Trade Wars and Tariffs

[GroverCleveland]

Sure there are. Just like the US has had tariffs on a plethora of imports for decades.

What matters is that the US had few, if any, unbalanced tariff schemes. Tariffs have never been a significant issue in either direction. Which is why Trump and Co didn't base the new tariffs on what other nations were charging, but instead focused on trade imbalance.

Agree with there was a significant attention paid to trade imbalances. I think you are being dismissive of the role foreign tariffs and trade barriers played. He's talked about these things for years. I do not believe he is wrong about it.

 

[LouderVol]

How would we be cutting our nose off

we aren't going to be able to replace Chinese production easily. especially here in the US.

even if we replace the Chinese stuff with equally cheap goods from other foreign nations, we are working out X number more trade deals than 1. supply lines are going to get that much more complicated, which adds time and cost.

it would take better part of two decades to replace the manufacturing with home grown manufacturing. We were able to do it in WW2 because we were at war, and the industry was largely already in place, it was just retooled to wartime production. no such existing infrastructure exists today. the electrical power, especially if we go automated, is going to be a real problem.

 

[whodeycin85]

We shouldn’t prop up the economy of our biggest rival in order to save 10% on goods. Tariff China. Warn Europe that tariffs will ensue if they continue buying Russian oil.

We aren't supposed to do trade with countries that use forced or slave labor.... Yet many in here support that for cheap goods.

 

[mrorange211]

The issue with all of this is the current system is not sustainable. The argument that you can have a nation 100% based on service industry is idiotic. We can only borrow so much before the whole system comes down. You need to be a manufacturer and creator of goods. This stuff has been going on for sometime but it is now really starting to hit with the Biden and now Trump administration. We have to account for our debt.

Our GDP needs to improve and we need to become a leading provider of product to nations again. Now we can't (and shouldn't) try to win in every manufacturing sector but there are certain ones we may want to target. I would think Automotive, Steel, Tooling, Agriculture, and Hi-Tech would be at the top of the list to grow/maintain (I feel like the tariffs are going to do a better job of maintain which is something you can't measure versus creating new manufacturing).

While a purely service-based economy has potential drawbacks, dismissing it entirely as "idiotic" overlooks its complexities and contributions. Many high-value service sectors such as technology, finance, healthcare, education are significant drivers of GDP and innovation. We got to 23T GDP with these industries, not manufacturing. Just because you can't hold it in your hands (think cloud-based computing for example) doesn't mean it wasn't created here in the USA.

It's important that we should all acknowledge the importance of a balanced economy with both manufacturing and robust service sectors. We can have both. While increasing manufacturing capacity can be beneficial, there are other factors like innovation, education, infrastructure investment, and global competitiveness across various sectors that helped to make us rich. Unfortunately, tariffs may end up hurting what was beginning to be a new manufacturing base in the USA. I thought this was an interesting chart.

As to your other points about interest and debt-to-income ratio, I agree. It MUST be addressed. I do not agree, however, that this tariff shotgun approach was the right way to do it.

 

[Vol8188]

we aren't going to be able to replace Chinese production easily. especially here in the US.

even if we replace the Chinese stuff with equally cheap goods from other foreign nations, we are working out X number more trade deals than 1. supply lines are going to get that much more complicated, which adds time and cost.

it would take better part of two decades to replace the manufacturing with home grown manufacturing. We were able to do it in WW2 because we were at war, and the industry was largely already in place, it was just retooled to wartime production. no such existing infrastructure exists today. the electrical power, especially if we go automated, is going to be a real problem.

In regards to “working out x number more trade deals than 1”-I’ll agree that his idea of tariffing the entire world at once was insane. But either way we need to start ending ties with China. If that’s more gradual, I’m open. Either way it needs to happen.

I’ve never made the argument that everything has to be “home grown”. There’s plenty of places on earth that aren’t China. I’m open to buying goods/products from almost all of them. But we currently have an excessive reliance upon a geopolitical enemy

 

[Vol8188]

We aren't supposed to do trade with countries that use forced or slave labor.... Yet many in here support that for cheap goods.

