Hacker News Reader

Comment by lumb63 | Hacker News Reader

Everyone is quick to deride this move as stupid. I don’t disagree that there are downsides to the approach, but there is a set of very real national problems that this might address.

For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well? Increased foreign competition pulls down domestic wages; telling people that they should shut up and be okay with that because they can get cheaper goods isn’t palatable to a lot of people facing the negatives of globalization. Globalization has played a big role in creating the massive income inequality in our country; it seems like we should fix that.

There really are structural challenges to onshoring production due to strength of the dollar due to its reserve currency status; our society as such is biased heavily toward importing goods rather than exporting goods. This is a real challenge that needs to be addressed as well.

Our national debt is not sustainable either. Either we pay it down some, or we inflate it away; these are the two ways it goes away, ignoring the option of a world-shattering default on the debt. Tariffs accomplish both of those, raising money at the same time as raising cost of goods and weakening the dollar.

So, to anyone who disagrees with these measures, but agrees that these are issues we ought to solve, what would you propose?

View on HN

> Globalization has played a big role in creating the massive income inequality in our country; it seems like we should fix that.

Wouldn't restoring the prior taxes to those with highest incomes, and adding a proper capital gains tax, address this directly? As I've started to accumulate small amounts of wealth I've realized, my capital gains are taxed lower than my income; when I sell my house, I get up to 500k of gains tax free. If I backdoor a Roth IRA, I get tax free gains there too. etc. Add additional taxes to investment properties, in the form of property taxes could be one approach as well - I personally know of one investor that owns at least 20 (SFH) properties for example. So I'd propose starting there, as it targets both the wealth gap as well as hits those who can most afford it directly.

> Tariffs accomplish both of those, raising money at the same time as raising cost of goods and weakening the dollar.

If tariffs significantly reduce demand, or worse cause a recession, they will have the opposite effect. It would take time to sort out the full impact. But AFAIK, the tax cuts are proposed to be pushed through immediately, without firm corresponding spending reductions nor time to sort out the impact of the tariffs; similarly the tariffs are being implemented in what seems like a haphazard way, with everyone unsure of what they would / will be, how much, etc.

In general, I think if the plan were modest tax increases, esp. around capital gains policy and targeting SFH as investments, (very) modest tariffs, and well executed spending cuts, nobody would be in uproar. I will be pleasantly surprised if the current plan ends well, but it certainly feels as though only those steeped deeply in ideology are supportive of them at the present moment, and I think that is probably telling.

You can tax whoever you want as much as you want but the problem is the industries from the past are no longer in this country.

This was actually the real cause of the collapse of Zimbabwe. The tax base disappeared. People think it's just because they printed into oblivion but that's not the full picture.

No, but we have new ones.

Sure, but the industries of the future arguably are. At least for now.

It's not like money isn't being made in the US today.

Regulations kill any and all profit on physical goods made in the US. It was more important to lift China out of poverty (Communism), kill a whole class worth of jobs and enact regulations to stifle any innovation because it’s okay if China pollutes, just not the US. It’s okay to buy goods from mega polluter China shipped on boats running on crude oil, instead of supporting Americans and American companies.

As you are about to find out with a president who is busy removing as many regulations as possible, consumer/worker/health/environment-protecting regulations are not the reason why physical goods are not made in the US anymore.

Manufacturing in the US had been shooting up

>Manufacturing output in the United States is at an all-time high as of 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...

The vast majority of industries from the past are now highly automated and would be made even more so if the alternative were paying US-scale living wages to the employees.

So you bring the factories back to the US, but 95% of the created jobs are for robots.

Problem solved...?

100% this, in 2010 I briefly worked for a company that built assembly lines in the US and number one requirement for every client was reducing the number of workers needed. Almost every project going at the time reduced the number of workers by 80%+ and I imagine it's only become more automated since then.

in 1800, 95% of American were farmers in 1900, some 65% of Americans were farmers in 2020, it's down to like 5%.

My point is some industries just die. And its okay. The solution is not to go backwards, but tax the winners of the change to subsidize and retrain the people who lost.

But in America, the extreme winners have convinced the rest of us that we shouldn't tax them, and Trump is now asking us to instead tax everyone more

Caveat

> and Trump is now asking us to instead tax everyone more

Trump is now demanding to instead tax US residents more indirectly

> in 1800, 95% of American were farmers in 1900, some 65% of Americans were farmers in 2020, it's down to like 5%.

> My point is some industries just die. And its okay.

You've got your example dead wrong. American farming didn't "just die," it got insanely more productive.

And a lot of the industries people want back didn't "just die," they just got moved so the "extreme winners" could profit off them even more. And then those same winners and their defenders always go "herp derp, industries gone, nothing we can do! Don't fight it, just repeat: gone foreverrrr."

No, tax increases will not create better jobs to backfill the ones moved overseas by globalization.

What better jobs do you anticipate will be created?

None, as they said.

The tax increase wouldnt be used to create better jobs, they would be used bolster social welfare and reduce the national debt, at the expense of wealth generation in the upper class.

The primary benefit of the approach is that the pre-tarrif economy is strong, health care, high prices, and very high SFH prices are the primary ways people are hurting. Modest taxes as noted above address 2/3 without upending the economy in the process.

Prices wont come down, but unlike the tarrif plan they also wont go up so... seems like a better option at least to my relatively uninformed brain.

Increased taxes (on the wealthy) could also be used, not just to pay down debts, but to start new programs like expanding domestic production, back loans for small businesses and house construction. Heck even just 'new new deal' style jobs that build infrastructure.

Though I am partial to using new revenue to increase competition (new startups) in weakly competitive markets. That's the most effective way of increasing supply, and choice, and letting a market function.

Thomas Sowell makes a good argument that the government does a terrible job at redistributing wealth to lift the poor, based on their track record. And so taxing the rich more doesnt actually solve that problem — it just makes politicians and their friends richer.

Also when talking about tariffs reducing demand and inflating prices, I think it’s important to note that’s partly true. It doesn’t raise prices of domestic goods and actually increases demand for domestic goods.

He's one economist from a very conservative line of thinking.

As a counter example, Thomas Piketty argues at length that taxation and wealth redistribution remain an effective way to bolster a societies resilience and lessen wealth inequality - which is still a very real issue in the world, and arguably one that the US shows can have very real negative consequences for letting it go unaddressed.

As for demand and inflating prices, yeah, domestic products may be more attractive, but the economy is huge, and much of it does not have a domestic allegory. The other issue here is the tax is on all imports, not only manufactured goods, which means raw materials - which often have to be sourced elsewhere - make manufacturing more expensive even domestically

Maybe we should raise tariffs and raise taxes on the wealthy? Does it have to be framed as an either-or?

> and much of it does not have a domestic allegory

Well some would argue that's the problem. Maybe now we will? Idk.

