Empty shelves are just one of the symptoms. The real pain will come from companies having to deal with increased taxes (that's what tariffs are) for Chinese components, decreased exports (counter tariffs, anti US sentiments), etc. and then their follow up to that would be using tools like layoffs, price increases, etc. Some of those companies might have to close doors and go bankrupt. If that happens a lot you get the ripple effect on banks via foreclosures of businesses and mortgages (like sixteen years ago).
There are of course quite a few large US businesses being affected directly by this stuff. I imagine that they are not happy with this. And that level of unhappiness will translate into shifts in political donations. Which, I'm sure is something that will get more apparent as next year's mid term elections get closer. That's a stick that can be (and probably already is) wielded that might produce results soonish.
At least, I imagine the CEOs of GM, Ford, Boeing, etc. might have a thing or two to say about seeing China disappear as a market where they can do business to sell stuff or to source key components that they require for their own products. China was not being subtle rejecting delivery of a couple of new Boeing planes. And reductions in container traffic from China (which are the life blood of the US economy) are of course a very visible thing. And since container deliveries are critical for supply chains of most manufacturing that actually still happens in the US, that could get ugly really quickly.
Worst case all this triggers a recession. Those are rarely predicted accurately until after they've happened. But the signs aren't great and wall street is definitely nervous. A few stocks crashing because investors start panic selling could do the job. We're not there yet, but it got close a few weeks ago.
Recession is probably the best case scenario. If only we get through this with just a recession!
The world's economic inter-dependence is one of the things that have kept World War 3 at bay for decades. Nobody's going to start a hot war with their neighbor when they rely on each other through trading. Russia shows what happens when you economically isolate a country with sanctions and force them to rely on themselves economically: It reduces one of the downsides of warfighting. Do we really want an isolated, independent and self-sufficient China?
>Nobody's going to start a hot war with their neighbor when they rely on each other through trading.
World War 1 begs to differ, hell even the Russian invasion of Crimea back in 2014 begs to differ. Economic interdependence dosen't stop authoritarians, it only threatens democracies with a larger margin for dissent.
WWI started in countries (Balkans) with the least economic interdependence, then pulled in more Western European countries through defense alliances. While technically someone could have put the brakes on, it was an autopilot sort of thing. The lesson of WWI is that if you're going to enter into defense agreements that obligate you, be careful to whom you're wedding yourself. In particular, don't wed yourself to someone who has much less to lose than you do.
One of the lessons from the prelude to WWII is to be careful about trade imbalances, as they can breed instability and radicalism. During the 1920s the US enjoyed huge trade surpluses with Europe, which caused all manner of monetary and labor dislocation in Europe. Worse, the US wasn't content with this surplus, so similar to modern China they erected additional barriers to imports to try to have their cake and eat it, too. These effects were amplified by the gold standard, which accelerated deflation and unemployment in Europe, and accelerated (stock market) inflation in the US. And of course all these ill effects were amplified again for Germany.
Toward the end of the 1920s and during the 1930s, the whole system was disassembled as every country, understandably, retreated to lick its wounds. Economic interdependence is critical to maintaining global security, but that interdependence itself isn't self-sustaining. It can fall apart if dislocations aren't managed well across the system. For example, the lessons from the 1990s and early 2000s is, "just go back to college or trade school" is an absolutely horrible approach to dealing with labor dislocation. Significant changes in labor structure need to happen inter-generationally, not intra-generationally.
From the Russian perspective, the US promised not to expand NATO eastwards in return for allowing German unification. While Russia was weak, NATO ignored the promise, but miscalculated after Russia strengthened.
Ultimately, you need to understand the Russia reasons, and they had been threatening war since 2008 when Bush announced Ukraine could become a NATO member.
If you rely on Western sources to interpreted Eastern motives, you end up with rubbish like "they hate us for our freedoms".
It is a willful distortion of the so-called 2+4 Treaty from 1990, in which the two German states and the four occupying powers negotiated the terms of reunification. Ultimately, they agreed that only West German military forces would enter East Germany until the withdrawal of Soviet troops, which was to be completed by the end of 1994 at the latest. This is stipulated in Article 4 and Article 5 of the treaty: https://web.archive.org/web/20050222182358/https://usa.usemb...
Great point. Also "because of our love of jesus christ" has been thrown at me a few times when I'm trying to provide more nuanced arguments for why people in other countries might not favor us.
It's also just not the general lesson from history either. Plus you have to recall that in many cases war is about resource acquisition as much as anything else, and sometimes wars are popularized as ideological crusades when they are masquerading as resource disputes in order to motivate a populace.