I don’t even mind that aspect as much. I’ll happily buy the products produced by the children of Vietnam or Uganda.

I just don’t want us improving the economic reality of Russia and China.

If for example we pressured the EU to end all imports of Russian oil until a ceasefire were in place, I bet we could get there a whole lot faster.

 

[volbound1700]

While a purely service-based economy has potential drawbacks, dismissing it entirely as "idiotic" overlooks its complexities and contributions. Many high-value service sectors such as technology, finance, healthcare, education are significant drivers of GDP and innovation. We got to 23T GDP with these industries, not manufacturing. Just because you can't hold it in your hands (think cloud-based computing for example) doesn't mean it wasn't created here in the USA.

It's important that we should all acknowledge the importance of a balanced economy with both manufacturing and robust service sectors. We can have both. While increasing manufacturing capacity can be beneficial, there are other factors like innovation, education, infrastructure investment, and global competitiveness across various sectors that helped to make us rich. Unfortunately, tariffs may end up hurting what was beginning to be a new manufacturing base in the USA. I thought this was an interesting chart.

As to your other points about interest and debt-to-income ratio, I agree. It MUST be addressed. I do not agree, however, that this tariff shotgun approach was the right way to do it.

View attachment 734346

Healthcare, Education, and Infrastructure are all paid for by the government/tax services effectively. Therefore they are based on solvency of the nation which has rising debt.

I have a case study to show you on how the service model is failing. It is the United Kingdom. If you track UK economic situation from 1880 until modern day (notably how large their economy ranked in the world), there move towards a more Finance structure has significantly shrunk their economy over time. They are no longer a global leader. Note in 1880 or even 1900, UK had the largest economy in the globe, even if you scaled away their colonies.

You need manufacturing. Do you need all sectors? Definitely no.

Most of the service industry depends on having people that can buy their products. These people have to make money somewhere. If there isn't exports and primarily imports, that money slowly dries up which is slowly happening in the USA.

 

[mrorange211]

Healthcare, Education, and Infrastructure are all paid for by the government/tax services effectively. Therefore they are based on solvency of the nation which has rising debt.

I have a case study to show you on how the service model is failing. It is the United Kingdom. If you track UK economic situation from 1880 until modern day (notably how large their economy ranked in the world), there move towards a more Finance structure has significantly shrunk their economy over time. They are no longer a global leader. Note in 1880 or even 1900, UK had the largest economy in the globe, even if you scaled away their colonies.

You need manufacturing. Do you need all sectors? Definitely no.

Most of the service industry depends on having people that can buy their products. These people have to make money somewhere. If there isn't exports and primarily imports, that money slowly dries up which is slowly happening in the USA.

While healthcare, education, and infrastructure rely on government funding, framing them solely as a drain dependent on national solvency ignores their significant positive economic contributions. A healthy populace (healthcare), a skilled workforce (education), and efficient systems (infrastructure) are core drivers of productivity, innovation, and long-term economic growth, ultimately improving national solvency. These are investments, not just expenditures.

You heavily emphasize tangible goods. In the modern global economy, significant value is generated through intangible services, intellectual property, technology, and innovation, but I made this point earlier. Focusing solely on traditional manufacturing overlooks these crucial drivers of growth and competitiveness. High-value services often have significant export potential as well such as software, entertainment and consulting

As for the UK, attributing the UK's economic ranking solely to its move towards a finance-based service model is a gross oversimplification. Numerous other factors contributed to the UK's changing global economic position, including decolonization, two World Wars, technological shifts, global competition, and specific government policies beyond just the service sector focus. The UK still possesses significant manufacturing and high-value service industries remaining an economic power in Europe. Sure it's not 1890, but they ceded much of that responsibility to us in WWII and we GLADLY took the reins. So, I have problems with your example.

Ultimately, the argument that the service industry solely relies on income generated elsewhere such as manufacturing and exports presents a false comparison. Many service industries are integral to supporting and enhancing manufacturing such as logistics, R&D, IT, finance, and marketing. A significant portion of the service sector involves domestic consumption and creates its own economic value and employment.