The way its being framed in the public - and often in discussions even in this Hacker News comments section - is its an alternative to raising other taxes. Trump is selling it that way, along with simultaneous tax cuts he wants to either extend or implement, which goes to show the tariffs are not some way of addressing the national debt concerns either.

While nothing does, the actual discussion around it isn't allowing any room for non-tariff tax increases regardless.

I agree with your point about how the discussion is framed. To add to where it should be framed, in my mind, you can toss in cost cutting at the federal government in there as well.

Neither tariffs nor cost cutting, unless it targets major programs such as Social Security or Medicaid, will have an effect on the national debt or the deficit.

It’s all marketing.

Cost cutting always enters the equation, because somehow its better to eliminate benefits. Why not reform the programs? There is actually ample room for this, particularly with Social Security. Why not raise revenue via land value taxes, closing tax loopholes and other less and/or non regressive means?

The social safety net in this country is already terrible, making it more terrible by cutting the programs won't be better for anyone except a slice of the wealthy

> taxation and wealth redistribution remain an effective way to bolster a societies resilience

Tangentially:

It’s wild how inconsistent the public and political reactions are to different ways of getting revenue. Take this common pattern:

When DOGE identifies billions of dollars in waste, fraud, or unnecessary spending, the reaction is often: "That’s only 0.01% of the federal budget. It’s nothing!"

But when someone proposes a tax on billionaires that would over time raise a similar amount suddenly the reaction flips: "We’ll solve inequality! Fund healthcare!"

This contradiction is everywhere. How can $20 billion in government savings be "nothing," while $20 billion in new tax revenue is "transformational"? It's the same money.

I don't know who these people are that you're talking about, who only propose taxes on billionaires and not the rest of the upper class, or who have compared those two numbers and seen they are different. I would imagine you're talking about two different groups with different figures.

Regardless, "taxing the rich" is not one mediocre policy, but several interdependent policies. It's not just picking the 5 richest people in the world and taking their money. The transformation doesn't come from redistributing $20 billion (wherever that figure is from) but encouraging executives to reinvest into their company instead of trying to suck as much cash out as possible.

Bobby Kotick making $155 million a year while Activison lays off hundreds of employees is insane. What on God's earth could you possibly need more than $20 million a year for? That is not right no matter you slice it. That money needs to be aggressively taxed so it is instead used to keep people employed at a much lower tax rate, not in the hopes that the government can use it for spending.

No one is suggesting only taxing billionaires to the tune of netting solely an additional $1B, that seems farcical.

I don't think anyone would scoff and the discovery and elimination of waste or fraud. I think the vibe you're describing is doubt that these supposed billions in waste/fraud/abuse live up to the hype.

Surely there's plenty of waste in federal spending but I suspect the vast majority is not going to be blatant and easy to identify

NPR did in their February article about DOGE; their story is ostensibly that out of everything claimed, NPR could verify “only” $2B in cuts which they present as meaningless:

> NPR's analysis found that, of its verifiable work completed so far, DOGE has cut just $2 billion in spending — less than three hundredths of a percent of last fiscal year's federal spending.

> "Think of Congress and its budget as the debt-ridden dad on the way to buy a $250,000 Ferrari on the credit card, and DOGE is the $2 off gas card he used along the way," Riedl said. "It's great that he saved $2 on gas, but I think his wife may be more concerned about the $250,000 car."

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates...

Given that Trump wants to enact insane ass tax cuts for the ultra rich, their framing sounds pretty reasonable!

>When DOGE identifies billions of dollars in waste, fraud, or unnecessary spending, the reaction is often

Did DOGE actually identify significant levels of any of this or is it simply labeled that for the expedited purpose of shrinking the federal government's effectiveness by any means possible?

They've been far less than transparent with the data that supports their findings and have been called out numerous times for misrepresentation[0][1][2][3] and lack of transparency which took a lawsuit to at least partially recitify[4]

[0]: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates...

[1]: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5313853/doge-savings-re...

[2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/02/19/here-are...

[3]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/doge-days-musk-trump-t...

[4]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/11/judge-orders...

I asked ChatGPT to explain the arguments of Sowell and Piketty.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67eebae2-df3c-800b-aba9-6e36c04810...

I liked Sowell's book, "Wealth, Poverty and Politics". Can you recommend one of Piketty's books?

> raw materials - which often have to be sourced elsewhere

Is that necessarily true? The US has abundant natural resources. Tesla could be mining lithium a few hundred miles away from their factory instead of importing it...

>I liked Sowell's book, "Wealth, Poverty and Politics". Can you recommend one of Piketty's books?

I'd say start with Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty. Its a great read, if a bit thick (its a very large tome indeed and very information dense)

>Is that necessarily true? The US has abundant natural resources. Tesla could be mining lithium a few hundred miles away from their factory instead of importing it...

Its about access, cost, amount, etc. One company getting lithium is a rounding error. The entire market for lithium is bigger than Tesla and even electric cars. Then there is the entire question of how fast you can get the lithium online. Its not like most (if any) of the businesses reliant on lithium - which again, more than just auto makers certainly - take in raw lithium and produce something with it. It is typically pre-processed depending on its use. So that needs to come online too. Also, is there enough of the US workforce that can get this material online quickly? We're talking years before something comes online in sufficient quantity to be meaningful, let alone replace other sources.

Then you have to ask how much of the given resource do we even have? Whats the quality? Not all lithium deposits are the same, after all.

And many more questions I am not likely thinking about, and this is only in regard to lithium. Think about the raw materials for everything in our lives - gold, silver, uranium, iron etc. and you'll find in more cases than not its simply unfeasible to start mining & processing it in the US, you will have to import it.

Your idea of what this takes is, frankly, a bit too simplistic to be realistic or useful until it answers all of these kinds of questions.

Remember when Piketty advised the government of François Hollande? They enacted the wealth tax and there was simply a ton of capital flight and nothing was fixed? Leading to Macron winning the elections and enacting a ton of conservative policies and leading to pretty decent economic growth...

That's not quite what happened, was it?

First off, capital flight is not a good argument against high wealth taxes, it's an argument for more controls to prevent people from doing this, so they are forced to reinvest in business.

The wealth tax was in for a meager 2 years, and the richest in the country started calling it "anti-business" even though they were transparently refusing to reinvest that money in their company. Anti-business is shorthand for "We can't hire the 1 high-earner executive we want to play golf with instead of the 100 lower level employees that would actually help the economy."

Instead, they kept THEIR salaries and ate that tax cost, and told their employees they would suffer during these times. It was a coordinated effort to discredit something that was meant to create more jobs. Much like when Saudi Arabia artificially restricted oil until after the 2020 election. And the administration had no controls on this.

So yes, high taxes on the rich by themselves are worthless, but that doesn't mean those policies coupled with tighter controls aren't essential for wealth inequality.