Something that has become apparent to me is that in our years of somewhat peaceful economic growth, we seem to have forgotten that there are haves and have-nots and that the economic system that was created to hopefully replace war with peaceful competition only works so much as the large powers decide that it works well enough. Those who are have-nots tend to not have the proportional military leverage to do something about their position.
Our rejection of colonialism, mercantilism, and imperialism in favor of a "rules based international order" has blinded us a bit through abstraction and legalese to the reality of how the world works and the limits of resource availability given the size of the planet and the population numbers.
> As such it should be the priority of all democracies to extinguish authoritarians whenever possible.
I used to think this as well, but I recently re-read George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address [1] and it aided me in coming to the conclusion that such a moral crusade is neither wise, nor moral, and least of all practical.
There will always be some nations that have governments, authoritarian in our eyes or otherwise, that we disagree with from a political perspective. But we simply do not have the time, resources, or motivation to do something about all of them, and even as we try to do something about one or more of them we wind up with others popping up. Instead we should seek to treat fairly where possible, and treat not at all where necessary due to immoral behavior and stop trying to control the entire world. That doesn't mean we should never intervene or do anything, as in the case of Nazi Germany or perhaps other atrocities, but a national policy of extinguishing authoritarians seems to me to be one that isn't in our best interest.
I'm not pitching this as a moral crusade, but as a practical one. Authoritarianism is a cancer that invariably spreads and disrupts the global system.
It is simply in our best interest to starve cancer whenever we find it and excise it if possible.
If the goal of buying Russian hydrocarbons was to increase the economic stability of Russia and to foster capitalistic market systems in the country to prevent the rise of authoritarianism then the second they invaded Georgia should have resulted in the cutting of those economic ties.
If the goal of opening trade up to China was to prevent a Chinese-Soviet alliance and to weaken the USSR then the second the USSR fell we should have pivoted to defeating Chinese authoritarianism instead of strengthening economic ties to them which has ultimately provided fuel for an authoritarian economic machine that has grown to surpass the capacity of the US and made the US dependent on it.
We didn't do those things and now we're facing existential economic and military threats.
Are you ready to sign up and go fight in Ukraine or elsewhere and die to stop authoritarianism as a matter of practicality?
It's not a very fair question to ask, I know, but I think we really need to make sure we are honest about what we're asking people to do.
Cutting economic ties in these specific cases isn't enough to actually stop the bloodshed and bring about stability.
There are practical limits to our willpower and resources and we can't just stamp out every dictatorship in the world, remember Iraq and Afghanistan? I fully support our actions in Ukraine, by the way, and in terms of picking fights that's probably one of our better ones to help stop authoritarianism.
> Are you ready to sign up and go fight in Ukraine or elsewhere and die to stop authoritarianism as a matter of practicality?
Not necessarily, as I’m not directly threatened, but I’m more than happy to carve out a piece of my paycheck to give Ukrainians any and every piece of equipment they need to do it for me.
Ok but that's not enough to fight all of these authoritarian regimes that spring up. We don't have enough people, resources, or willpower to defeat all authoritarian regimes militarily forever. We have to be prudent, and sometimes we just have to live with such regimes.
This is circular reasoning. You are pretty much saying democracies should be aggressors first. If you swap `authoritarian` and `democracy` in your statement, it will also ring true.
However, the parent poster paints a different picture. If people in Moscow were economically threatened by reduced trade caused by an invasion, the elite appetite for such a move would be reduced.
"In the early 2000s, however, German politicians had developed a contrary, more liberal theory — that more economic interdependence between Russia and western Europe would create peace in the long run. As trade increased, democracy would inevitably prevail."
>Do we really want an isolated, independent and self-sufficient China?
China being cut off from ~15%? of their market does not mean China isolation, it means US rewriting Child labor laws to fill Walmart shelves.
There's a difference between preventing war and preventing a wider world war. Trade links persisting even when countries are opposed to each other contributes to a certain level of global order between the biggest powers.
We do not and cannot so trivially assign a reason for the lasting peace since WWII. There are many theories in international relations that propose a cause, and none are currently accepted as being solely correct
I think the more pointed question is: will USA aggression be unchecked if the economies disconnected?
China hasn't invaded anyone. USA is conducting an active genocide in Gaza and the Iraq War wasn't that long ago. I could name so many other incidents of unbridled aggression it boggles the mind.
> The real pain will come from companies having to deal with increased taxes (that's what tariffs are) for Chinese components
In a sane world, that's what targeted tariffs are. You don't want to tariffs across the whole board because you might affect exporting manufactures whose prices will go through the roof and might experience disruption. It is kind of what is happening with auto tariffs now that there is a huge blow back but one wonder how many industries out there can't voice their concerns or are not aware of this.
