational action notwithstanding the effects of unintended or retaliatory consequences. And lastly, we're to "trust" a single man's unilateral tariff power that all will be well.

Is that all correct?

And viewing "this" through the extremely more narrow 19th century lens of competition between nation states completely ignores the entirety of 20th century economic and geopolitical thinking.

There's no need to bring mercantilism into "this". If you go to France, for example, most people there buy nicer clothes but less often than consumers do in the US so there is a large industry of artisans whose jobs don't depend on the global competitive landscape. Unlike in the US, these artisans make products that almost everyone has access to instead of catering to the rich/super rich. It's not a question of efficiency but desire to support local industries with livable wages - an efficiency of regional wealth distribution if you will. In this sense, France is competing for the money that the industry generates with other nation states but it's not a zero-sum game where France's gain is China's loss.

Unfortunately, American consumers are unwilling to pay the higher prices such a culture requires so instead economic nationalists try to push the mercantilist bullshit in the name of protecting domestic industries and national security.

This is a very confusing comment.

What products are "inherently more efficient and cost-effective" in China?

I think it's mostly that raw materials and labor are likely cheaper in China.

It's also cheaper for us not having to deal with waste and pollution. (Although i understand that it's ultimately everyone's problem)

> You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries?

Not "other countries", just China.

Now, I'm not an us citizen and I don't like Mr Trump particularly, but consider the following: when you say "less efficient" what are you referring to? Is it technology? USA are certainly not behind China on technology. So what is missing to the equation? It's labor. China is so "efficient" because of its ultra-capitalist-masked-as-communist regime. Also, you're not considering environmental impact (that the US, while not excelling at this, actually do consider).

All this (carelessness of environmental impact and no freedom of thought) are basically unfair competition and Donald Trump is right on this initiative.

As a left-leaning person I just cannot understand how is it even possible to accept as the norm the fact that a totalitarian regime like China's has got such a nice treatment so far.

My 2¢

> Also, you're not considering environmental impact (that the US, while not excelling at this, actually do consider).

The US is a bigger polluter (per capita) than China. The current administration at the EPA seems to view environmental considerations as hindrances to industry competitiveness.

That isn’t true. The USA is a bigger producer of carbon per capita, but not pollution, which is defined very differently. This is why hebei cities have many AQI days above a normal 500 yet everyone freaks out whenever AQI in the states breaks 100 during a forest fire.

The EPA has never really bothered that regulate carbon, but they come down hard on the kind of air, water, and soil pollution that exists in China.

Should the USA do more about carbon? Ya, global warming sucks. But the EPA has solved the pollution problem that it was originally envisioned to solve.

The US is a bigger per-capita polluter only because the average Chinese "capita" can't afford to (or otherwise doesn't for some other reason, but knowing Chinese living conditions, I'd bet affordability is the main factor) do/buy/use nearly as many pollution-causing things as the average American "capita".

As a specific example, the US is (according to Wikipedia at least) second only to San Marino in vehicles per capita (910 for every 1000 people). China is in 73rd place, with a much more modest 154. Electricity consumption is similarly different, with the US' per-capita electricity consumption being triple that of China's (despite China having almost double the total electricity consumption of the US).

If the average Chinese had the same purchasing power as the average American, I can guarantee that China's per-capita pollution would skyrocket to beyond US levels.

> Not "other countries", just China.

It's not just China. There's also Mexico, Canada, Europe ... I don't know exactly the current state of affairs but Trump certainly doesn't punish China because of its bad working conditions.

I agree with the principle of bringing local jobs back, bolster our own industries to be more self-sufficient, however I think it is being done in the most disruptive and unstabalizing way possible. We should be going for a firm but gentle push, instead of swinging a sledgehammer around our heads and hoping we don't break the wrong skulls.

To compete with China 25% tariffs are nothing. We're talking about goods costing a fraction of what is made in the western world (if they're still made at all). In the end only common people will be pissed because their full-Chinese cellphone costs $250 instead of $200 compared to the half-Chinese one which still costs $600, and not a single job will be created. To me that's pure propaganda.

The irony is that to compete with China it would be also necessary a huge low cost workforce the US alone cannot provide; too bad Trump just built a wall and enacted laws to keep a good part of that workforce unavailable for hire.

Just wondering, but what does a "firm but gentle push" look like that brings "back" local jobs? "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way to solve the issues facing those that are losing jobs in declining domestic industries. It's just the easiest for a (probably) blue-collar worker to engage with and the easiest for a politician to sell, even if it's pure fantasy.

> "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way

if so, what is the right way?

Workers need new jobs, most likely in new industries. That's how it's always worked.

But a coal miner learning a new skill/new skills is a lot harder for him than just getting his old coal mining job back... Unfortunately one of those (well maybe both of them) isn't going to happen.

This is just as true for steel manufacturing.

But is this supposed to go on ad infinitum ? What if at some point the new jobs created are worse than the jobs that were lost ? Does everyone in the US need to have a so-called service job or else be an information worker ? And to what end l so that cheaper items can result in more conspicuous consumption to fuel the accumulation of wealth by those who are lucky enough to own stock and the companies that are profiting from this. I don't know if there is some kind of steady state sustainable economy where enough people have meaningful productive outlets (aka jobs w/o coercive bosses) and we as humans are not extracting or destroying more of the non-human planetary resources than can easily be renewed. But that would seem to be a better goal than whatever the meaningless metric of the GDP in and of itself.

> But is this supposed to go on ad infinitum?

Yes... That's how technological progress works? Countless millions of jobs were lost during the Industrial Revolution, but in there place were new jobs often requiring new (and more) skills. The pace of that turnover has been increasing since the invention of the wheel, one problem now is that we've crossed a threshold where the rate of change is no longer intergenerational but intragenerational.