Of course, conservative news is going to talk about this in the context of debt, and claim because the amount raised did not match the debt (moronic) that it was clearly a bad idea to tax the rich, when the real takeaway is there needs to be more controls and a bigger spotlight on how these scumbags jerk the system around. At the end of the day, they are trying to keep their yachts and their massive, unnecessary mortgages, and will fight tooth and nail to do so, and anyone falling for news stories about "oh it didn't work in 2 years, my boss said I was going to take a salary cut" is helping that agenda and nothing else.

As I recall, Hollande decided to ignore all the advice around him[0]

>Mr Piketty’s second criticism touches on Mr Hollande’s tax policy. For years the French economist has argued for a more progressive tax system, which would merge both income tax, currently paid by only half of French households, and the “contribution sociale généralisée”, a non-progressive social charge paid by all. This too was one of Mr Hollande’s campaign promises. Yet the president has shelved any plans to overhaul the tax structure, preferring instead simply to increase taxes on the middle-classes and the rich.

[0]: https://www.economist.com/europe/2015/01/02/pikettys-snub

>It doesn’t raise prices of domestic goods and actually increases demand for domestic goods.

Have you ever tried to purchase electronics in Brazil? I don't know if that increased demand for domestic goods is necessarily a good thing...

Yeah, I think all of the arguments made for and against tariffs are only partly true depending on the context.

Interestingly, Lua came out of Brazil for these reasons...

It’s hard to see tariffs on steel (say) not raising wider domestic prices. Any domestic industry using steel (car making, house building etc) presumably now has to pay more for its steel which feeds through to consumer prices. You might increase the number of steel worker jobs but at a hidden wider cost to the wider US economy.

US homes tend to be built with lumber, not steel.

What do you think holds the lumber together?

US homes tend not to be built with Japanese techniques.

We already have Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and have since March 2018. These new tariffs exclude steel (since we tariff it already).

However, the widely used tariff exemptions available to US steel consumers who could claim difficulties sourcing cheap steel are now being closed.

Sowell would be against tariffs, he’s a free market fundamentalist.

As usual, libertarianism is used as a justification for corporate fascism, mercantilism, taxes on the poor… basically the Republican agenda. Funny how that works.

> It doesn’t raise prices of domestic goods and actually increases demand for domestic goods.

But domestic producers will surely increase their prices to match their foreign competitors’ tariffed prices.

Not necessarily, if there's adequate competition and no collusion. I think of Costco's Kirkland products which have a capped profit margin, for example.

Protectionism stifles competition.

> And so taxing the rich more doesnt actually solve that problem — it just makes politicians and their friends richer

How are those things related? Are poor people bribing politicians to increase taxes?

The argument is that increasing government revenue doesn't automatically mean We the People benefit; it usually means more pork and other ways of funneling money to benefit the people with the power to funnel it.

Exactly. Sowell lists many examples too in his book "Visions of the Annointed".

And? Ask Sowell if he prefers progressive taxation and welfare or rapid spikes in tariffs sparking a global trade war.

(He actually was interviewed yesterday and he was very much not a fan of the tariffs.)

It is absolutely wild to me that money gained from letting it sit is taxed less than money gained from working your ass off. A crime against the working class.

The system wasn't named “capitalism” because it systematically favors the working class, I mean, what do you expect?

Where in the US constitution is capitalism mentioned?

What's your point? The tax code isn't in the constitution either.

The point is that this isn't some fundamental property of our society that we all agreed to. It's de facto capitalist, not de jure. Just because a bunch of people pushed it one way doesn't mean we have to throw up our arms and just go with it.

The working class have property and stocks too and don't want them taxed stupidly.

That's the entire reason why income tax is progressive, and there's no reason that couldn't be applied to any other implemented tax including capital gains.

Yes, but far less. We can have tax free thresholds, you know. Like the capital gains exemption for sale if a house.

Any working class person against higher and broader capital gains taxes is not thinking very deeply, in my opinion.

Hard disagree. Compared to the OECD average, we collect almost double in personal tax revenue as a proportion of total tax revenue. What's more, historically personal tax revenue as a % of GDP stays roughly the same - regardless of active tax rates.

Where we fall dreadfully short compared to other countries is corporate tax revenue. In 2021, corporate income tax revenue in the U.S. was 1.6% of GDP, compared to the OECD average of 3.2%

It's messed up from first principles - hard work should be valued as a society over investment gains, and reflected at the individual level in take home income. Obtuse measures and comparative aggregates are irrelevant.

“Should be” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there - I have heard reasonable arguments either way - but it misses the point: whether the personal tax rate was all-time high or an all-time low, personal tax revenue stays roughly the same historically. In other words it’s a trap - raising the rate might make you feel better, but if history is any indicator it won’t change anything for everyday citizens.

You need to enforce monopoly laws, and more important than individual tax rates, you need to get the tax base spread out correctly again.

1950: 25% tax revenue came from personal income. 25% from social security. 25% from businesses. 25% from excise taxes.

Today: 50% tax revenue from personal income. 35% from social security. 7% from business. 7% from excise taxes.

This problem is never understood.

If you believe in these tariffs then the major problem is how he enacted them. Businesses want certainty. It takes years to build factories. The next president could just wipe away these tariffs instantly. Hell, even the current one could. That does not give these companies the certainty they need to commit years of effort to building factories. If the goal is to spur domestic manufacturing then, at a minimum, he would get the tariffs enacted via a new law so they're more likely to stick for the long term.

This is the key point. Even if tariffs did everything Trump claims they will (they will not) no one is investing billions to build factories in America for tariffs that will not be there in a few years.

Turns out that governing based on the whims of the executive has downsides.

> not be there in a few years

Years? Lol, how much would you bet they are all exactly the same in a month? A week?

Which is why they want to abolish term limits.

Their point has nothing to do with term limits.

> Hell, even the current [president] could [eliminate these tariffs].

The point is that the goal of building onshore production isn't as likely to be reached with these tariffs due in part to the uncertainty surrounding the method of enacting the tariffs.

There is still a functioning system of laws in this county. Devolving into a monarchy is not a necessary condition for stable trade policy (and the particular guy trying to install himself has not proven a force for stability in trade policies, even his own viz. USMCA).

> Which is why they want to abolish term limits.

I wondering who "they" is. It can't be the WH. Yes they said they want to work around term limits, but if the reason they are offering is the stability they've shown us so far ...

Tarrifs are a tool that must be applied strategically. You typically announce tarrifs years in advance so business can shift their logistics and build out manufacturing where you want it. However a daily change in tariffs only creates a chaos that the economy cannot simply respond to fast enough.

A new steel mill won't magically appear in the middle of the US within a month.

> A new steel mill won't magically appear in the middle of the US within a month.

And yet, I'm sure Trump will show up at one to take credit for its existence within the next month or so.

> What about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well?

What about all of the domestic producers of finished goods who can now can not afford their materials and supplies? What about the domestic supplier of that finished goods producer who has their orders cut because the finished goods producer needs to cut production? What about the domestic consumer who'd like to buy those finished goods, but they can't afford it because prices over all have increased? What about the barber shop by the finished goods plant that has to shut down because the finished goods plant cut their workforce by 50%?