Any assumption that there is targeting or any sort of planning by the chaos goblins we currently have running this administration is long on hope and short on reality.
> There are of course quite a few large US businesses being affected directly by this stuff. I imagine that they are not happy with this. And that level of unhappiness will translate into shifts in political donations. Which, I'm sure is something that will get more apparent as next year's mid term elections get closer.
Maybe. It is possible, though, that we are now in a situation like in the third Nolan Batman movie where Tom hardy puts his hand on the rich guy’s neck and says “do you feel in charge?”
I'm already seeing this in the life-sciences. Illumina, who used to own the game of DNA sequencing, has been laying people off left and right. All my contacts within the company are laid off.
> At least, I imagine the CEOs of GM, Ford, Boeing, etc. might have a thing or two to say about seeing China disappear as a market where they can do business to sell stuff....
They largely weren't doing this anyway due to Chinese economic policy. For example:
> Ford's market share in China has declined significantly.In 2024, Ford's market share was 1.6%, down from a peak of 4.7% in 2015. Over the past three years, Ford's average market share in China has been a modest 1.8%.
Ford is a bad example because the Chinese never really liked American cars. Before the EV boom they preferred BBA (Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audi). Right now it's homegrown brands.
Pharmaceuticals would be a slightly better example.
While this is true, this changed around 2009. What happened? The Chinese government started heavily subsidizing domestic automakers [0]while continuing the joint venture requirements for foreign automakers, which started in 1979 [1]. These joint venture requirements have been a source of significant intellectual property theft [2]. All foreign automakers operating in China, not just U.S. ones, have either faced bankruptcy or a significant downturn in market share in China over the past 15 years.
Coincidentally around the same time that the US bailed out its own automakers. The US also heavily subsidizes it's own auto industry, see the billions loaned to Rivian to build their new plant.
> There are of course quite a few large US businesses being affected directly by this stuff. I imagine that they are not happy with this. And that level of unhappiness will translate into shifts in political donations. Which, I'm sure is something that will get more apparent as next year's mid term elections get closer. That's a stick that can be (and probably already is) wielded that might produce results soonish.
I sincerely hope you’re right, but all initial evidence is the oligarchs kissing the ring, not pulling the strings. Maybe when it becomes obvious that they’re not getting anything for all that abasement they change tacks, but nothing in the Trump era has suggested to me that these folks have the tiger by anything but the tail.
One thing that’s been interesting (in a Ralp-Wiggins-esque “I’m in danger!” type way) to watch over the last few years is all the “end of history” types re-learning that Mao was right and that economic might only translates into real power when you use it to buy guns. Europe spent a decade trying to tie Russia into the global economy only to find all that cheap energy meant that when Russia walked into the Ukraine, they were on the wrong side of the ledger to throw their weight around. In the US, our oligarchs didn’t realize how much they were relying on the fact that US government officials believed the same lies about the power of capital that they did, and were caught entirely off guard when Trump walked in, picked up the gun on the table, pointed it at them, and said “I’ll take your wallet, please.”
There’s a whole generation of neoliberals learning Littlefinger’s lesson these days: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifaRhL95HUM - it’s a shame the rest of us are stuck on this ride with them.
To be fair, life's better when you don't have to rely on the guns. If you're willing to work together to make the pie bigger for everyone, peacefully, you get further.
Which is why you have to occasionally knock the people willing to exploit the peaceful order, off.
Completely agree. But I think something lost in this is how much violence the "end of history" state of affairs increasingly relied on to keep that "peaceful" context in place - among the reasons Russia walked into the Ukraine was that Russia considered the Ukraine to be its buffer against NATO, which it viewed as genuinely an existential threat. The Middle East has been in a state of war for 20 years now, the US drug wars in Central and South America have had absolutely disastrous consequences, and the level of environmental destruction we've outsourced to other parts of the world would preclude a lot of our current economic practices if we tried to do them at home. Even in the US, the Mangione killing highlighted this - UHC was the absolute top in denying health care claims, an activity with actual deaths associated with it. Just because the power centers aren't threatened doesn't mean there's not violence present in the system. In the west, we've relied a lot on the fact that the majority of the people with guns have typically been further out in the periphery than us, and all those guns have been pointed at other people on our behalf - our peace is not everyone's peace.
I don’t know that it takes guns. If we moved to, say, ranked-choice voting and a multi-party system, the more extreme elements of our country would probably be sidelined.