 

[hog88]

Seriously, does anyone really believe that the US wins a trade war with China? You know their leadership is smarter (and it's not even close) and you know they're more willing to put up with pain (how long were they locked down for COVID - like three years?).

True, we can't win a trade war or conventional war with China as long as we have people like you infecting our citizenry.

 

[volbound1700]

While healthcare, education, and infrastructure rely on government funding, framing them solely as a drain dependent on national solvency ignores their significant positive economic contributions. A healthy populace (healthcare), a skilled workforce (education), and efficient systems (infrastructure) are core drivers of productivity, innovation, and long-term economic growth, ultimately improving national solvency. These are investments, not just expenditures.

You heavily emphasize tangible goods. In the modern global economy, significant value is generated through intangible services, intellectual property, technology, and innovation, but I made this point earlier. Focusing solely on traditional manufacturing overlooks these crucial drivers of growth and competitiveness. High-value services often have significant export potential as well such as software, entertainment and consulting

As for the UK, attributing the UK's economic ranking solely to its move towards a finance-based service model is a gross oversimplification. Numerous other factors contributed to the UK's changing global economic position, including decolonization, two World Wars, technological shifts, global competition, and specific government policies beyond just the service sector focus. The UK still possesses significant manufacturing and high-value service industries remaining an economic power in Europe. Sure it's not 1890, but they ceded much of that responsibility to us in WWII and we GLADLY took the reins. So, I have problems with your example.

Ultimately, the argument that the service industry solely relies on income generated elsewhere such as manufacturing and exports presents a false comparison. Many service industries are integral to supporting and enhancing manufacturing such as logistics, R&D, IT, finance, and marketing. A significant portion of the service sector involves domestic consumption and creates its own economic value and employment.

The first paragraph doesn't happen unless you have all the other items. If that was the case, any nation with a major bureacracy could become economically successful. Those rely entirely on a solvent nation. Under your logic, I can go to Sierre Leone in Africa right now and just hire a bunch of educators, open hospitals, and build roads and they could become economically successful. No, it isn't an economic driver. That stuff exists in the USA because of the economic foundations we built before and to, a small part, still have in place.

The only area of your post that I even agree with is software. That is a product. However, the industries that you cite employee less than 10% of the total population. So it is great that we have these and yes I would consider software like Microsoft or Google to be on par with traditionally manufacturing goods. However, even they are outsourcing that work to low labor nations. In fact, I don't consider software development, Hollywood, etc. as entirely service industry. I think of retail (fastfood, department stores, etc.)

Regarding logistics, I am going to just use example of Amazon to make it simple. Yes it creates jobs but, again, it is a fraction of people compared to true manufacturing. It is only a smaller piece of an overall pie. Amazon is basically a Walmart that people cannot visit. it is retail in the scheme of things.

Agricultural products have been a part of the current tariff debate. However, if you want to go solely with agriculture, fine. You then have a pre-industrial economy. Also, again this only employs a small percentage of our population and doesn't have the GDP impact that you think.

The key manufacturing that we need to hold onto is heavy industry such as automotive, aeronautics, machinery/tooling, steel, shipbuilding, petrochemicals, technology, etc.

 

[Orange_Crush]

While a purely service-based economy has potential drawbacks, dismissing it entirely as "idiotic" overlooks its complexities and contributions. Many high-value service sectors such as technology, finance, healthcare, education are significant drivers of GDP and innovation. We got to 23T GDP with these industries, not manufacturing. Just because you can't hold it in your hands (think cloud-based computing for example) doesn't mean it wasn't created here in the USA.

It's important that we should all acknowledge the importance of a balanced economy with both manufacturing and robust service sectors. We can have both. While increasing manufacturing capacity can be beneficial, there are other factors like innovation, education, infrastructure investment, and global competitiveness across various sectors that helped to make us rich. Unfortunately, tariffs may end up hurting what was beginning to be a new manufacturing base in the USA. I thought this was an interesting chart.