100+ years of studying tariffs have shown that they are effective when very narrowly targeted. Otherwise they almost never achieve their stated goal of actually increasing domestic production.

Should we tax goods from Mississippi to NY to save jobs in NYC? After all, wages in NYC are way higher than in MS. Trade with MS pulls down wages with NYC.

JD Vance had a nice speech about globalisation lately, he describes how globalisation made the rest of the world advanced and rich: https://x.com/OopsGuess/status/1902396228404674853

So if people were trying to make the world a better place congratulations they succeeded. JD Vance uses a bit different framing(!).

Anyway, back to your question, IMHO the problem in thinking here is that it implies that there must be "They" and "Us". You can't just get prosperous as a humanity, it needs to be a subgroup like "Americans" or "Germans" that do amazing things and they are very unsatisfied that Chinese and Indians got advanced and no longer do the shitty jobs. When they say globalism has failed us, they mean we thought that Vietnamese will keep making our shoes but now they are making cars too.

Essentially the core of the problem(or ideal) is nationalism and borders associated with it, preventing of people move around and pursue happiness.

A group of people like the generations of Americans who pioneered many technologies and sciences built a world, then other group of people(mostly their offsprings or people who caught up thanks to proximity to the ground zero) operated within that world and made some choices and transformed the world into something else. Now, they are unhappy with the current state and propose teaming up around something like religion/attitudes around genders etc. If you subscribe to the idea that people should team around these things and if you think that you won't be suffering that much and you don't care that some people might suffer a lot, then yes the current actions actually makes sense.

> is that it implies that there must be "They" and "Us". You can't just get prosperous as a humanity

This idea of humanity transcending our genetic (due to geographic proximity) tribal groups is a uniquely European one. Pretending we can abandon all tribalism and integrate the entire world into a European model is either immensely incompetent or intentionally malicious (I tend to think the latter). The current billionaire class profits immensely from all the diversity (both generic and ideological) in the west. It’s much easier to parasitically rule a divided people than a unified one. Nationalism is a defense against these parasites.

> needs to be a subgroup like "Americans" or "Germans" that do amazing things and they are very unsatisfied that Chinese and Indians got advanced

The issue isn’t other countries improving. The issue is the average America should not have a degraded quality of life (barring major natural disasters etc) so that our billionaires can be richer. A nationalist elite class would correctly say “no, we keep those jobs here because it benefits my countryman even if I’m going to make less money”. We do not have this and the wealth gap continues to increase.

> If you're subscribe the idea that people should team around these things and if you think that you won't be suffering that much and you don't care that some people might suffer a lot

Do you think parents should prioritize their children? Not saying this snidely - there’s no black and white lines here, but I think universalism can only be accomplished by taking care of our own and growing our tent, as opposed to diminishing our own to lift up others (who in many cases do not share our universalist sentiments).

lots of opinions presented as facts.

Says the person who posted a tweet from JD Vance?

I fail to understand what is "malicious" about the idea that we, as a single species, can someday achieve an equitable and global state of cooperation despite historical tribal / racial / religious differences.

Just because an idea originated in Europe doesn't make it a bad one out of hand.

> This idea of humanity transcending our genetic (due to geographic proximity) tribal groups is a uniquely European one. Pretending we can abandon all tribalism and integrate the entire world into a European model is either immensely incompetent or intentionally malicious (I tend to think the latter).

I did not realize Star Trek is uniquely European, that explains all the accents they have. It's a good thing Gene Roddenberry was European otherwise all this nonsense would make us Americans less isolationist.

> The current billionaire class profits immensely from all the diversity (both generic and ideological) in the west. It's much easier to parasitically rule a divided people than a unified one. Nationalism is a defense against these parasites.

For as much evidence as you present I'll assert that nationalism in fact profits the billionaire class much more than anyone else, thinking of most marketing campaigns, most nationalist leaders are all backed by the billionaires to win over the hearts of the working class. It's almost like you say yourself, "It’s much easier to parasitically rule a divided people than a unified one" and nationalism is just as much about dividing a nation's people from others than about real unity.

> This idea of humanity transcending our genetic (due to geographic proximity) tribal groups is a uniquely European one.

Pan-Arabism, Pan-Africanism, and Simón Bolivar would like a word.

I agree with the goal. I disagree with the execution.

First, from the outside looking in, it appears these tariffs were implemented in an adhoc basis which disrupt supply chains potentially bankrupting companies and result in more layoffs in the short term.

Second, there should be a carve-out on tariff policy to respond to national security interests. e.g., if and when the US wants Ukraine to rebuild its fledgling export economy, the US should set the tariff on Ukraine's products to zero as it is in the US' interests that Ukraine is financially strong. Similarly, the US should use tariffs to protect industries it deems strategic such as manufacturing advanced computer chips.

In other words, instead of using a purely political process to set tariff policy, I would argue tariffs should be managed by an impartial semi-independent agency such as the Federal Reserve. The governors of such a tariff agency should be tasked with the goals of advancing long term US interests, economically, employment-wise, and national security interests.

The Trump administration set the Russia tariff to zero, and we do still import stuff from Russia in spite of all the sanctions and set the blanket ten percent rate on Ukraine as you write. Maybe this is simply the current administration's national security interest.

There's only one nation's security interest that are advanced by an emboldened Russia.

Most of Tulsi Gabbard's professed foreign policy beliefs prior to being added to this administration echoed Russian state policy, she called it being independent. Tim Pool was just added to White House press pool, he claims he was fooled into repeating information provided by Russia state media, after it was revealed they paid millions to him to do so. There is an awful lot of smoke here.

> So, to anyone who disagrees with these measures, but agrees that these are issues we ought to solve, what would you propose?

Good faith negotiations with our allies and trading partners that creates a balance of trade and reduces wealth inequality in the west. I'm not opposed to the actual ideas being floated, but the people doing are are completely unserious and it's being implemented in a stupid nonsense way.

> Good faith negotiations with our allies and trading partners that creates a balance of trade and reduces wealth inequality in the west.

We can look at a 50+ year history of every major U.S. trade partner increasing their protectionist policies, largely targeting the U.S., while the U.S. allowed trade deficits to balloon out of control. I don't see evidence that this "good faith" approach you speak of has any viability at all. The global economy can't say with a straight face that it has been a fair trade partner with the United States. For the past 50+ years the U.S. market has been open for business for all global producers, but the same has been far from true for pretty much every major U.S. trade partner. You can't even operate a company in China without 50% Chinese ownership, for example. The global stance on trade has all but made this an inevitable outcome.

We negotiated those deals, we aren’t the victims. Now we don’t like how a deal turned out so instead of renegotiating we are throwing a temper tantrum like we weren’t the ones who suggested it in the first place. It’s embarrassing to be represented like that, and it won’t work! We will wind up weaker than we started, I hope they prove me wrong.