And if they feel sufficiently shut out of the political process they'll rely on their guns. If you think the US is immune from insurgent dynamics, please read more widely. I think you'd find it particularly worthwhile to look into the collapse of Yugoslavia, which also had a federal system.
Well, we did have a civil war some time ago! But given the gross imbalance of military capability between the state and the citizen, I’m not worried today about a successful violent overthrow of the USA.
That was equally true in Yugoslavia, and indeed in Afghanistan. I think it's extremely naive to assume the US is immune from this. When I told people 10-15 years ago that I thought the US was ripe for and vulnerable to autocratic political leadership nobody took it seriously either, yet here we are.
You need to present it as a choice: you either bring about ranked-choice voting and a wider range of political parties so that issues can be dealt with peacefully, or, face real consequences for attempts to block the efforts at peace.
is it not obvious the oligarchs control the globalist politicians and not the nationalists?
Is it controversial to say that if you really wanted to "fight the oligarchy", your policy positions would be pretty similar to the America first agenda (sans social issues)?
I think it's impossible to understand the relationships here without really grokking that the MAGA set is both incompetent and incoherent. The movement is properly seen as an angry tantrum - a reaction to the state of the world, not a coherent ideology and plan for improving it. The coherent ideology and plan for improving it involves actually investing in domestic manufacturing, a strong push for labor rights and unions to make sure people are getting paid, a commitment to antitrust action, and, yes, protectionism of domestic industry (as a fun bonus, compare that to Biden's economic policies), but that's not what we've got here - we've got rage and anger and personal vendettas and wishful thinking as policy.
This is what I mean when I say the oligarchs have the tiger by the tail - from the time of the Moral Majority through the evangelicals of Bush's era through the Tea Party through MAGA, the business wing of the republican party has been cultivating the populist wing as an electoral strategy. They've managed to muddy the water with enough "government bad, immigrant criminals, trans athletes" rhetoric that what you've got now is a party and a movement that can _feel_ that there's something wrong - stagnant wages, inaccessible health care, deaths of despair, and Jeff Bezos - but the right wing message machine still has enough of a hand on the wheel that they can't actually get their way to things like labor rights and social security and all the other stuff we came up with last time this kind of thing happened.
Then you get Donald Trump, who well and truly does not give a shit about anything at all, and so he's absolutely fine to grab the wheel here and yank it hard into populism land, and now the oligarchs have a problem, because they've got a mafia boss at the head of an angry mob, and no part of that has any coherent ideology except Trump's crystal clear vision of people paying him a lot of money and treating him like a king, and now you've got tantrum as policy and no actual adults left in the room.
So, yes, America First and the MAGA movement are, depending on the day and time, anti-oligarch, but they're anti-oligarch like a dog is anti-car - there's not really a _plan_ there, just a lot of noise and motion and probably some teeth marks, but I don't really think it's gonna work out great for the dog either.
I am very much on the fence on this one. I can tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, based on having been in manufacturing across various industries for over thirty years, that the US and Europe have been on a path to loose nearly all manufacturing capacity within ten years, maybe twenty at best.
How do we compare the pain (and yes, some destruction) that we have to endure today against the devastation that is clearly in the horizon for both regions within a decade or two?
To be sure, what's going on today should have been done twenty to thirty years ago. Doing this today is far more difficult and painful.
I think Kevin O'Leary put it best: What we want a reasonably free markets. It isn't just about tariffs. It's about regulatory lockout, intellectual property and more.
For example, India imposes as much as a 110% tariff on US cars and trucks. The list of such actions --which also included non-tariff rules-based restrictions-- is long. From China imposing up to 25% on our cars, autos, chemicals and food to the EU, Canada, Mexico and others following suit. Brazil collected over $800 million in retaliatory tariffs blocking US pharmaceuticals, autos and textiles.
In other words, the relationship with hundreds of countries has been very one-sided for a long time. US industry needs to export to thrive, but if countries like Turkey impose 140% tariffs on our autos and trucks, markets are de-facto shut down.
How long can any country survive this kind of inequity?
So, yeah, this is a rough moment. I hope it is for the best. Everyone benefits from a more open and balanced market.
And then, of course, there's one of the elephants in the room: Intellectual property theft.
Whatever your hopes and dreams around domestic manufacturing, blanket tariffs capriciously imposed at random are unlikely to get any dream closer to reality, except perhaps the dream of total devastation of all manufacturing.
Let's look at what an actual domestic manufacturer has to say about tariffs[1]?
Oh, looks bad! Turns out, manufacturers import stuff, add value to it, and sell it for more money!
Hopefully we'll get more cast iron plants in Cape Cod. I'm off to the mill!