> I don't know if there is some kind of steady state sustainable economy where enough people have meaningful productive outlets (aka jobs w/o coercive bosses) and we as humans are not extracting or destroying more of the non-human planetary resources than can easily be renewed.

This doesn't exist and has never existed; it's only that the rate of change has come to a point where it's now easily perceived (and financially felt). I would even argue it will never, and should never exist. Should we lessen the impact that this rate of change can have on people's lives? Yes, with better access to social services and education. Should we lessen the impact that the global economy has on the environment? Yes. Should we strive towards some steady, and therefore stagnant, equilibrium? No, absolutely not.

Anyway, the point is that every small bit of technological progress fundamentally changes the economy and that inevitably changes what jobs are needed. Jobs are created and destroyed, it's the nature of progress.

I would argue that the notion of infinite growth through technological progress is a fallacy based upon an incomplete set of data and a projection of a limited time sphere into the future. When the industrial "revolution" started the world was a much less exploited place. Now I'm not going to argue that iteration and improvement are bad or that innovation, research and pondering fundamental questions through rigorous scientific analysis are bad but I also don't think that we need a consumer driven society to fuel these things. I suspect that we fell into a certain social pattern as a species (let's call it capitalism) and that many of the ideas we now take as given, that w/o economic growth there is "stagnation" are simply one interpretation of the data through a heavily confirmation biased lens.

Many human and non-human lives have been sacrificed at the altar of the "cult of progress" and I don't think we should be so willing to think because something has happened for the last 100-200 years (rapid technological change and exponential exploitation of natural resources) that it can go on forever.

Look, my point was not that we "need a consumer driven society" though I think history has shown it to be extremely effective. My point was that, regardless of the economic system, with technological progress comes fundamental changes to the state of the economy. New jobs are created and inefficient/unneeded jobs are destroyed, that's true actually by definition. "Bringing back jobs" runs completely counter to those changes in the economy and therefore technological progress.

People seriously overestimate the level of intent in Trump's decisions. The people who advise him might be more mindful but he certainly is not.

> Canada

too late.

>our grandkids and their children will be able to benefit from having all that industry in the U.S. instead of China.

When those products were made here, it led to toxic chemical plumes and widespread soil contamination around the factories that produced semiconductors. [1]

>I'm sorry to my grandkids who are now living in a barren wasteland.

Trichloroethylene contamination produces heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. You are advocating to literally produce a toxic wasteland. [2]

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene#Physiologica...

So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. The USA has more enforcement over these kind of things. If toxic pollution is your only concern, yes it is better to have those industries in USA.

>So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer.

Show me where I said that. Of course not. You seem to be ok with every country that hopes to participate in the technological economy having their own contaminated region.

Step back for a second. Think of the earth like a single-unit closed system. Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two?

Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to.

You're also making the argument that somehow we'd have the political will to both institute tariffs that protect the industry AND police those industries when they harm our environment. Guess what buddy, those are contradictory ideals. The USA isn't some magical place where we can defy these incentives.

Your assertion that we'd be better at managing waste here is especially fantastical considering the present EPA chairman. Scott Pruitt has undermined the protection of our environment at every opportunity. [1]

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemical...

> Show me where I said that

Most Chinese people lack the freedom to live and work where they choose. Most Americans have that freedom.

So if it is handled here in the US then not only will there be less pollution but far fewer kids would be impacted.

If you really cared about Chinese people you'd let them in when they asked to immigrate here. That's enough conflating the protection of toxic industry with humanitarian concern.

Stop pretending. Learn your history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

> If you really cared about Chinese people you'd let them in when they asked to immigrate here.

No I wouldn't. That makes no sense at all.

You are the person who brought up kids dying. Either you care 10x more about American kids than Chinese kids or your original argument is garbage.

I don't mind if you do care 10x more about American kids - it's a byproduct of our nationalist culture.

Actually OP brought up leaving kids a better world then he inherited.

The unnecessary, protectionist subsidization and expansion of toxic waste generating industries leaves ALL kids worse off.

> If you really cared about Chinese people you'd let them in when they asked to immigrate here.

this seems to have an a lot packed in. it's not clear how advocating the departure of a minuscule amount of people from china is "helping chinese people" or otherwise demonstrating "care for chinese people".

> Stop pretending. Learn your history. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

this seems to be getting really off the rails. this was repealed in the 40s. what's the relevance?

It was the first of any American immigration laws to mention any nationality by name. The laws that replaced it subject countries like China to quotas that continue to unfairly restrict migration.

These restrictive laws have roots in the same petty nationalism that fuels protectionist subsudies.

These laws prevent kids - the kids that you claim to care about - from having a better future elsewhere.

> Show me where I said that.

it seems like a logical implication, unless you're also entertaining the idea of production ending altogether.

> Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two?

i'm not sure, would 195 be better, or have some advantages? will all of these 'regions' be identical?

> Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to.

and you advocating that china be the location of choice for toxic waste will surely result in something different?

You’re shielding industrial chip manufacturers by using Chinese kids.

Petty nationalism will ruin this world. If every country needs its own silicon manufacturing facilities to participate in the tech economy either you’re advocating cutting most people off from the wealth it generates or your advocating for the propagation of toxic manufacturing to every state.

Both positions hurt kids. Hope you can sleep at night.

it seems to be that there's far too much packed into your statements for me to see a "think of the children" expression as anything but a baseless or perhaps even unethical rhetorical appeal to emotion.

from what i can discern of your position, i would estimate that your views are harmful. i can sleep fine not agreeing with you.

> the supply chain will be created in the U.S.

Metric or Imperial?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com