The u.S. didn't negotiate protectionist policies against their own exports. Can you cite a single example of this?

A more charitable explanation is that the U.S. has been all in on globalization and free trade since the 1970s and the rest of the world took a protectionist stance in response. I'm sure the rest of the world had their reasons. But the U.S. does now, too. Globalization and free trade that only substantially flows in one direction simply is not sustainable.

> The u.S. didn't negotiate protectionist policies against their own exports. Can you cite a single example of this?

Oh yes the hell we did. I was running an ecommerce store when this happened, it's been a disaster for US entrepreneurs who have any model other than dropship from China - https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2011/pr11_037....

> A more charitable explanation is that the U.S. has been all in on globalization and free trade since the 1970s and the rest of the world took a protectionist stance in response. I'm sure the rest of the world had their reasons. But the U.S. does now, too. Globalization and free trade that only substantially flows in one direction simply is not sustainable.

We negotiated those free trade agreements. Stop acting like we were being taken advantage of. Now, if you want to argue that American labor has been hosed, then I agree with that too, but China didn't do that - Nike did. None of these idiotic tariffs are going to help the American worker either - what remains of accessible opportunity for the masses has already become more like sharecropping with huge corporations owning the plantation, and it's only going to get worse under these policies.

How do you feel about the trade deficit, in the other direction, in digital goods (Meta platforms, Amazon/AWS, Google, Apple, ...)?

If it's fundamentally a jobs program, you can be a lot smarter about it than tariffs.

If companies couldn't compete before, they're now further disincentivized to compete, leaving the rest of us worse off and uncompetitive with the rest of the world.

Tariffs are just bad policy.

That's the part I just don't get about the pro tariff as reshoring manufacturing argument. That industry only makes sense and will only be profitable in a world where the tariffs are permanent. The Vietnamese textile factories aren't going to just disappear their exports will shift to other parts of the world and if the tariffs ever disappear they'll shift right back to the US. So you'll have a tiny fragile industry beholden to the government for its continued existence that makes an expensive product only for domestic consumption... Maybe that's the actual goal create a new raft of client industries and workers in that industry who'll support the administration because to not do it will destroy them simply by lifting or easing the tariffs.

As a software engineer dealing with bits and bytes all day, it's easy to lose sight of the hard and sharp parts of reality. My wife is a chemical engineer who actually goes into a factory and is constantly dealing with production issues in actually making soap, ice cream, chemicals flow (different factories over her career).

JD Vance had an interview somewhere (I think in the NYTimes?) where he claimed that national prosperity is downstream of military might which is downstream of industrial base. It made me stop and think, because that does line up with what I was taught about how the Allies won WW2, and the US beat the Soviets in the Cold War: we outproduced them. I'm not sure if this is "fighting the last war", though, since I imagine a lot of warfare going forward is going to be technological and with things like drones, etc.

It's just so easy to deal with our economic abstraction, of dollars flying around, and computer work, and services and so on, that I sometimes do wonder about your point here about the actual physical, production of goods, and how important that is. Can you have a long term, stable, healthy, successful country that doesn't (and can't) produce anything physical?

We clearly can still make some stuff. I have a great squat rack and barbell set from Rogue Fitness, which makes stuff here in the USA (captured in this beautiful advertisement video[0]), and it's awesome. But I also have a made-in-the-USA wood pellet smoker which is garbage, and which I kind of wish I had just bought from China.

All to say, yeah, I think there's the potential for there to be something along the lines of what you're saying. That said, the implementation is maybe not great. Even taking the Tesla Texas Gigafactory, which was built in warp speed (construction to first cars in about 1.5 years), that's only leaving 2 years before a potential next administration could roll back the tariffs if they wanted.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aCMGqA6_XY

You can't look at this move as something in isolation. Trump has also completely flipped geopolitics on their head.

Here's other things he's done:

- Threatened Canada

- Threatened Greenland/Denmark

- Supported Russia (it's obvious)

- Told NATO allies export F-35s will be nerfed just in case we come into conflict

Americans are already very insular, I don't think you all realise just how much you've pissed off Europe and Canada (I live in both places throughout the year, family in both)...

American multinationals have benefited greatly from trade with other countries... Look around the world: iPhones and Apple products everywhere, Windows computers, Google dominates search, the USA is a top travel destination, American weapons are used by most allies, etc...

Right now in Canada and European countries we're talking about completely cutting out all US trade and travel. Like all of it. It won't be policy but the US has completely destroyed all goodwill and cultural influence it has across the "West".

Because of immense hatred of Russia, China is now the "lesser evil" and pretty much all developed countries will band together. And not only will countries move on from US hegemony, they'll accept any pain that comes with it because Russia is threatening Europe and the USA is threatening their neighbours. Without the geopolitical aspect, the US might have won this trade war. But no one is going to bow to the US to then get sold out and conquered by Russia...

Agreed there are serious restructuring that needs to happen in the US.

That said this approach doesn't make a lot of sense. There are many ways to do this without antagonizing all of your allies which only helps out your enemies and ostracizes the U.S.

Loss of confidence in the greenback is deeply problematic for US power.

>For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well?

We could instead pay for re-education and training for these folks to find jobs that do align better with the global economy and bolster social safety nets to help with job loss.

Tariffs are no guarantee the jobs will come back either or even if some of the manufacturing does come back to the US, that it will employ people who need it most or in the same number. Manufacturing automation is quite sophisticated nowadays. Even if the manufacturing comes back to the US - which I don't think is going to happen en masse if at all - the employment prospects that you're suggesting in this line of reasoning won't come back with them, is what the evidence suggests.

>There really are structural challenges to onshoring production due to strength of the dollar due to its reserve currency status; our society as such is biased heavily toward importing goods rather than exporting goods. This is a real challenge that needs to be addressed as well.

Why? Why is onshoring production of non critical goods a benefit to the US as a whole over the long term? Why do we want to protect manufacturing interests at the expense of other interests? These questions haven't been addressed. Not to mention the pain tariffs are going to cause isn't being addressed either, we're simply told to 'grin and bear it', and for what are we doing that exactly? Whats the actual nuts and bolts plan here?

Everywhere I look at the argument for tariffs I come up short on legitimate answers to these questions

>Our national debt is not sustainable either. Either we pay it down some, or we inflate it away; these are the two ways it goes away, ignoring the option of a world-shattering default on the debt. Tariffs accomplish both of those, raising money at the same time as raising cost of goods and weakening the dollar.

There's other ways to handle the national debt than put broad tariffs on all our trading partners - including allies who have actually been very generous about their trade terms and investments in the US, like Japan, the UK (really much of western Europe), Canada etc.

If we really want to strength the dollar, we could raise wealth taxes (like capital gains or instituting a land value tax for example) and moderate spending. Why are tariffs superior to this? Tariffs only hurt the poor and middle classes anyway, who can't simply fly out of the country for large purchases to avoid them.

I really want to read a good response to this comment. I have the same questions, and I’ll add one more thought.