> Whatever your hopes and dreams around domestic manufacturing
This isn't about my hopes and dreams, it's about reality. I gave up years ago. I manufacture in China and other places. My take, after suffering the consequences for years, was simple: If my own government does not help me with such things as IP protection, control of currency manipulation, etc., screw it, I'll look after myself and my family. No choice.
So, I sold my manufacturing equipment and got the fuck out. We work with two factories in China and, well, I don't give a shit any more. Sounds horrible, I know, but, as the movie line goes "Mongo small fish in pond of life". This is something for the next generation to figure out...or not...and suffer whatever the consequences might be.
What is always notable is that almost nobody commenting on these kinds of threads know what the fuck they are talking about. A bunch of software engineers playing business person. Not a clue. Go talk to real manufacturing entrepreneurs and see what they say. Until then, you are not at all equipped to understand what's in front of us at all.
But, are you looking at what's going on, with the on-again / off-again tariffs announced on discord or whatever, and thinking, "oh, lordy, I can finally rebuild my dream factory in Missoula!" are you?
If I had a specific domestic product to protect and foster, I imagine I'd probably be somewhat more nuanced than whatever this process has been.
Over my life, I've seen car assembly leave the Los Angeles area, I've worked in machine tool manufacturing plants, I've seen modest electronic manufacturing companies fail in Massachusetts, I've seen C Beams glitter off the shoulder of Orion, etc. Now I work a bland service sector job managing kafka clusters.
The infrastructure elsewhere was developed by thoughtful and focused government effort to foster the industry domestically. I don't see what's going on now, in any way, focused or thoughtful. I don't see a plan, just arson.
So, I won't speak for you, but I can't imagine anyone looking at the current US Governments' policies and thinking "I'm going to pull assets from elsewhere and build there because that looks really stable and thoughtful and they've got my back."
While there are more peaceful ways of rebalancing trade, unilateral tariffs would be able to rebalance things on the long term. The problem is that alot of people in HN think in terms in export-driven economy, when in reality the majority of USA's economy is consumption, it's the largest consumer in the world. Loosing access to foreign markets dosen't mean as much to USA as it does to the rest of the world loosing access to USA.
Long term, manufacturers will come back or be created to grab all those customers. But for the rest of the world, it's much harder for suppliers who lost a massive chunk of their customers to suddenly find new customers beyond what's already existing. Creating demand is notoriously harder than increasing supply. And it dosen't help that the majority of other major economies are also export-based, so unless if some are willing to run deficits (and they won't), there's literally nowhere else to go other than a global recession. Developing countries are far too poor and would essentially be turned into captive markets bereft of industrialization.
I don't agree with the implementation of Trump's policies, but this is going right back to Keynes' concerns about limitations of global trade balancing, it's a long time coming, and much of the blame does come back to the surplus economies that doubled down on manufacturing rather than transitioning to consumer based economies.
Balance trade? Trade isn't a single ledger that needs to be in balance.
If you read that article about Haas automation, they say that they import cast iron and PCBs, presumably they import some chips and use some domestic chips, they put these all together and sell machine tools (big machines used to make machines, the exact sort of thing that trump et all are banging on about needing to be made in the usa, which last I checked, Oxnard california counts as "USA").
Nobody in the USA makes cast iron in the volume needed by haas; nobody in the USA makes PCBs at the price point needed by haas. Nobody's going to be able to start domestic production of either now, because they'd need to import all the materials from elsewhere to make the cast iron foundry, and nobody's going to take the chance that their multi million dollar investment isn't going to be ruined by trump changing his mind in a month.
So whatever you think you're arguing for, the world's way more complex than you think it is. And this execution of whatever the plans are, has been so far beyond inept as to land in a different scale altogether.
>Balance trade? Trade isn't a single ledger that needs to be in balance.
By definition, global exports must be matched with global imports to sum to zero, unless if you are trading with aliens. This is basic double-entry accounting and mainstream economics.
>Nobody in the USA makes cast iron in the volume needed by haas; nobody in the USA makes PCBs at the price point needed by haas. Nobody's going to be able to start domestic production of either now
On the long term, factories can be built, workers can be trained. If the price point of manufacturing is more profitable domestically than through outsourcing via tariffs, then investment will naturally flow to account for those opportunities.
But like I said, what you fail to see is that firms like Haas Automation are not reflective of the larger US economy, the majority of the US economy is supported by consumption, not manufacturing, and actually it's the top 10% that accounts for almost 50% of domestic consumption, meaning a whopping 10% of US consumers account for 15% of global consumption. Counter-Tariffs aren't going to mean as much to Investment Bankers, Lawyers, Doctors, Senior SWE etc. People will come to and build production if China is not available because they will want to grab the lucrative opportunities of the largest consumer base in the world.
