whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
KaiBear said:
Mothra said:
KaiBear said:
Assassin said:
Ukraine get's it's ass kicked
https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910
Remember when contributors around here were insisting the embargo's were working, how Putin was taking unaffordable casualties and Ukraine was going to force Russia to withdraw ?
Western propaganda works.
Kind of reminds me of the insistence that tariffs are working, and will end up bringing manufacturing back to the United States.
It was all a fantasy.
My friend I seem to remember a similar mentality whenever I said Russia was winning the war.
And like Russia wining the war ; tariffs and even just the threats of tariffs ; are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.
Time clarifies everything.
You guys really believe that tariff's are going to increase industrial manufacturing? Did it work in 2016-20 under Trump and in 2020-24 under Biden? How much more manufacturing did we see? Honest question.
prior to covid, 1st Trump admin had a net gain of 750k. Biden had a comparable number over a full 4 years, but also had the benefit of unprecedented economic stimulus.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/16/the-trump-manufacturing-jobs-boom-10-times-obamas-over-21-months/
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/trump-vs-harris-on-u-s-manufacturing/
so, yes, policy does matter. it can grow manufacturing jobs (rather than inhibiting them.) Trump's policies will indeed stimulate manufacturing growth - the clear aim of them is to force companies to move larger percentages of their supply chain inside the USA in order to avoid the risks that tariffs pose to their business models.
But the growth of manufacturing jobs is not really the primary statistic. The trade deficit is the more important metric. That's why Trump did not seek to simply match the tariffs of trade partners, but to evaluate the full range of tariff AND non-tariff barriers to trade, for the purpose of sending the signal that trade with the USA under existing arrangements is over. The message is, clearly - If you want to continue selling goods to the USA, you better enter negotiations quickly with a plan to reduce your trade surplus. Companies can do their own calculations on how & where to restructure supply chains (which will take time and investment, which is being factored by the stock markets at the moment). And governments are going to have to make concessions on rates and regulations to find a way to buy more US stuff (goods or services).
What he's doing is simple. Elementary. Effective. But so many people are so thoroughly invested (financially and morally) in globalism that they are having great difficulty accepting that the game has changed. the post-WWII order is over. A new one is being built. The USA is going to demand balanced trade relationships as the price of entering the US market, which is the largest and wealthiest consumer market on the planet.
Biden made the same error Obama did = he provided enormous amounts of fiscal stimulus, but muted the response with crazy stupid regulations (Obamacare, Green New Deal). Just dumb. LIke flooring the gas pedal and holding down the brake at the same time.
Are you comfortable with the federal government using blunt force tools like tariffs to
force private companies to relocate supply chains regardless of cost, efficiency, or consumer impact? Is that economic nationalism or centralized planning?
If you oppose overregulation and big government in other parts of the economy (Obamacare, etc.), why is government-directed industrial coercion acceptable here? What makes this version of market interventionism different? And before you say "national security", yes, we all agree that certain sectors like semiconductors, defense, food, and energy independence require strategic protection. But using that to justify broad, permanent market interference across unrelated industries is a bait and switch. National security isn't an all purpose license to remake the entire economy by government fiat.
You keep calling this strategy "elementary," and that's exactly the problem. Tariffs are a political signal, not an industrial policy. The idea that we can "force" balanced trade relationships by threatening our partners into submission ignores both how global markets work and how modern manufacturing operates.
If trade deficits were proof of weakness, the U.S. wouldn't lead the world in economic output, innovation, capital markets, and corporate investment inflows. You're treating structural features of an advanced, service-heavy, reserve currency economy as defects.
And as for being "simple", economic policy that disrupts supply chains, increases consumer prices, and relies on delayed, uncertain gains isn't simple. It's unnecessarily risky.
I've mentioned several approaches/ideas that don't require this political theater masked as strategy, nor intentionally damage our economy in the short or long term. You are beholden to the politics and the politician, not real world practical industrial policy that can make us more competitive in manufacturing and many other sectors.