Lots of people talk about how the US should be more like Europe. People say the average European has a better quality of life, etc. Well, Europe has tariffs…

Europe has tariffs pretty much in line with the US. The weighted average tariff for the EU is 2.7% and 2.2% for the US.

There's of course the opportunity to get those in line, but that requires negotiations.

Had, past tense.

Weighted average is an interesting metric, but I'm not sure of its value in this context. I can imagine that perhaps 2-3% is more of an equilibrium and any amount of tariffs will still trend towards some market equlibrium.

I believe the EU has 10% tariffs on all US autos and we didnt have tariff theirs. That seems relevant in a way that this weighted average doesn't account for, right?

And the US has a 25% tariff on F150s (light duty vehicles).

You can go tit for tat down the line, but all in all the numbers I gave you are the sum of everything.

Heavy tariffs won’t bring an equilibrium. It will only make imported goods expensive and allow the existing domestic producers to become laze and uncompetitive, all in all zeroing their export value.

We tarrif Trucks because they tarrifed our chickens. Tarrifs are pretty complicated and often don't make sense. But no the idea that EU tarrifs on the US are much higher on average is unsupportable

So does the US??? Ex - we've been placing tariffs on solar/ev parts for many years now to drive investment in those industries (And this is hardly the only place we've done this).

Targeted tariffs to protect and strengthen specific industries are fine - especially if done slowly and while supporting those industries internally to make sure that they aren't disrupted, and that they can actually capitalize on the space provided by a tariff.

---

This policy is not fucking that. It's just a backdoor tax on everyone, with zero planning and support internally to bring those industries back.

Simple terms for your simple comment:

A morbidly obese guy slowly exercising is great.

A morbidly obese guy getting dropped into a marathon with no prep is a recipe for a heart attack.

Europe has tariffs. Everywhere has tariffs. Europe doesn't have tariffs like this.

Europe has higher taxes. But, somehow, despite the inefficiencies of governments, this produces a happier populace who work less and vacation more.

Tarrifs can be useful in protecting your players in an new industry. In specific situations not using it like carpet bombing.

Thomas Sowell who is 94 has some wisdom to share: https://x.com/HooverInst/status/1907630250135273527?ref_src=...

Progressive taxation, better public services, universal healthcare, free education for all

Doesn't the US already have the most progressive tax system in the world? If you want more public services the tax rate would need to increase at all levels but dramatically so at the middle to low end.

No.

The U.S. tax system is less progressive than those in many other industrialized nations. European countries like Denmark and France have higher top marginal tax rates (above 50%), while the U.S. top federal rate is significantly lower. Additionally, U.S. taxes and transfers do less to reduce income inequality compared to peer countries.

That is not what progressive means. The US doesn't have the highest marginal tax rate but a greater share of taxes are paid by high-income earners than others on a per dollar basis.

Raising rates on soley the rich will make the tax system even more progressive but will probably not make public service much more generous. Raising the tax rates on everyone would probably make the tax system less progressive but might actually fund a large increase in public spending.

You're right that "progressive" technically refers to how tax burdens increase with income, and by that measure, the U.S. looks progressive because high earners pay a large share. But that doesn’t mean the system is actually effective at reducing inequality.

What matters is outcomes, and the U.S. system—compared to other developed nations—does far less to redistribute wealth or fund robust public services. Other countries raise more revenue overall (often through broader-based taxes like VAT), and they spend it more equitably. So yes, technically progressive—but practically insufficient.

> Doesn't the US already have the most progressive tax system in the world?

It's arguable, but it's safe to say that it's one of the most progressive among development countries, but that's in large part a function of the comparative inequality and low tax rates to start.

> If you want more public services the tax rate would need to increase at all levels but dramatically so at the middle to low end.

Yeah, but the net effect can be an improvement in terms of inequality. See e.g. https://www.cbpp.org/research/what-do-oecd-data-really-show-...

"As a result, the latest OECD data show that while the United States has the tenth-highest level of income inequality of the 31 OECD countries examined before considering taxes and transfers, it has the fourth-highest level of inequality after considering them."

"As the OECD report notes, if two countries have identical tax schedules that include graduated marginal rates, the tax system will have a more progressive impact in the country with higher pre-tax inequality, because a larger share of that country’s income will be taxed at the top rates."

"Because of their comparatively small size and below-average progressivity, U.S. cash transfers do less to reduce inequality in household cash incomes than those in any other OECD country except Korea"

There are two different questions here: (1) is Trump's strategy a good one to accomplish his goals? and (2) what are other good ideas to do so?

Just because there aren't many ideas in bucket #2 doesn't mean you should do #1.

For a trivial example, consider steel and aluminum tariffs (Larry Summers gave this example on Bloomberg yesterday):

There are 60x more jobs in industries that rely on steel/aluminum inputs than there are in the US steel/aluminium producers. 60x!

Steel/aluminum tariffs increase the cost of inputs to the companies that employ those 60x more people; their businesses suffer; those jobs are more at risk.

Meanwhile, it will take a decade for steel/aluminum production to be fully done within the US, and even then it will be a higher cost (i.e. the reason the US imports a big share of aluminium from Canada is that Canada uses cheap hydro energy to produce it - something that the US can't do).

Through that decade, every single item that uses imported steel/aluminum as an input will be more expensive for average Americans.

So you risk 60x the jobs, for a slow and ultimately non-competitive local industry rebuild, and meanwhile average Americans pay higher costs.

Now multiply that across every category of good in the economy?

#1 is bad. I don't have a great idea for #2, but #1 is bad.

Look at it from Trump's perspective for a moment. The only tool he has is tariffs, and the people he's negotiating with are not just foreign governments but also Congress. Because he has this authority he can use it to try to bring any of those to the table and negotiate alternative approaches. Not saying that's what he's doing. Just saying that's a possibility.

He's got the entire congress! He's got the entire universe of industrial policy to advance whatever domestic improvements he wants to pursue. Clearly they even have the political capital and appetite to do a massive tax increase!

The Republicans in Congress don't all want the same things, and they have very narrow majorities, so yes, he does have to negotiate with them.

Actually doing positive things is hard. Good presidents like Biden can pass stuff like IRA.

Wrecking shit when you don't care much about who suffers is much easier

The tone of discourse on HN has gotten quite negative lately. It can be possible for Trump to believe that what he's doing is good even if what he's doing proves bad. He seems sincere in thinking that yesterday's tariffs will do good for the U.S. Who knows, tariffs might yet do good (or not), and Democrats used to advocate roughly the same thing:

  - Bernie, 2008: https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1907883583228051964
  - Nancy Pelosi, 1996: https://x.com/ThomasSowell/status/1907875133638705646
  - Roger Moore's films

Clearly they changed their minds. It would be interesting to see why they changed their minds.

The tone of HN is something. For instance there always seems to be someone partisan enough to defend Trump no matter how ridiculous and terrible his actions are.