On the other hand for surplus exporters, bereft of such a consumer base, unless if they find a way to make up for that consumer base (which is very difficult), all those factories are going to close down very quickly, and mass unemployment ensues. It's not just China, it's possibly Vietnam, most of SEA, Germany, Japan, etc. And that matters for the negotiating table, hence why many did not pursue counter-tariffs. But they've been doubling down on manufacturing rather than shoring up domestic consumption, the US reaction is by definition the Beggar-Thy-Neighbour as a consequence of their greedy actions.
The larger argument really is for a more balanced global trade, where countries current account balances would be near 0. It's true that US consumption rate will probably need to go down for it, but that also means that the rest of the world would be increasing their consumption (and their living standards) rather than suppressing domestic demand for the sake of manufacturing fetishism. It would be an all around more resilient to trade shocks than the status quo today.
Do you have balanced trade with your gas station? With your dentist? The double entry book keeping has to balance after all. Oh, you use money, and each party has their own ledger. Maybe your dentist is taking advantage of you, but it isn't because they never exchange your gasoline for polishing your molars.
Let's go back to a real world example -- a successful machine tool manufacturer in the united states, theoretically the very thing we want (which in fact, I totally agree with -- such companies are important in a huge number of ways).
They import raw or partially finished materials (cast iron, blank or partially assembled PCBs); haas does a bunch of work on these materials, puts it all together and sells the finished product for more than all the raw materials cost to lots of other (typically different) people.
Now, because of blanket tariffs -- on things the US has no interest, capacity, or foundation to build, like cast iron. Nobody's going to make a PCB assembly company or cast iron foundry in the USA to meet this need, it'd take years, the products would be way too expensive, and the only possible market is ... haas automation? Never going to happen. Instead, haas will just raise prices and lose market.
The blanket tariff negotiation (I tariff all your stuff, or else!) is "Do what I want or I'll kill your daughter, eat your dog, and burn your farm!" -- but in this case, because trump's said the same thing to everyone, he's actually saying "Do what I want or I'll kill my daughter, eat my dog, and burn my farm!"
>Do you have balanced trade with your gas station? With your dentist? The double entry book keeping has to balance after all. Oh, you use money, and each party has their own ledger. Maybe your dentist is taking advantage of you, but it isn't because they never exchange your gasoline for polishing your molars.
I'm talking about global trade balance, your example is examining trade relations from a individual perspective that ignores the activities of other actors, when you need to be looking at the global sum of all exports and imports of all the actors involved. Namely put, in a closed economy, the sum of all the credits and debits between you, the gas station, dentist, etc will sum to zero. The economy of Earth in a similar manner is a closed system, we're not trading with aliens here. This is mainstream economics, you're going to woo-land if you're trying to deny this.
>and the only possible market is ... haas automation? Never going to happen. Instead, haas will just raise prices and lose market.
If the only possible market is Haas Automation then it's economically insignificant and not reflective of larger structural changes in the US economy. But that's a highly dubious assumption. Like I said, the US economy dosen't run on exports, the vast majority is consumption. The incentives are there to raise up entire supply chain given the massive profits involved here.
The thing about the blanket tariff negotiation tactic is that on the flipside, it is true that many of these nations very much were pursuing their own forms of economic nationalism with heavy protectionism and tariffs. For as much as American economists like to say that deficits don't matter, China, Vietnam, Germany, Japan all seem quite intent on maintaining a persistent surplus, whether through buying bonds to weaken their currency, heavy subsidies, or demand suppression at home to bring down wages. It's a bit absurd to expect American to uphold the principles of free trade while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the mercantalism of other nations. What Trump is doing is highly destructive, and there are better ways to negotiate, but it's a problem really that these surplus nations have created from the last few decades. And it's a problem not just for America, but for much of the developing world that will find to increasingly hard to climb up the value chain so long as China is dominating global exports.
No doubt there will be a recession, but on the long term, it will work. But for other countries, the situation will much worse because you cannot increase demand in the same way you can raise supply chains. That's why it's more likely that negotiated settlement similar to the Plaza Accords will occur, really in the question of whether we all seriously adhere to the principles of a free trade, or we collapse in a mercantalist free for all. In the world of a former, trade balances would close to zero because of the self-balancing currency effects of imbalances.
If you actually read the literature before Trump, this is something that has been talked about by Keynes, by Bernanke, by Stiglitz, by Katherine Tao, even admitted to a certain extent by Krugman. The hysterics of modern politics is that notion that "trade deficits aren't necessairly bad" has shifted to "trade deficits are never bad", when there are specific conditions when trade deficits are symptomatic of larger problems, and those conditions may be apparent right now for USA.
