Hacker News Reader

Comment by facile3232 | Hacker News Reader

> They have both positive and negative consequences.

They have zero positive consequences for anyone but manufacturers.

They don’t even necessarily have positive benefits for manufacturers unless they somehow have a supply chain that exists only in the US all the way down. The automakers are against tariffs, for example.

This may kill more manufacturing than it creates.

That's why you implement them reciprocally, to force anyone else implementing them to reduce theirs. Their problem is that the method they used to identify the tariff levels was, generously, crude. And also that it was implemented too sharply.

However, as a political tactic, the sharp implementation gives them breathing room to re-calibrate before the midterms. That comes at a real GDP cost, though.

Retaliatory tariffs are just dumb. They're literally a tax on your own citizens.

The only reason to implement them is to protect local manufacturing, which is usually a bad thing in the long run (they just become less competitive)

Not retaliatory, reciprocal. Retaliatory tariffs are dumb. Reciprocal tariffs are the Nash equilibrium. Whether or not these particular tariffs are in fact reciprocal is something we could debate, though. At best they are a very crude approximation of reciprocal tariffs.

> Not retaliatory, reciprocal

Since we are diving into language semantics, these are _arbitrary_ tariffs that have been shat out via a "formula" which is being fed "how much stuff they sell us" as its input.

trump said "punish everyone who we spend more money with, barring our favourites" and they gave him a set of options. He chose the one he liked the best. No he didn't read any impact assessments, if they were made. He went by gut instinct.

Its just a punt. There is no greater game plan. its just a man making policy by vibe.

What makes them arbitrary? there is no really plan to test if they are going to work, or at what point they need to be adjusted. He will keep them until he sees something on twitter/truth social that makes him reconsider.

Yes, they are badly implemented, I agree. He is calling them reciprocal tariffs though, which implies he will lower them as they lower theirs. I don't think he's chosen a good way of estimating theirs, and so I don't think it's a particularly good policy, but reciprocal tariffs in principle are a good idea.

Even though his first pass crude approximation is stupid, it's really how other countries react, and how he reacts to them that will determine whether they behave like reciprocal tariffs or not.

There is a baked-in plan to test if they're going to work: they are formulaic, based on the trade deficit. Supposing that deficit falls, they will automaticlaly readjust downwards. I don't think the trade deficit (particularly restricted to goods, as they did it) is a good proxy for that, but it's also not completely untethered from reality.

> There is a baked-in plan to test if they're going to work

I really dont think there is a plan. Trump says he wants tariffs, this is what he got. Why would he adjust them, unless there is an upside for him? is he going to remember to re-evaluate them? does the department that generates the stats even exist any more?

I find it interesting that you are downvoted and yet nobody have a reason why you're wrong. Even the answer you get seems to agree with you.

I feel like that's not true (really, zero positives? never? that would mean a whole lot of people is patently stupid), but I'd like to base my opinions on facts, not feelings.

Reagan summed it up.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9C5Jig7XCw8&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5t...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com