Skip Navigation
61 comments
  • The goal is not to better the country or the economy. The goal is to make money, for his friends and connections to make money, and leave everything else destroyed while they laugh.

    The tariffs not making sense is expected.

  • Yeah that would be reasonable policy that doesn't ruin our global trade relations

    • Weeelllllll...

      We're violating trade agreements with our tariffs. But giving tax breaks to companies that re-shore industry would also likely violate trade agreements, because it would create 'unfair competition'. Kinda like the way that China has given subsidies to certain industries--such as solar panel producers--has created unfair competition, since they have far lower costs than other solar panel producers. As such, tax breaks and incentives would probably also hurt our trade relations, because we would essentially be taking jobs out of other countries. ...But that would probably hurt out relations with other countries far, far less than what we're doing now.

      Honestly, there's not a great way to bring manufacturing jobs back in a way that doesn't harm our relationships with other countries, or our national interests in some way. By purchasing shit from companies with lower labor costs/standards of living/higher levels of labor abuse/etc., we've undercut our ability to produce the same goods at a competitive price while also keeping our own standards. Even if we went back to pay ratios between workers and executives that existed 50 years ago (I think that lowest to highest ratio in large companies was about 150:1 in the late 60s), that wouldn't be enough to keep our living standards, avoid labor abuses, and still be competitive with shit we get from China.

      This is compounded by the fact that we do have some of this manufacturing in the US, because it's more-or-less required by the Barry Amendment (USC 10 §2533(a)). But the costs are astronomical. Take a backpack made by Mystery Ranch. Their Black Jack 80--identical to the USSOCOM SPEAR Patrol bag they make, just with another name--is $1200. The version that's made in Vietnam and is not Barry-compliant, was about $400. The materials and craftsmanship were substantially identical, but the fabrics were sourced from outside the US, and the manufacturing was done outside the US. There's no reasonable way that the US gov't can subsidize those kinds of costs.

  • It's harder to do insider trading if you aren't manipulating markets by posting contradictory statements every morning from your gold-plated toilet.

  • Tariff = more money into Fed govt. -> funnel money from Fed govt into his and his friends pocket.

    This is a faster way to get money out of the populace and into his accounts.

  • If you want to boost USA manufacturing industries I'd look at the sector that killed it first.

    Bring in international capital controls, forex restrictions, limit consumer / mortgage credit maybe bring in some directed credit requirements. Badically the bank regulation that was chucked out in the 1970s. When us msnufacturing industry mysteriously started to decline. 70s recessions were not only caused by oil price shocks, and the sectoral shift was reinforced by bank liberalisation.

    I'd think you'd want to force the USA finance industry to invest (at least some decent amount) in the future of USA productive capacity, instead of letting them invest in China's future and have an arms race to fuel a perpetual domestic property bubble.

    Tarrifs might still be part of it - but if your domestic companies can't borrow, they can't grow or maintain/develop asset base.If they don't have working capital facilities, they liquidate fast.

    Tax breaks might work/help (as might tarrifs), but if taxes are all on profits, you still need to borrow against the future to make the investment in the present (i.e. make a loss and pay no tax anyway) to build the productive capacity. They'd be better for short payback or labour intensive industries than for capital intensive industry - without other stuff.

    I guess if you mean income tax breaks for workers in certin types of jobs/companies, that is interesting. Either way you need quite a lot of monitoring to avoid corruption of just wierd distortions with unintended consequences. That's what banks lending to businesses should do and be good at, monitoring their loans and their debtors.

61 comments