It true that there are democrats who are more skeptical on free trade and I would disagree with some of their views although adding workers rights and minimum wages into trade agreements are things which might have some merit but none of them would try something as ridiculous and economically suicidal as this. They're literally putting tarrifs on an island with a bunch of Penguins.

That's because he's lazy and doesn't really care to learn about policy or listen to the vast majority of economists including conservative economists tell him he's blowing up the economy and he doesn't care much about the damage he causes. He might remotely care about the stock market going down or losing political power and being tried for some of his many crimes but he doesn't really care much if his supporters (much less the half of the country that voted for someone sane) suffer, starve or die from a preventable disease.

I'd like some repairs made to my car, but I'd object to someone making them with a hammer (without a stronger argument in favor than "trust me").

If you really want to onshore production, you don't increase taxes on the import of raw materials, parts, and components, you only do so for finished goods. That isn't what this administration has done though. They say they want to increase domestic manufacturing, but their actions clearly prove that that is not their goal.

> very real national problems that this might address.

This is a dubious claim to begin with. If you believe that 'trade deficits are bad,' can you explain why? Post Covid, the US economy has emerged in significantly better shape than nearly every other country in the world, so I'm failing to see how these deficits are meaningful.

> Globalization has played a big role in creating the massive income inequality in our country

What is your source for this belief, especially when comparing globalization with other factors that cause inequality? From my understanding, the biggest recent contributors to a higher cost of living in the US are housing, health, and education. Health and education purely services-oriented, and housing is one-third a labor cost.

> our society as such is biased heavily toward importing goods rather than exporting goods

I think that's great. America exports services. We innovate to create new technology, are a leader in designing the things and systems that people want (think of our tech industry), and we delegate the work of manufacturing to others. That seems fine to me, and a function of having (relatively) open, free trade.

> So, to anyone who disagrees with these measures, but agrees that these are issues we ought to solve, what would you propose?

At a high level, the problem is that free trade makes the pie bigger, but causes distribution/inequality problems. So generally speaking, the best measures are going to be those that improve inequality while minimizing the impact to the size of the pie. Raise taxes on the wealthy, increase spending on social programs to the non-wealthy, fund investments in programs that benefit everyone equally. (Public transit, libraries, healthcare, education, etc.)

Tariffs shrink the pie, and I'd heavily bet against those hurt by globalization being those who are able to grab a bigger slice under the current administration.

According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, there are 7 million unemployed in the U.S. currently.

I don't know how you expect these to cover for all the manufacturing you imply might come back to the U.S. with these tariffs, and that's assuming the space and the production means (factories, etc.) are here already. They aren't, and not for a couple years.

Combined to the fact that the U.S. is clearly sending a signal that coming there is dangerous now, especially for any other category than white males, and I don't see how you can even imagine that this situation is going to be working out.

> what about the former domestic producers who could not compete,

Tariffs won't make them any better at their jobs. So the American customer can expect higher prices and lower quality of products and services.

> Everyone is quick to deride this move as stupid. I don’t disagree that there are downsides to the approach, but there is a set of very real national problems that this might address.

Because it is stupid. It's important to point out that this is stupid and not only doesn't help with problems that come with the benefits of globalization but makes it worse. How will a deep recession fox anything? Including debt(which is high but manageable under a sane government)

Globalization is fine. Wages in this country are quite high overall. Inequality isn't caused by trade, it's caused by low taxes on rich people, weak unions, and weak labor regulation.

The terrible state of US production is a myth. The US is the second largest manufacturer in the world. The #1 spot is occupied by a country with over 4x our population. Manufacturing employment is down because our manufacturing productivity is really high. Yeah, we don't assemble smartphones or make plastic trinkets. We make cars and jetliners and computer chips.

If you want to address the national debt and inequality, the solution is to correct the power imbalance between employers and employees by strengthening labor regulations and unions, and to raise taxes, especially on high incomes, and especially on the super wealthy. Taxing people like Elon Musk down to a more manageable 10 or 11 figures of net worth won't do a lot for the nation's finances directly, but it will do a lot to curb their power and get the government to be more responsive to our interests instead of theirs.

(And no, tariffs are not a good way to do this, since they're regressive.)

Aren't "weak unions" caused by globalization? Unless the union is global, employers can always respond to stronger unions by pulling the off-shoring lever even more vigorously than they already do.

Globalization adds competition for both labor and business, which will drive prices down. That will limit what unions are able to bargain for, but it also limits what non-union workers are able to bargain for, so it's somewhat orthogonal. A smart union won't bargain so hard that their employer decides to move the facility instead.

There is a net outflow of US dollars, because we keep issuing new debt. The fix there is to stop issuing new debt, by fixing the budget. Sadly, no one seems to think this administration will do that.

Tax corporations and the wealthy since they receive the majority of the benefits. They benefit from a trained healthy workforce, social safety nets, infrastructure like roads and electricity and water. They benefit form the US dollar being the reserve currency for most of the world. I literally cannot list all the ways these two groups benefit in a real tangible outsized way than any other individual.

Trump wants to eliminate all federal taxes. That's NOT going to reduce the deficit. The current republican spending bill includes a 4.5T tax cut to the wealthy and businesses, while cutting only 2T in spending from entitlements WE PAY INTO SEPARATE FROM TAXES. I am entitled to the money that me and my employer pay into Social Security, it's an investment, not a tax.

Let's stop taking from working people who are quickly falling further and further into poverty and start taking from the people who literally own everything!

> For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete

That misses the point on so many levels. First of all consider that this is a domestic problem too. What about all the businesses abandoning California for Texas because wages are so much lower to achieve an equivalent cost of living?

Cheaper goods produced elsewhere is not necessarily a security concern for the economy. Silicon produced only in Taiwan is a security concern for the US, for example, but rubber production isn't even though the US cannot produce natural rubber.

Finally, and most importantly, price depreciation of goods due to global options frees up American businesses and employees to seek more lucrative ventures as the market demands that would other not exist due to opportunity costs.

It's not the idea, it's how it was rolled out, how poorly it was communicated, how little sense the numbers mean.

Do you honestly believe that there are significant numbers of US citizens lining up to take up low-margin manufacturing work as is currently done in China or elsewhere?

Chinese manufacturing workers live on a $25k/y income ($15k without adjusting for purchasing parity!). Do you beliefe that raising prices on goods by 30%ish is enough to make those jobs attractive to US citizens?

What sectors would you suggest primarily sourcing domestic manufacturing workers from, and would you agree that just doing that is going to lead to further cost increase for the average consumer?

In my view, the current tariff approach is a rather naive attempt at improving national self-sufficiency at the cost of the average citizen, and the administrations explicit statements and goals make this pretty clear-- shifting government income from taxes to tariffs is a very obvious losing move for the vast majority of people that spend most of their income.

US economy right now is heavily biased towards providing services and high-tech goods because that is the most valuable use of its citizens according to market dynamics. Managing the economy in a "I know better than the market way" certainly did not work out for the soviets...

