Tariffs: Saving American Jobs Since...Wait, What?

[Dave70968]

We can discuss the butterfly effect till the cows come home. The only valid question is whether the desired changes are worth the short term impacts. We don't (or at least shouldn't) make national policy on the effects to one industry, much less one company.

Will this policy substantially damage, or improve our long term trade?

That's a good question, and it has to be asked alongside its sister question: assuming, arguendo, the good effects, will the policy be in place long enough to actually show results, or will it be reversed with the next administration, resulting in short-term harm without any long-term gain?

That's a real-world question I've not heard addressed, let alone answered.

 

[SMS]

Steel is still below economically healthy levels, which IIRC are somewhere north of 80% Capacity Utilization Rate.

The adjusted annual CUR was up 3.5% from this time last year at 76.8%...so showing growth but not yet an industry revitalizing miracle. The key will be seeing how long that good bump can be sustained. If we get foreign governments to lift tariff's on U.S. steel, and drop our tariffs on their steel...the CUR will drop again.

 

[caojyn]

WHAts

We can discuss the butterfly effect till the cows come home. The only valid question is whether the desired changes are worth the short term impacts. We don't (or at least shouldn't) make national policy on the effects to one industry, much less one company.

Will this policy substantially damage, or improve our long term trade?

hated that movie

 

[Shadowrider]

A lot of small businesses are having trouble, if not outright going under. A few big businesses are seeing benefits. This was not unforeseeable, and I have long maintained that foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

Fundamentally, this is fed.gov picking winners and losers...the the biggest players can afford the most lobbyists.

Is it "not unintended"? Or is it just the natural way of business? Nowhere it is written that all businesses start up and survive. Heaven forbid we set national policy to favor small start ups at the peril of our breadwinner industries.

 

[Glocktogo]

That's a good question, and it has to be asked alongside its sister question: assuming, arguendo, the good effects, will the policy be in place long enough to actually show results, or will it be reversed with the next administration, resulting in short-term harm without any long-term gain?

That's a real-world question I've not heard addressed, let alone answered.

Well the jury is still out on whether it will pay dividends within Trump's tenure, but the precedent is there to say it very well could. IF Trump pulls this off and manages to lessen tariff imbalances, it would be foolish to reverse that down the road, just because it was a Trump victory. How would a future POTUS even explain that one?

"Look we know that the tariff situation was improved by Trump, but we have to erase his legacy in the name of progress, so we're going back to the previous tariff deficit. You know, in the name of "progress"".

 

[Glocktogo]

Is it "not unintended"? Or is it just the natural way of business? Nowhere it is written that all businesses start up and survive. Heaven forbid we set national policy to favor small start ups at the peril of our breadwinner industries.

Smart businesses diversify. Look at what happened to Oklahoma in the early 80's when all we had was oil production.

 

[caojyn]

I hear asbestos is coming back, that’ll create some jobs and reduce the population. Win win

 

[Shadowrider]

Smart businesses diversify. Look at what happened to Oklahoma in the early 80's when all we had was oil production.

Exactly the point I was alluding to. Sure some small companies will go tits up. But others will come along and take their place, but instead of making TVs they may make gas compressors or something. It's not like those people are just going to go away and die, they're going to go do something else in a better overall business environment.

 

[Dave70968]

Well the jury is still out on whether it will pay dividends within Trump's tenure, but the precedent is there to say it very well could. IF Trump pulls this off and manages to lessen tariff imbalances, it would be foolish to reverse that down the road, just because it was a Trump victory. How would a future POTUS even explain that one?

"Look we know that the tariff situation was improved by Trump, but we have to erase his legacy in the name of progress, so we're going back to the previous tariff deficit. You know, in the name of "progress"".

Of course they won't do that!

They'll point to the lost jobs, etc., put up a few sob stories, and say how we have to help people! It's all about spin.

Remember when the Republicans were in favor of free trade and the Democrats wanted protect the American worker?

 

[Hobbes]

Well the jury is still out on whether it will pay dividends within Trump's tenure, but the precedent is there to say it very well could. IF Trump pulls this off and manages to lessen tariff imbalances, it would be foolish to reverse that down the road, just because it was a Trump victory. How would a future POTUS even explain that one?

"Look we know that the tariff situation was improved by Trump, but we have to erase his legacy in the name of progress, so we're going back to the previous tariff deficit. You know, in the name of "progress"".

Well, you spilled the beans now, didn't you.

The tariffs aren't a temporary negotiation tactic to force other countries to eliminate their tariffs.
The tariffs are a permanent tax on American consumers to benefit corporations on the "friends list".