As to your other points about interest and debt-to-income ratio, I agree. It MUST be addressed. I do not agree, however, that this tariff shotgun approach was the right way to do it.

View attachment 734346

Healthcare. That's a great example. A service that the public can't afford.

 

[hog88]

Honestly, we can't. The Chinese people will live in abject poverty if they're told they need to for the good of their nation. They've done it several times before.

America? We won't being put up with being inconvenienced. Things are about to get really uncomfortable here and then things are going to get gnarly.

That's the truest thing you have ever posted.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Being triggered isn't always the bad thing mainstream political divide would have you believe. Those peasants and farmers were triggered in 1776.

Look at Dink bringing the heat..

 

[mrorange211]

The key manufacturing that we need to hold onto is heavy industry such as automotive, aeronautics, machinery/tooling, steel, shipbuilding, petrochemicals, technology, etc.

I think we can agree here.

 

[evillawyer]

We winning that tariff trade war yet?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

we aren't going to be able to replace Chinese production easily. especially here in the US.

even if we replace the Chinese stuff with equally cheap goods from other foreign nations, we are working out X number more trade deals than 1. supply lines are going to get that much more complicated, which adds time and cost.

it would take better part of two decades to replace the manufacturing with home grown manufacturing. We were able to do it in WW2 because we were at war, and the industry was largely already in place, it was just retooled to wartime production. no such existing infrastructure exists today. the electrical power, especially if we go automated, is going to be a real problem.

It doesn't have to come here. It just needs to move out of China. It would be nice if it came here, but that isn't the entire requirement.

 

[Majors]

We aren't supposed to do trade with countries that use forced or slave labor.... Yet many in here support that for cheap goods.

Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[Majors]

It doesn't have to come here. It just needs to move out of China. It would be nice if it came here, but that isn't the entire requirement.

Enticing for those countries around China to get away from their control.

 

[evillawyer]

We winning this trade war yet?

 

[evillawyer]

Are we winning now?

 

[volbound1700]

I think we can agree here.

Let me talk about something person.

I work in Corporate America in a major Fortune 200 company in Middle Tennessee. I know people in every company in the area:

Nissan, HCA, Mars, Electrolux, Accenture, Bridgestone, E&Y, Amazon, Tracker Supply, Dollar General, Cracker Barrell, GM, Brooksdale, BMW (their in Chattanooga but close enough), etc.

I interact daily in my job with people that don't live in the United States. There is a real threat here. You take any of these industries and you can see layoffs going on last 5-6 months, downsizing, closing plants, etc. It has been all over the news in Middle Tennessee recently. I work in Procurement and it is sad. When I first started, I would see vendors from all over the globe (Europe, LA, USA, Japan, Korea, China, etc.). Now it is mostly just China, Thailand, Vietnam, and India. Some USA vendors are battling to stay competitive using automation. This isn't good for the world economy. All it does is lead to layoffs, financial struggles for the existing companies, and drive the labor rates down to the levels you see in those nations.

Something had to be done. The Automotive Industry is getting battered right now by low-cost Asian goods. Go look at the manufacturing plant closures and downsizing by all the major Manufacturing OEMs throughout Europe, Latin America, and North America.

My mother was a high executive at one of the major manufacturing companies listed. She and I both discuss that it isn't a fair playing field. These Asian nations get money from their government, manipulate currency to cheapen their products, rely on very low cost labor, and steal IP. They run their competition out of business globally and then they have you in an almost monopoly-like setup that they can take advantage of. Corporate Executives constantly put pressure on you to cut costs. It is tough. Really tough. I feel drained every day.

Secretly, a lot of us are cheering on tariffs even if it is a major headache with reporting, planning, and budget. Our company is taking a major hit. One area where Trump really messed up is that there should have been more time giving before implementation and any existing orders should be exempted. I have products that were ordered in 2024 that will be impacted. You can't resource orders that are 80% to 90% complete. In all past tariff announcements, there was typically a 12-month period before implementation.

