Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Personally, I think it is a delicate balance between protectionism and "Hyper-efficient world-market via free trade" that should be aimed for.

The "Hyper-efficient world-market" ignores local issues that cause real societal ills, that can ultimately be traced to low domestic wages, driven down by the world market's reduced prices, due to lower world wages, coupled with high domestic costs of living, and unfixable demographic issues about mental capabilities that restrict going "Full service economy".

The econimist jargon I keep hearing extolls the joys and virtues of the hyper-efficient world market, saying that "if you can get it cheaper from X, then why make it domestically at all anyway?" and can cite a large amount of theory as to why this is so.

However, again, the need for employment by the local economy, that CANNOT be handwaved away via "We just retrain them from making whizzbangs to serving coffee at starbucks" and other such things (Oh, sorry, "Move them to the 'services industry', my bad.) because not everyone is intellectually equipped for such a switch, and the cavalier behavior of the economists on the matter is very dehumanizing, valuing money over people's actual prosperity.

On the flipside, going gung-ho isolationist on the economy is how you copy North Korea's horrible economic perils.

I would say that we need to retain a secured and suitably protected amount of domestic manufacturing to cover the statistical spread of our population's employment needs, while still reaping benefits of the international market.  Sorry econmists, but yes-- that is inherently inefficient, and there is dick you can do about that unless you can handwave away lower IQs, or magically bestow interest or competences in service jobs.

[smjjames]

Intellectually equipped and mental capabilities? I’m surprised you even went there. I get what you’re trying to say, but there’s plenty of smart people for whom some careers just aren’t their thing.

Of course, sticking smart people in terrible service jobs is equally bad.

[wierd]

There are plenty of people in the US who have borderline low IQ, who are otherwise perfectly well socially adjusted, but cannot handle service industry work, but otherwise live quite comfortably and well on manufacturing; the repetition of the work is not that harmful to them mentally, and they actually prefer it over "Dynamic and challenging work environments" of the services industries.

DO NOT pervert that into saying I think they are walking around going 'DERRRRRRRP" all day or something. 

The societal ills I am referring to include but are not limited to-- being unable to pay bills, foreclosures on their homes due to loss of employment (and employability), the social medical health problems that come from a demographic of the population going without medical treatment because they are now no longer insured, etc.

At some point, the social costs imposed by the free market's "efficiency" far outweighs its benefits. At that point, protectionism to prevent further sliding down that hill is sensible and proper, despite its inefficiency.

[smjjames]

I’m sure they can find service industry work that is equally monotonous, and I think you’re conflating personality with smarts.

Still doesn’t change the fact that automation is taking over those repetitive jobs and those people are going to have to find something.

[wierd]

No, even white collar workers are going to be put out of work by automation, and THEY will *ALSO* have to find work.

The "We can just put them in (Demographic$)!!" is a fallacy. In the financial world, they directly (and rightly!!) assert "Past performance is not a guarantee"

Simply because there was lots of factory jobs during the green revolution, and service jobs appeared after heavy industrial automation, does not mean there will be any kind of work that it would be sensible or efficient for a human to do after AI takes over planning and commerce regulation too.

Ideally, we would be seeking ways to assure that our population has their basic needs met (and thus avoid the social ills I touched on), via some kind of socialist safety net--- but "OMG! SOCIALISM! TEH ANTICHRISTS!!!"

[Sheb]

You're ignoring the fact that other countries will impose retaliatory tariffs on on your industry if you impose yours on theirs.

[wierd]

That is what diplomacy is for.

When you institute the tariffs, you go to their diplomats first.  You say "We have all this documentation showing that this unfettered trade is causing serious domestic problems for us, and we need to change the situation. We are aware that a suddenly imposed tariff will upset your economies as well. We are coming to you in advance to give you warning that we are imposing a tariff, of (calculated ammount), and that this amount is not arbitrary-- we reached based on the minimum amount of market protection our local population requires to stay solvent. We are open to working with you on this issue, but our citizens have to be protected, and we understand that you need to protect yours too."

[Baffler]

China already imposes enormous tariffs on US goods. They have far less room to retaliate than the US does. See the auto industry, as an example. This argument is hardly new, either. Looking for this article I found a very similar one about the Obama administration increasing tariffs on Chinese solar panels and tires that people made the same kind of baleful pronouncements about. These are all, as far as I know, still in place.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/baizhuchen/2012/07/12/tear-down-this-wall-the-chinese-tariff-wall/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-environment/-us-imposes-steep-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/23/how-obamas-tire-tariffs-have-hurt-consumers/?utm_term=.9fb88cd48c86

[scriver]

If the US makes most of it's own steel, then I'm not sure why the steel manufacturers are complaining since the domestic production is never going to go away, despite what Navarro claims.

Because the steel business is worried because of Chinese steel flooding the market. And yes, I know the us (and pretty much the rest if the western world) already have tariffs against them. That's beside the point.

Can't hell but think subsidies for US steel would have been a better tactic.

[wierd]

If China pulls an OPEC and floods the world market, they can only do so for so long.  Also, China is really big into producing infrastructure ATM, if they are flooding the world with steel, that is steel they are producing that is not being used by their own civil engineers or factories.

See also, "Soviet union dumps food on the world market as a show of force, while own population starves" as precedent.  There is a built-in timer on how long a nation can effectively do that.

[Frumple]

... talking about china is kinda' pointless, though. The tariffs were targeting everyone (incidentally, no one I've noticed concerned about the tariffs have given a single shit about china's reaction), and now that they might not be they're basically fucking useless for doing much about chinese steel flooding the market (never mind china's already been downshifting on that front for a few years, now, apparently). At most you're going to be boosting whoever you spare from the tariffs while screwing over everyone domestic that relies on produced steel and aluminum. Domestic production ramping up is cute, since it helps roughly sod all until it's actually built and running, assuming it happens at all worth mention.

