Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw0101c | Hacker News Reader

> But, he claims, there are network effects to manufacturing. Those countries low on the value chain, once they learn how how to build things, are better equipped to rise in the value chain and replace companies completely.

So you place tariffs on specific goods that you wish to strategically produce domestically.

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good

Doing a blanket tariff on (e.g.) Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—which hits clothing (see Nike, Adidas stock prices)—is not helpful. Why is the US interested in making sneakers and t-shirts?

Doing specific tariffs for strategic / national security purposes is one thing, but that is obviously not what is happening here: and it is obvious because tariffs were put on the island of Diego Garcia, whose on inhabitants are US and UK military personnel, and Heard and McDonald Islands in the middle of nowhere whose only inhabitants are penguins.

View on HN

> and Heard and McDonald Islands in the middle of nowhere whose only inhabitants are penguins.

This one is because of imports that were labeled as having come from there: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/04/revea...

> Doing specific tariffs for strategic / national security purposes is one thing, but that is obviously not what is happening here:

It's not so obvious to me. If they left certain countries out, then bad actors could set up shop in those countries to exploit their low tariff. For example, Chinese companies opened factories in Mexico after the first round of tariffs hit China.

As for why not targeting certain items, it seems pretty clear that Trump is concerned more with trade imbalance itself than security reasons (he puts it as, "make America wealthy again"). Instead of creating very complex regulations that are always behind the constantly changing market, the policy is simple. It forces the other country to figure out what's causing the trade imbalance.

> It's not so obvious to me. If they left certain countries out, then bad actors could set up shop in those countries to exploit their low tariff. For example, Chinese companies opened factories in Mexico after the first round of tariffs hit China.

Is that why Israel got 17% tariffs but Iran has 10%?

Or why Diego Garcia—who is run by the UK—also got hit with tariffs, even though the only inhabitants are UK and US military personnel. There's a bunch of B-2s there right now:

* https://www.twz.com/air/b-2-spirits-amassed-on-diego-garcia-...

* https://newrepublic.com/post/193523/donald-trump-tariffs-us-...

> Is that why Israel got 17% tariffs but Iran has 10%?

Wouldn't tariffs being based off of the trade deficit explain exactly this? Also maybe this is not the best example since doesn't the US already impose sanctions on Iran?

> Wouldn't tariffs being based off of the trade deficit explain exactly this? Also maybe this is not the best example since doesn't the US already impose sanctions on Iran?

Yes, which is why the tariff rates are retarded.

As someone observed: it's like being taxed not on your income, but on the number of vowels in your name.

> Doing a blanket tariff on (e.g.) Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—which hits clothing (see Nike, Adidas stock prices)—is not helpful. Why is the US interested in making sneakers and t-shirts?

Why shouldn't the US be interested in being able to clothe its own people?

For the same reasons most of us don't sew our own clothes.

We have better things to do, and others will do it faster, cheaper, and better than we can.

> cheaper

One major reason why it is cheaper to make these clothes overseas is because we have such a stringent regulatory regime for worker and environmental protections, and using foreign manufacturers is essentially a loophole through those regulations. Whether those regulations are useful or not is entirely beside the point: if they are good, then moving manufacturing over to lower regulation countries is bad and we should impose tariffs on all of those goods. If those regulations are bad, then we should just repeal them and let domestic manufacturers compete on an even playing field.

We grow corn in Kansas and not NYC's Central Park. (Roughly) the same regulatory regime; very different costs of living and available workforces.

Yes, there will still be specialization and trade in a balanced regulatory environment.

Precisely.

As such, Americans don't make many of their own clothes.

No.

We don't make our own clothes because:

1. The regulatory burden on manufacturing is much higher here than foreign countries

2. Those foreign countries have a deliberate policy of maintaining a trade surplus in order to improve their own industrial capacity at the expense of our own

I would absolutely expect that even in a more level trade environment there would still be some foreign manufacturing of clothes. But what we are seeing is not the happy accident of the free market, but the result of very deliberate government policy.

You've left out:

3. American workers have more productive uses of their time.

No, I did not. Are you actually going to engage with the arguments I have made?

You've not made any, just assertions.

> Why shouldn't the US be interested in being able to clothe its own people?

There are plenty of made-in-USA clothing companies: what do those items (shoes, shirts, pants, underwear, coats, etc) cost compared to the same items made not-in-USA? How much do you want your citizens spending on such items compared to other things? Do you want them to spend 3-5% on apparel:

* https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/spending-on-clothing-and-foot...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditu...

Or 10%? More?

Most people have a finite income, so whatever they're spending on clothing they're not spending on something else (which could include services). How important is making clothing as an industry compared to something else?

Yes, manufacturing is important, but given that a country has a finite population it may be prudent to be more focused:

> Democratic countries’ economies are mainly set up as free market economies with redistribution, because this is what maximizes living standards in peacetime. In a free market economy, if a foreign country wants to sell you cheap cars, you let them do it, and you allocate your own productive resources to something more profitable instead. If China is willing to sell you brand-new electric vehicles for $10,000, why should you turn them down? Just make B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps, sell them for a high profit margin, and drive a Chinese car.

> Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps aren’t very useful for defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about manufacturing would have been years before the war, except you weren’t able to anticipate and prepare for the future. Manufacturing doesn’t just support war — in a very real way, it’s a war in and of itself.