I do think bad Corporate leadership plays a part. Interestingly, the media always blames CEOs. The CEO just does what the shareholders wants. It is the shareholders that continue to push for more and more profits instead of investing that capital into their people and company. The media should be citing to greedy share holders rather than CEOs (although on some occasion the CEO can be an owner or majority/major shareholder).

I probably gave too much transparency but if you could see the numbers that I see in my industry and talk to the people that I talk to, you would have a different perspective.

 

[bamawriter]

Agree with there was a significant attention paid to trade imbalances. I think you are being dismissive of the role foreign tariffs and trade barriers played. He's talked about these things for years. I do not believe he is wrong about it.

Then tell me how he's right. I've laid out the math on our scheme with multiple nations throughout this thread. The math doesn't support the idea that tariffs have been a net negative for Americans.

Now, if one wants to argue that we should have totally free trade and do away with all tariffs, I'd be down. No argument from me.

But again, that's not the issue. Because he's listened to Peter Navarro, Trump seems to believe that a trade deficit is an idicator of America "getting screwe." That is economically illiterate to the point of absurdity.

 

[evillawyer]

Winning?

These clowns don't want to ask for the call with China, so they "request the xi request a call with Trump" as if that's some show of strength. That's basically the US requesting the call. Do they think we don't see the utter weakness they're showing through that word game?

 

[whodeycin85]

I don’t even mind that aspect as much. I’ll happily buy the products produced by the children of Vietnam or Uganda.

I just don’t want us improving the economic reality of Russia and China.

If for example we pressured the EU to end all imports of Russian oil until a ceasefire were in place, I bet we could get there a whole lot faster.

Would you be fine with the same labor force here?

 

[hog88]

Let me talk about something person.

I work in Corporate America in a major Fortune 200 company in Middle Tennessee. I know people in every company in the area:

Nissan, HCA, Mars, Electrolux, Accenture, Bridgestone, E&Y, Amazon, Tracker Supply, Dollar General, Cracker Barrell, GM, Brooksdale, BMW (their in Chattanooga but close enough), etc.

I interact daily in my job with people that don't live in the United States. There is a real threat here. You take any of these industries and you can see layoffs going on last 5-6 months, downsizing, closing plants, etc. It has been all over the news in Middle Tennessee recently. I work in Procurement and it is sad. When I first started, I would see vendors from all over the globe (Europe, LA, USA, Japan, Korea, China, etc.). Now it is mostly just China, Thailand, Vietnam, and India. Some USA vendors are battling to stay competitive using automation. This isn't good for the world economy. All it does is lead to layoffs, financial struggles for the existing companies, and drive the labor rates down to the levels you see in those nations.

Something had to be done. The Automotive Industry is getting battered right now by low-cost Asian goods. Go look at the manufacturing plant closures and downsizing by all the major Manufacturing OEMs throughout Europe, Latin America, and North America.

My mother was a high executive at one of the major manufacturing companies listed. She and I both discuss that it isn't a fair playing field. These Asian nations get money from their government, manipulate currency to cheapen their products, rely on very low cost labor, and steal IP. They run their competition out of business globally and then they have you in an almost monopoly-like setup that they can take advantage of. Corporate Executives constantly put pressure on you to cut costs. It is tough. Really tough. I feel drained every day.

Secretly, a lot of us are cheering on tariffs even if it is a major headache with reporting, planning, and budget. Our company is taking a major hit. One area where Trump really messed up is that there should have been more time giving before implementation and any existing orders should be exempted. I have products that were ordered in 2024 that will be impacted. You can't resource orders that are 80% to 90% complete. In all past tariff announcements, there was typically a 12-month period before implementation.

I do think bad Corporate leadership plays a part. Interestingly, the media always blames CEOs. The CEO just does what the shareholders wants. It is the shareholders that continue to push for more and more profits instead of investing that capital into their people and company. The media should be citing to greedy share holders rather than CEOs (although on some occasion the CEO can be an owner or majority/major shareholder).

I probably gave too much transparency but if you could see the numbers that I see in my industry and talk to the people that I talk to, you would have a different perspective.

Excellent post