The author’s point is that the lower cost of goods coming from Asia results in increased demand, which then generates more jobs in the post-manufacturing part of the chain.
This is about consumer footwear, not agriculture (nor all of manufacturing).
The US (and most other nations that can afford to) is perfectly used to throwing ~$20 billion at the sector to keep local agriculture operational.
We did not do this for literally every industry in the past because we had (and have) neither the idle workforce to do this, nor does the local population want to do the work (even for slightly uncompetitive wages), nor do consumers want to pay for the difference.
My personal prediction is that people will realize this pretty soon with the consequences of the Trump tariffs manifesting and the whole thing will be rolled back and scaled down, with pretty much nothing to show for it.
Btw the one thing that will be left to show is a wider realization that it's a bad idea to elect a crazy person.
Regret to inform that all of them are crazy.
I'm sure it's comforting to assume that all politicians are equally corrupt and equally insane and so your vote doesn't actually matter one way or the other but Kamala Harris wouldn't be acting like this, nor would Biden. Hell, not even other Republicans.
See: farming, energy, and defense spending/subsidies.
There is no point in history where any nation, anywhere, has needed to be self-sufficient in the production of Nike Air Maxes.
That being said, my sneakers, New Balance 990v6s, were made in the US-- probably Maine. They're $200.
The shoes I typically wear for work, Red Wing Iron Rangers or Work Chukkas, were made in the US-- probably Minnesota. They're $350 and $290 respectively.
I don't know if increased volume will decrease the prices by much, they're only higher than premium imports by a little bit.
There is domestic production already here.
I don't think its reasonable to expect lower prices for domestic production at all, because the demand for domestic products is only going up (from people that used to buy Vietnamese Nikes).
Personally I think the whole tariff experiment is predictably going to fail, because "increased self sufficiency" does not buy you anything, and at some point people are just gonna push back politically if the cost increases get too bad.
The US exports ~1 billion worth of shoes per year, and imports ~25 billion (mainly from Vietnam and China), according to https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2023...
I also think the argument is bad in general, because more/similar exports than imports would only really hold for the countries least affected by the new tariffs, anyway.
I see the argument for things of military significance. The common one is electronic components. But PCBs manufacturing is easy to spinup quickly. Which leave the critical components like IC where the ones we'd actually need are still exclusively overseas. The TSMC factory being built wont produce the newest generation chips.
Same for agriculture, if we're totally self sufficient, what happens when a blight takes out a staple crop or two? You can't just spin up food production or global food trade the way you can with manufacturing.
Meanwhile, having robust global trade is just a less lethal version of MAD, here being mutually assured economic destruction. It's much harder for other nations to turn on you when you both depend on each other for comfort, convience, or survival. Look at how the US is being seen by the international community. The reputation we had as a strong ally and worthwhile partner has been badly damaged. Why would other nations want to help us now? How are we stronger alone, instead of having their eager support?
There are two people, one grows all his own food, and makes all of the tools he needs. He doesn't need anybody. The other works with his neighbors, they share food, he kinda knows how to sharpen an ax, but he uses the ones made by the guy down the street, who's basically a professional blacksmith, even though he introduces himself as a gardener.
which one of those guys appears stronger? Who's more likely to survive something bad happening? who do you think is more likely to win in a fight? (yes their neighbors will come to help) which one would you rather be?
I mean the took over Hong Kong already. I think that is wishful thinking.
Ahh somewhat willingly, the lease to the land expired. So seemingly no choice was given.
I think what you're getting at is that China would have more leverage over the US if they attacked (attempted to invade) Taiwan, which they could use to make it more difficult for the US to protect Taiwan.
In that case they could do things like block some or all exports to the US until we, say, stopped escorting cargo ships in and out of Taiwan. But the notion they would "instantly cut off all exports to the US" is nonsense. There's no reason that's somehow a no-brainer post invasion.
You think they would supply their enemy? Biden said he would protect Taiwan pretty emphatically. I assume Trump would be advised of the same.
So if instead all of these weren't sourced from exclusively Asia, and were sourced from many different countries, including domestically, there wouldn't be a problem?
Also, is your assertion really that US military would be at a near term disadvantage, if exports from Asia stopped? That's a wild take.
> They would probably blockade Japan and other countries as well to keep them from exporting to the US, because that's the smart thing to do
You're the first person to try to convince me that it would be smart for China to start a world war with the US and it's allies over Taiwan.
Needless to say, I disagree that it would be smart, I disagree that china would be willing and likely to do it, and disagree they could do it if they actually tried.
As a Canadian, you just made the argument for strategic value for us. The economic damage caused at the whims of a single person in control of our supposed closest ally is exactly why. The argument for economic "MAD" assumes one country wont be self destructive enough to cut its leg off to spite everyone else and "win" in a way that leaves it worse off.
It doesn't necessarily follow that more expensive shoes will be easier to repair. It's more likely that shoes will simultaneously become more expensive for the consumer AND lower quality and therefore even less amenable to repair.
Reversing the transmission of western consumerism is not an easy change. Few people are willing to pay an extra $50 for a more durable good that lasts. Long term thinking isn't easy for most, and many can't even afford to think that way.
But the tariffs are really a tax, a federal sales tax on the consumer. Biden tried to put in "unrealized gains tax" (which is really Federal property tax). So both presidents are trying to use executive power and double speak to get their people to support new taxes that are ultimately horrible for every American.
Trump Derangement Syndrome runs both directions.