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now

Do you want people operating sewing machines or (say) welders?

The garment industry is an interesting one to make a cost argument about.

It produces an immense amount of ecological damage and human suffering to support prices so low that even poor people have way more clothing than they need.

The garment industry in Southeast Asia has some of the worst working conditions in the world, comparable without cynicism to modern day slavery.

Of all the things that I would like to see taxed, the garment industry is absolutely one.

Yes, it would be worth it to pay more per item of clothing if it was created by someone with human rights. Super worth it. Please tax the likes of Vietnam and kill fast fashion brands like Shien. The world would be 100% better.

In general I think these tariffs are terrible but taking the side of fast fashion is pretty much always morally wrong.

> In general I think these tariffs are terrible but taking the side of fast fashion is pretty much always morally wrong.

I'm not taking the side of fast fashion: I'm saying that US people would potentially spend less in aggregate when all items are suddenly more expensive, which can have domestic economic effects. Especially with the suddenness of all this (the day after which Trump went golfing).

If you want to deal with the specific issue of working conditions, then (e.g.) a treaty mandating working conditions (with international monitoring?) could be a better idea, with violations imposing tariffs for violations after a transition period so changes have time to be implemented.

> Do you want people operating sewing machines or (say) welders?

Adequate clothing is actually a very important in war. Frostbite, sunburn, heat exhaustion, cuts and scrapes (which can lead to infection), trench foot, etc. are all conditions that can be mitigated through clothing.

> Adequate clothing is actually a very important in war. Frostbite, sunburn, heat exhaustion, cuts and scrapes (which can lead to infection), trench foot, etc. are all conditions that can be mitigated through clothing.

Which is why all US military clothing is mandated to be domestically produced (Berry Amendment).

But how much industrial capacity do you want to take up making clothing? Or do you want to concentrate your finite workforce in perhaps being able to produce (say) artillery shells or cruise missiles?

Which is another ironic/sad part of Trump and Ukraine: a large portion of the US money 'sent' to UA actually went to the American military industrial complex. Helping UA was actually helping the US in being better prepared from a military supply chain POV.

Similarly, by alienating NATO allies, they're now less inclined to purchase US military gear, and so there will be lower economies of scale for fighters and missiles and such.

The icebreaker agreement (ICE Pact) would have caused investment in US shipyards:

* https://canadiandefencereview.com/davie-will-soon-establish-...

* https://gcaptain.com/polar-icebreakers-may-be-key-to-jumpsta...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_Pact

> Which is why all US military clothing is mandated to be domestically produced (Berry Amendment).

Cool.

> But how much industrial capacity do you want to take up making clothing?

I actually want the market to decide that. But that is fundamentally what we do not have. It has been more or less the result of conscious trade policy (by all governments involved) to incentivize production in other countries.

> I actually want the market to decide that. But that is fundamentally what we do not have. It has been more or less the result of conscious trade policy (by all governments involved) to incentivize production in other countries.

But that is The Market™ deciding that.

The American (and other) consumer wants cheap(er) stuff. The way to get that, while also allowing companies to have a profit margin, is to lower input costs—one of which is labour. So the consideration of desired low retail prices and margins have The Market deciding to move production to lower-wage areas.

And "lower" wage is relative: it is lower than what Americans/whomever would perhaps be willing to work for, but the wages may be pretty good for the location where the work is being done.

If you personally are willing to pay more for (perceived?) "quality" of 'Made in the USA' (or wherever), then there may be market for products in that market segment. But not everyone may want, or have the resources, to partake in that higher-price segment. Why should they have to pay more? One can buy a DeWalt or Ryobi or Harbor Freight drill: why should be forced to by DeWalt prices if all they need/want is HF?

Making clothes more expensive for everyone is helping that how?

The reason it makes the clothes more expensive is that US workers are paid more, work in better conditions, and have more rights. That's worth spending more to support.

I'm talking about jacking up tariffs immediately, costing US consumers right now, with false promises of mfg magically popping up immediately to replace it. The government needs to directly fund and standup industrial infrastructure in the way China does with their SEZ to actually bring the jobs here, and we know that that will never happen.

Either way clothing will cost more.

Unless China (or another supplier) chooses to pay the tariffs to make their products more competitive. I've heard allegations that they do sometimes export products below cost.

But the clothing costs more without the benefit of supporting countries with stronger workers' rights. Isn't that the worst of both worlds?

The extra costs support the US government, so opinions will vary. But that's the pessimistic view. The ideal outcome is making import costs high enough that US manufacturing can compete without subsidies.

The ideal outcome is a fantasy. The US doesn't have factories because every large US company currently offshores their factory labor. The tariffs at this point in time just increase costs for consumers while, ideally, US companies build factories on US soil over the next 5+ years. That is not a good outcome for Americans, even considering the support of future American manufacturing.

Imposing a tax on goods from offshore suppliers is a subsidy.

Almost literally, as the goal of the tariff is to change buyer behavior. At least, of the tariff even has a coherent goal.

> Either way clothing will cost more.

If there are no tariffs they won't cost more. They could use other means to onshore jobs without causing a huge shock to the economy, then raise tariffs.

If Americans believed this there wouldn’t ever have been a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com