Like. Congrats, you've made canada and mexico's (or the eventual whoever) economic ties to china stronger with no gain for yourself, while pissing off many of your allies and possibly/probably starting a trade war, and screwing over your own economy even if your domestic capability does decide there's some benefit to producing more since there's both an interim period involved and the flat sodding fact we're better off jobs wise producing crap with steel rather than producing steel. If your aim was to punish china or help yourself you're doing a much better impression of poodle fornication and should maybe reconsidering screwing the pooch.

[martinuzz]

I think the US actually makes most of its own steel. We have a ton of buy American requirements for stuff for exactly the reason of supporting domestic steel manufacturing. Most of which is made of ore mined and shipped through the sue down to the mills like it always has been. The iron boats never stopped. I don't think the US could even function without the domestic production. The transport infrastructure does not exist.

Nope, US imports most of it's steel. I can't find back what article it was, but I read that only about 1/5th of the steel needed is produced in the US, the rest needs to be imported.
A lot of the imported steel is of specifications that cannot even be made in the US, like the custom width and thickness high grade steel made by Tata Steel in the Netherlands.

Companies like Crown, Ardagh, Silgan and Ball, Steel Warehouse and Caterpillar are in trouble now, their raw rescource cost just increased by 25%. They'll have no choice to either make your domestic consumer goods 25% more expensive, or start losing money and sending people home without a job. I hope you all get a pay increase of 25% in 14 days, to compensate shit getting more expensive.

[martinuzz]

Heh, apparently I missed this news last week, and can't remember anyone posting about it here either.
The US senate approved of a proposal to allow visits of Taiwanese officials to the US, ans US officials to Taiwan.

Chine responded by threatening to declare war on Taiwan, if Trump puts his signature under the new law.

If China does so, the US is obliged to come to their aid, per an old cold war agreement that is still valid.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/china-dreigt-met-oorlog-tegen-taiwan-als-vs-banden-met-het-afvallige-eiland-aanhalen~a4575829/

[wierd]

Indeed. that is one of the many and multitudinous consequences of tariffs.

(Or rather, "Cheap goods!!" is one of the siren songs of free trade. Depends on how you look at it.)

If you look at it from the perspective of:  We tried free trade, and it was like crack cocaine. Yes, there was a big rush, and lots of energy, but now we are hopelessly hooked on being high just to feel normal.  (EG, we are hopelessly dependent upon the cheaper prices of goods, just to feel normal.)

and less of: "Congratulations, now you are gonna experience super withdrawal. Enjoy your shakes, paranoia, and uncontrollable itching."

it makes sense to think of the tariff as an intervention, and not as a "bad."

There are two sides to every story, and treating "Cheap goods!" as a universal "good thing" is dangerous as shit. (again, when there are serious issues with cheap products in the free world market, flooding the domestic market because of removal of trade barriers, local producers simply cannot compete, and they go out of business. Those jobs simply vanish from the economy; they are infeasible to sustain. It can be argued that new jobs of equal value will be created by the economic opportunities of marketing the cheaper goods in the domestic setting, but this is not exactly true; If the more expensive goods were driving more economic activity, (due to full supply line-wide opportunities, and larger sums of money changing hands per exchange), and demand is not sufficient to widely expand the product line with the cheaper foriegn goods to make up with economies of scale, you have just reduced the local economy with the free trade. (Again, because there is less total money exchanging hands now.)

[Sheb]

China already imposes enormous tariffs on US goods. They have far less room to retaliate than the US does. See the auto industry, as an example. This argument is hardly new, either. Looking for this article I found a very similar one about the Obama administration increasing tariffs on Chinese solar panels and tires that people made the same kind of baleful pronouncements about. These are all, as far as I know, still in place.

True, but the US import very little Chinese steel since it already has tariffs on it (About 3% of the total). US steel import come mostly from Canada, Mexico and the EU, and they can (and will) retaliate. China's trade practices are something to object to, certainly, but these particular tariffs don't really apply to it.

That is what diplomacy is for.

And then that country is going to say "Well, then we're going to slap tariffs on X, Y and Z, and the US workers in those industry will suffer.

I think the US actually makes most of its own steel. We have a ton of buy American requirements for stuff for exactly the reason of supporting domestic steel manufacturing. Most of which is made of ore mined and shipped through the sue down to the mills like it always has been. The iron boats never stopped. I don't think the US could even function without the domestic production. The transport infrastructure does not exist.

Nope, US imports most of it's steel. I can't find back what article it was, but I read that only about 1/5th of the steel needed is produced in the US, the rest needs to be imported.
A lot of the imported steel is of specifications that cannot even be made in the US, like the custom width and thickness high grade steel made by Tata Steel in the Netherlands.

Nah, you must be misremembering (or maybe mixing stuff with aluminium, the US import 91% of aluminium made from ore as opposed to recycled aluminium), the US only import a third of its steel.

If China pulls an OPEC and floods the world market, they can only do so for so long.  Also, China is really big into producing infrastructure ATM, if they are flooding the world with steel, that is steel they are producing that is not being used by their own civil engineers or factories.

Not really, China's infrastructure build-up is slowing down compared to a few years ago. That is part of of the reason for the current flood of cheap chinese steel: smelting capacity that was built to fuel the infrastructure build-up is not needed anymore, but local governments in China don't want them to close so they can flood the international market with cheap, subsidised steel. China is cutting capacity (although mostly to make their air breathable again rather than out of concern for their trade partners), but nowhere near fast enough.