> I am very much on the fence on this one. I can tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, based on having been in manufacturing across various industries for over thirty years, that the US and Europe have been on a path to loose nearly all manufacturing capacity within ten years, maybe twenty at best.
I've now been around long enough to remember people saying this 10-20 years ago. Seems to be plenty of manufacturing still happening.
So, not inflation adjusted. Also doesn't capture the mix of what's being produced, i.e., a shift towards only manufacturing high value items versus being more broadly diversified and manufacturing things along a range of price points. In other words, a complete hollowing out of our manufacturing base.
Your same link shows $1.38T in 1997. Which is $2.77T today. In other words, DOWN in inflation adjusted terms from nearly 30 years ago.
"Data are in current U.S. dollars." Plus, the growth has been large enough to outpace inflation except for the last couple years.
The percent of GDP has been dropping but that is just that GDP has been growing faster. Which means that the US has been doing more valuable things than making stuff.
Paul Krugman made this point in a podcast with Ezra Klein. People remember a time when manufacturing was 30% of the economy, but that will never return, because the economy grew far more than our appetites for stuff. His estimate was that even if it worked and jobs returned, you'd be talking about going from 10% of GDP to 12 or 13%.
All dollar values on that chart are adjusted for inflation.
> Also doesn't capture the mix of what's being produced, i.e., a shift towards only manufacturing high value items versus being more broadly diversified and manufacturing things along a range of price points.
The chart does not capture the trend you speak of, assuming it exists.
> In other words, a complete hollowing out of our manufacturing base.
That’s not how I would put it, if you want to look at it through that lens, it’s your right.
I would say we manufacture things higher up the value chain and use the dollars we earn from making that stuff to import cheaper foreign commodities instead of manufacturing them here and using dollars to buy American made clothes and shoes and other commodity items at a much higher price than we can buy them from other countries.
We also export services and receive dollars in return, this is much more lucrative that manufacturing imo.
Not sure how this comforts anyone. We need labor, there aren't enough spa management and pet groomer positions to build an economy upon. What good does it do for anyone that we manufacture more, if there aren't enough good-paying jobs to go around to support a broad consumer base for those same products you say are being manufactured without (much) labor?
Why would any foreign nation even want to manufacture goods to ship here, if there's nothing much to buy with our currency? If our currency does devalue, we run the risk of not being able to import what we need, and not being able to afford to tool up to manufacture it domestically. And yet trends are clear that in many industrial sectors US manufacturing has already fallen to what might as well be zero.
You're expecting that in the coming months the demand for master plumbers will double or something? Or are you saying that the existing demand is already so high that it can do more than provide some fraction of one percent of the jobs that our nation of 300-million-ish needs to have a strong economy?
I think we both agree that one of us has unrealistic impressions of the big picture here. When we regularly here of layoffs that affect hundreds and thousands of jobs, welders and electricians can't absorb those unemployed to any great degree. Nor all of the trades put together.
But why do you expect manufacturing to do that? It's just not as labor intensive as it used to be, and if there's a recession demand for manufactured goods falls, resulting in layoffs.
We need jobs for everyone for various reasons. However we do not need factory jobs for everyone. The manufacture more with less people means those other people can move on to other jobs. They can start another factory to make goods.
There are plenty of jobs. Every person who isn't manufacturing is a person who can do something else. A modern car uses a lot more engineers. While we don't need many spa mangers, it is nice that spas exist and so some of those spa managers are needed.
Why would the US and EU losing manufacturing be bad?
> How long can any country survive this kind of inequity?
What worries me more is that the US has been funding global military security through deficit spending funded by foreign investors (who got their dollars from US trade). We're cutting legs off that stool, so we might see more wars and a declining dollar, never mind fewer cheap imports.
> Why would the US and EU losing manufacturing be bad?
Because if they can't make thing you can win a war - just stop all their trade and then invade. When they are limited to stick and stone while you have guns war is easy to win.
Of course in reality the US and EU are not in danger of losing all manufacturing, and their military leaders are will aware of this and so put extra effort into keeping some important manufacturing in the country. Politicians are generally (but not always!) aware of this and try to be friends with others who can make things you don't make locally.
You lost me at Kevin O’Leary. He’s historically been a dishonest and unethical snake oil salesman and I doubt he’s changed.
One of my career highlights was having him explain how much it will do for my career to do his project at a discount (I was helping a friend as a favor) and I told Kevin that it was just as likely to have the opposite effect.
