LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Novus America wrote:If you already have the tariffs in place, the offer of reducing or eliminating them in exchange gives you more bargaining power than a mere threat.
But why? If you draw a line in the sand, at which crossing it gives you tariffs, doesn't that give them more to lose by crossing it?
Novus America wrote:And I am not against fair and equal trade in which both parties play by the same rules.
So you're okay with free trade with, let's say, Canada?
Novus America wrote:But that is not what we have in most cases, especially places like China.
In those cases the comparative adavantge comes from labor abuse and environmental destruction, not higher productivity.
It could be a little from column A and a little from column B. Asians do score higher on IQ tests than whites do.
Novus America wrote:Who says the do not necessarily speak the language? And they can learn.
They can, yes. But in the meantime they are vulnerable.
Novus America wrote:Why is the movement of goods better than the movement of people?
It isn't necessarily better either way. Each has its pros and cons. Neither is a substitute for the other. See above for an example of the aforementioned tradeoffs.
Novus America wrote:Why is it inherently better they make the goods elsewhere?
Some climates are better suited to some goods. You wouldn't want to try to farm pineapples in Siberia.
Novus America wrote:Besides nobody is forcing them to go.
In theory, no. In practice,
their circumstances blur the distinction between coercion and non-coercion.
In any other context, I'd probably be arguing for letting more migrants in... and I still think the USA should, compared to what it does now. But it's no substitute for international trade.
Novus America wrote:Also international shipping produces massive pollution, making a product closer to its customers provides numerous environmental benefits.
If it's being brought by ship, couldn't ocean currents take them the rest of the way?
Of course this is putting aside that national borders aren't the same thing as distances anyway. Arizona's a lot closer to Mexico than it is to Maine.
Novus America wrote:Plus there are the National security benefits and wage benefits.
Such as...?
Novus America wrote:And if we are discussing rebuilding the rust belt cities, obviously changing the trade policies that caused the much of the problems in those cities in the first place is a good place to start.
Where were we on the issue of Japan and Germany? I feel like I lost track of where we were on that. I do not recall feeling particularly convinced of the case against their superiority in automotive manufacturing.
The treat gives them more to lose but less to gain.
But the actual tariffs raise tax revenue. Threats do not.
But I am okay with given them a chance to change before implementing in cases where the other side actually appears to be acting in good faith.
And I do support our current trade agreements with Canada.
Truly free trade simply does not exist though. Never has, and never will.
US Canada trade is not completely free.
Still we have a generally balanced reciprocal trade arrangement, and clearly they are no national security threat, and do not create vulnerable ship based supply lines.
IQ has not been proven to be genetic, IQ improves as education improves.
But anyways we have Asians in the US and can always get more.
Okay if the horrible conditions in their home countries make it effectively coercion we are still offering them a better life here than they had at home.
Sure the movement of both people and goods can be good or bad.
Trade can be good. It can be bad too.
Which is why we should not refuse all trade, but which is why we should not automatically assume more trade is good either.
I am not against all trade, only harmful, unbalanced and/or unfair trade.
Sure some climates have certain advantages with certain things.
Obviously the US will never be great at growing coffee in our current borders. But we do have great climatic diversity.
However must manufactured goods are not impacted by climate at all.
Sure Mexico is closer to Arizona than to Maine.
But that is okay. International shipping via ship is the biggest pollution problem.
It needs to be addressed, likely by moving less stuff by ship.
The wage advantages are that outsourcing leads to wage stagnation and growing inequality, at least in the wealthier place. If a high wage country trades with a low wage one, it creates wage growth in the low wage one, but conversely wage stagnation or decline in the higher wage one.
The National security advantages are obvious.
We would have lost WWII if not for our superiority in manufacturing.
If you get in a war, and the enemy controls your source of goods, or can intercept it via say sinking the ships carrying it, you are in trouble.
I did show that Japan and Germany used government intervention to gain advantages.
Besides it is not clear they are better anyways, we actually produce more vehicles than they do.
Plenty of American cars are as good as, or superior to their German and Japanese counterparts.
But cars is only a very small part of the problem anyways. Our biggest problem now is China, not Germany and Japan.
Anyways this article is excellent
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ry/510380/It covers everything from how Japan and the US built our manufacturing bases (by government intervention) and how our current trade situation is no longer working.