Sometimes I feel that people construct elaborate theories of how Trumps policies will end up beneficial for the average citizen, despite clear, explicit descriptions of how that is not the goal and historical precedent of acting directly against working-class interests (i.e. raising estate tax exemptions above literal 1%er-thresholds).

I agree with you. The middle class is going to take all of the blunts. The rich people more or less are not impacted.

So you are okay with exploiting people for labour, often in inhumane conditions just so you can buy some unnecessary junk for cheaper?

> US economy right now is heavily biased towards providing services and high-tech goods because that is the most valuable use of its citizens according to market dynamics

So basically geared for upper class / banking industry? US has some of the highest wealth inequality of the developed world.

But by far the most important aspect is military. Manufacturing capability is extremely important for military. US may be the most advanced, but a $10m rocket will not beat 10,000 $1000 drones.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/05... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-... https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/dhs-crac...

> So you are okay with exploiting people for labour, often in inhumane conditions just so you can buy some unnecessary junk for cheaper?

Do you think that better wages and working conditions in underdeveloped countries are a goal (or even just side-effect) of Trumps policies? How is that achieved?

> Manufacturing capability is extremely important for military. US may be the most advanced, but a $10m rocket will not beat 10,000 $1000 drones.

I don't see a coordinated effort to expand the domestic arms industry that is pushing for those tariffs.

If your narrative is that tariffs are driven by military strategy, then you have to show how those military-industrial concerns drove political decisionmaking- because all I see right now is the president preferring tariffs over taxes for ideological reasons...

> Do you think that better wages and working conditions in underdeveloped countries are a goal (or even just side-effect) of Trumps policies? How is that achieved?

No. It will make labour in US competitive where you have labour laws. Consumers will pay the fair market price for products rather than relying on abusing labour in poor countries.

> I don't see a coordinated effort to expand the domestic arms industry that is pushing for those tariffs.

It's not about creating military industry. It's about creating a manufacturing industry which can be converted into war effort if needed. It's also about self reliance. It's also about creating meaningful jobs that actually create something (as opposed to the wall street where you have upper class just extracting wealth from the working man).

One unintended benefit of this move might be reducing greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping ... if US consumers are consuming more US made products, the supply chain for those projects will have gotten significantly shorter in nautical miles.

I'm hesitant credit President Trump with this too soon though, after all, his motto is "drill drill drill", but It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

Emissions from shipping are about 3-5% of global greenhouse gases, and my understanding is that also includes all domestic shipping. Emissions from personal vehicles (not including freight trucks) is at something like 10%.

I don't have specific numbers for America on hand, but I'd be very surprised if Trump's administration broke even, let alone cause an overall reduction.

Tax the billionaires and the behemoth corporations.

This is a bunch of nonsense that is not driven by data and not even worth a response.

I am tired of people spitting BS just to defend Trump's inane policies and everyone else having to rederive modern economic trade theory in comments in order to counter it.

Physicists used to get a bunch of derision for thinking their high skills in analytical thinking in physics easily carried over to other fields, and now we have CS majors thinking the same.

Regardless I will do some of the countering:

> what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well?

We had a candidates that offered job re-training programs. Those candidates weren't selected and those jobs went away even as we tried to put up protectionist domestic policy.

> our society as such is biased heavily toward importing goods rather than exporting goods.

This is fine. Comparative advantages and all. We just need to produce the goods necessary for national security. It worked out well so far. Do we actually want to have other countries do the high value services and us doing the low value manufacturing???? Why are you justifying engaging in a trade war with Cambodia and Vietnam?

> Tariffs accomplish both of those, raising money at the same time as raising cost of goods and weakening the dollar.

This is not backed by any data. Every single economic thinkthank worth a damn, including conservative ones, have detailed how it will raise the national debt.

I am tired of people saying ridiculous arguments just so they can stave off cognitive dissonance.

Tearing down our soft power and throwig out every trade deal we have carefully crafted since WWII is absolutely ridiculous.

> So, to anyone who disagrees with these measures, but agrees that these are issues we ought to solve, what would you propose?

The solution is clear, let the tax cuts expire, and increase the taxes on corporations. Make special tax incentives on real investment and innovation.

Make a special tax for the four individuals behind Trump at the inauguration, who own more health than 60% of the US population.

Stop allowing billionaires and corporations cheat the tax code to have lower effective rates than the majority of US citizens.

I am sure the 14 billionaires on Trump cabinet will be working on this right away... \s

Billionaire boys behaving badly! Let’s teach them a lesson! That will solve all the problems in the world! /s

Yes of course. What is your solution?

"Warren Buffett Wants Higher Taxes For The Ultra-Rich, Including Himself — Says 'My Friends And I Have Been Coddled Long Enough" - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-wants-higher-t...

"Reagan's Radio Address on Free and Fair Trade on April 25, 1987" - https://youtu.be/5t5QK03KXPc?t=119

Free all the trade (no tariffs by anyone) and let the chips fall where they may.

Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland.

You don’t get world-class infrastructure, universal healthcare, and top-tier education without paying for it. High taxes are the price of a civilized society. Get over it!

Life isn’t meant to be a Squid Game.

While I agree those are great things, don’t fool yourself - someone IS paying for it

Those countries have a population that is a fraction of the US. I’m sure they make more effective use of their taxes too. In the US, taxes continue to rise and health care and education costs rise even more. There are many things that are broken. Painting all billionaires as the problem and thinking that confiscating their wealth via taxes will solve the issues… is a popular rallying cry but is not an actual solution

Dont pretend capital = productivity and wealth = wisdom. That’s how you end up with a system where work is taxed more than ownership, and basic rights like healthcare stay out of reach. U.S. exceptionalism is only notable on it's exceptional inability to do what 150 other countries already figured out.

> Painting all billionaires as the problem

Strongly encourage you to learn about their favorite money making concepts of passive income and compound interest. And other various "financial engineering" techniques corporations are engaging in.

These guys make more money taking a dump than 1000 US workers doing hard labor. I'm sure they are like 1000x more genius that most people but I doubt you could make an argument where a system that rewards this sort of behavior, while contributing absolutely 0 net value to society can also coexist in harmony with the rest of us.

When the most efficient methods of accruing wealth are literally predicated on profiting from doing nothing, they are not the signs of a healthy society.

I’d encourage you to do some research on the history of charging interest. It does indeed make for a large wealth gap and that is indeed a significant social problem.

However it isn’t a problem limited to capitalism or the US. And “billionaires” have been around for quite a long time - I find it strange that some are placed on a pedestal for some reason

I will read into it thank you.

Yes current crops of billionaires aren’t particularly different, but the methods they have access to are increasingly detached from any real world value. And due to the overall wealth of the US and money in the world in general, their ability to create capital out of nothing is on the very extreme end of the spectrum.

They are driven by tunnel vision and are distorting the very concept of money and the purpose it has to serve in society

Reply on news.ycombinator.com