Iâm torn on the tariffs. I see the âwhyâ. The goal is to onshore the manufacturing. We need that for self-sovereignty. âNot your keys, not your coinsâ resonates. Well, among nations, ânot your manufacturing, not your ability to defend yourselfâ. Plus the outflow of wealth. Tariffs are a hard and undesirable short-term ask. And they have a long and hard path to desired result. Itâs a painful low time preference move, but who knows if itâs the right nationstate lever to pull or not. Are there others? More passive and graceful ones? In UX I lean toward âpath of least resistanceâ improvements. But this doesnât mean I create resistance on the undesirable user flow. I just make the desired path better and I let the migration of feature usage prove me correct. Tariffs are âadding resistanceâ. What is the graceful way of inviting the desired change vs pushing away from the current undesired practice of offshoring our manufacturing and draining aggregate wealth?
Discussion
Free-market economics, locally. An outsourced global manufacturing hub is resulting in political pressure being extorted in order to further extend dominance, allowing dependance to take root. It may be a simplification but I imagine that like with UX, we now see trends where the path of least resistance is not what we want or need anymore. Do people actually know what they want and need? Consumer/ developed nations would be actually doing okay by dealing with the challenges of not being able to buy so many finished goods, running trade deficits fueling political tension. If a nation can achieve food security and maintain defence, the enxt logical question should be what can it produce and develop for its own neeeds. Protectionism might be spun as an ugly word, but it's a reaction to a mirror-image of itself.
Donde entra el comercio no entran las balas. Frederick Bastiat