That's an unreasonable position to take. What matters isn't who says something at all. It's if what the person says is true. And, in Kevin's case, what he is saying is 100% on point and correct.
Aside from personal experience, I have met many entrepreneurs who got shafted by China's approach to business and intellectual property. One of them had to shutter his company barely six months after introducing their first product. The product was successful enough that it got cloned very quickly. They introduced a cloned product at half his price. Orders evaporated. He had to let go of his employees and close the business.
Whether you like it or not, what O'Leary says in his videos is 100% accurate and true. Your experience with him is absolutely irrelevant and not worth discussing.
> In other words, the relationship with hundreds of countries has been very one-sided for a long time. US industry needs to export to thrive, but if countries like Turkey impose 140% tariffs on our autos and trucks, markets are de-facto shut down.
These comparisons (and conclusions of one-sidedness) always leave the greatest benefit the US has enjoyed: access to a massive labor force willing to do work most Americans aren't[1] at wages lower than are Legal in the US.
Thankfully one does not have to be a credentialed anything to be right. All you need is to present evidence for anyone to reproduce your claim. A ten year old kid not even out of elementary school could be absolutely correct if the evidence supports what is being claimed.
My only complaint with China's intellectual property theft is that they don't share.
It's my genuine belief that the vast majority of intellectual property ownership is purely to draw a moat around a country's oligarchs. Copyright does not protect creators and patents do not protect inventors[0].
Trump's thinking is:
- America used to have lots of tariffs in the 70s, and lots of jobs in the 70s,
- But we got rid of the tariffs and the jobs moved,
- So if I put the tariffs back the jobs will come back!
Problem is, we're not in the same market we were in the 70s, and all those tariffs risk turning us into Brazil. More specifically the reason why the intellectual property system we have is fucked is because it's designed to let corporations move jobs to foreign countries while still maintaining maximum control over the end result. It's designed to facilitate neocolonialism.
The "open and balanced" global market you're decrying was, until recently, heavily tilted to favor American ownership over everything. China and Mexico are there to castrate the unions: if you don't work for peanuts, we move the work to another country that will, and we don't worry about any of the business risk that entails because WIPO and Berne ensure none of the goods the other country makes get to compete with us unless we put our stamp on it.
You know what would really break this system? If China, Canada, or some other country were to junk WIPO and DMCA 1201 and start up a national lab to develop and distribute jailbreaks for shitty disposable American tech. Practically speaking, America can't stop knowledge from entering the country, and it would spur a huge explosion of new American businesses to fix the shit our own oligarchs broke.
In a world where you can't rely on intellectual property bullshit, outsourcing becomes a crapshoot, and it makes a lot more sense to pay workers what they're worth and focus on automation instead.
[0] Yes, they can and have been used by creators in the past, but that's not what the system does today.
> the elephants in the room: Intellectual property theft.
Yup. China has been systematically stealing the IP of anything made in their country since forever. Companies kept falling for it because the potential market looked so big. Now BYD makes cars as good as Tesla and it's all #ShockedPikachuFace
Doesn't Tesla have an open patent philosophy? I've heard Musk say that if someone builds a better electric car and it causes the end of Tesla, he's fine with that.
He has said that, but I haven't seen any legal paperwork to back it up.
Not that is matters. Cars, including electric cars have been around for 100 years. There are very little important patents he could have. Sure there is a lot you can patent, but the vast majority is details that are trivial for any competent engineer to work around just using known prior art.
The important patents are likely in batteries which Tesla doesn't develop. Or chargers, but again the important details come with the battery.
TESLA might have some patents on the NACS connector and similar things. Those are easy to work around, but you wouldn't want to.
There are of course quite a few large US businesses being affected directly by this stuff. I imagine that they are not happy with this. And that level of unhappiness will translate into shifts in political donations. Which, I'm sure is something that will get more apparent as next year's mid term elections get closer. That's a stick that can be (and probably already is) wielded that might produce results soonish.
At least, I imagine the CEOs of GM, Ford, Boeing, etc. might have a thing or two to say about seeing China disappear as a market where they can do business to sell stuff or to source key components that they require for their own products. China was not being subtle rejecting delivery of a couple of new Boeing planes. And reductions in container traffic from China (which are the life blood of the US economy) are of course a very visible thing. And since container deliveries are critical for supply chains of most manufacturing that actually still happens in the US, that could get ugly really quickly.
Worst case all this triggers a recession. Those are rarely predicted accurately until after they've happened. But the signs aren't great and wall street is definitely nervous. A few stocks crashing because investors start panic selling could do the job. We're not there yet, but it got close a few weeks ago.