It’s funny watching the left freak out over tariffs not realizing it’s a negotiating tactic to get what the US wants. Do what the US asks, no tariffs. Mexico already caved to President Trumps demands and Canada is in the final stages of caving too. Brilliant leverage in action!
Discussion
Do you have the same opinion on threats of violence as you do on threats of tariffs?
They would both be leverage in action.
It’s not the case for example that they are only idle threats, tariffs were levied by Trump, and they were kept in place by Biden.
Tariffs reduce trade.
I’m concerned about the tit for tat growing beyond what individual actors wanted. I’m concerned about the costs of untangling economies. I’m concerned about the costs of permanently not taking advantage of the trade surpluses both countries get when they trade voluntarily, taking advantage of the differences in skills, labor, and capital to allow specialization. I’m concerned that tariffs will make everything more expensive fundamentally because it’s going to be made in places with higher costs to produce the same thing without an increase in quality. This isn’t inflation in the sense of the money supply, it’s restructuring the fundamental way things are produced and where they are produced. I’m concerned if you don’t trade with your enemies you take one stop out of the road to war with your enemies. I’m concerned if you don’t trade with your allies, they will seek trade agreements with your enemies. I’m not a member of the left.
It's a purist theory in an impure world, things are more complicated than the simple theory posits.
And unfortunately destroying your own ability to create something is far far quicker than rebuilding the ability to create something.
Tariffs are used for bargaining and leverage. You’re assuming like a good libtard that the other party involved (Canada and Mexico) won’t fold to the US demands, which I believe they will. Before the 16th amendment, the founding fathers relied on tariffs to fund the government. It’s a good idea to go back to that way of thinking.
Look at all the countries that have tariffs on the US, why is it ok when they do it but not ok when the US does it back?
Threats of violence are used for bargaining and leverage. You are assuming like a good libtard that the other party involved, (Russia) won’t fold to US demands.
I think the above argument is dumb. I think it remains dumb when you replace violence with tarrifs and replace Russia with Russia or China or Mexico or Canada.
It’s dumb because if you are unwilling to do the thing you are threatening then you don’t have a credible threat. So if they don’t capitulate then you are locked into proceeding with your threat or else loose credibility. And it’s easy to find yourself threatening what you never intended to carry out and get yourself trapped into harming yourself with tarrifs that you never wanted.
I would be fine with tarrifs in so far as they would be aligned to a consumption tax regime. But as you said tarrifs are being used as leverage here and if we miscalculate and the other party doesn’t budge, or reciprocates, it starts a trade war of increasing tarrifs in a tit for tat manner just like military action does. And ultimately they move in the same direction, you don’t go to war with a trade partner, you end trade first and when there is no more trade to eliminate then you go to war. I would rather leave mutually beneficial trade on the table rather than walk in the direction of war (For China, Russia, or any other Nation) without a real threat to ourselves.
“Look at all the countries that have tarrifs on the US, why is it ok when they do it but not ok when the US does it back?”
There are already reciprocal tariffs inplace between us and those countries. This is a threat to increase. And just like in war an escalation can lead to either capitulation from the other side or reciprocal escalation.
Reciprocal escalation leaves the populations of both countries poorer for each round of tariffs as the prices rise.
The caution against tariffs isn’t because I don’t think there isn’t a chance they will work, it’s that there is a chance they won’t and then we are locked into the absurd threat by politicians in either country unwilling to backdown and look weak.
I can’t tell if I’m talking to a retarded bot or a complete dipshit. What are the tariffs for example of German cars sold in the US? What are the tariffs on US vehicles sold in Germany?
I’m not your personal assistant. You can dig that up yourself if you want to discuss it. But when a country imposes a tariff on a product of ours like cars, we don’t impose an identical magnitude tariff on an identical product from them. We retaliate with a tariff on a product that will do similar damage or protection. Since the countries specialize in different things an identical tariff won’t have the intended effect you want to have if you are trying to retaliate. Instead we have to retaliate with a tariff on that countries steel or agriculture or chip manufacturing.
You didn’t answer my question. The example I gave implies the US and Germany both make a similar product; vehicles. Why is it ok to tariff US cars imported in to Germany but not the other way around? It’s a simple question, answer it. The reason you can’t is because it completely destroys your own argument. Too funny! 🤣
My friend… I looked it up for you. I was hoping you would as I thought it would help you see my point. Germany has a 10% Tariff on US cars. We have a 2.5% Tariff on German cars and 25% Tariff on German trucks. Germany has a 5% Tariff on US Steel, We have a 20% Tariff on German Steel. I’m sure there are other product categories with differential tarrifs. Reflect on this and our discussion. You may yet be able to escape the cognitive dissonance. Good day sir.