The case for tariffs would be a lot easier to make if we had a more systematic and more permanent tariff regime in place that gave industries and countries more ability to plan ahead.
If we consider the loss of purchasing power due to increased prices (tariffs passed on to consumers) and finished profits for reinvestment (tariffs not passed on to consumers), what does the affect on the broader U.S. work force look like?
Modest tariffs employed rationally have a modest economic impact. They are not the Armageddon, nor the catalyst of a manufacturing renaissance, that partisans on each pole claim.
Of course, Don doesn't remotely employ them rationally, they're merely another tool in his grift toolkit, a shakedown mechanism to solicit personal tribute. If he was serious about the actual policy, he'd want to make them permanent via legislation.
Tariffs can't be looked at in isolation. They aren't merely a technocratic economic tool, they're part of a broader geopolitical landscape. As Don prosecutes MAGA's Middle East war in Iran, he's learning this simple lesson the hard way. As he casts about for someone to rescue him from his disastrous war planning, he finds deaf ears from the allies he has shunned in his America Alone quest. Isolationism has always been a cheap, easy political ploy, perfect for Don's demagoguery. But damn it's embarrassing to watch a US president humiliate himself like this as he grovels to Putin, Europe, Asia, etc.
Tariffs by themselves might not even be high enough to make manufacturing in the US more profitable, at least we get some revenue. Another thought is that though our labor costs are high a robot doesn't get wages, use health insurance, retire, or get comp for injuries.
Ultimately at the least, we have to make a small amount of everything we import in case there is a supply disruption we can ramp up production and will already have a route for needed materials.
Fifty years ago I watched manufacturing slow and close in the old factories of the east coast, slowly the rust spread to the midwest and the entire US. We can't exist without manufacturing, and it will take time, maybe decades, but we have to make things.
Griswold's piece is just the WSJ article in reverse, applying it's own logic and facts. Between the WSJ and Griswold, I would tend to trust the WSJ's logic and trust much, much more.
Well, if America is to re-industrialize, it will be the readers of the WSJ, not Commonplace, who make it happen. Not sure Commonplace's audience has the right amount of capitalists and entrepreneurs. Pointy-hatted commentators, yes, but capitalists and entrepreneurs, no.
It's not the job of business or investors to re industrialize America unless that is how to make the most profit. Many now realize there is more to a nice place to live than profits for large companies.
Just the WSJ doing the same old globalist thing.
The case for tariffs would be a lot easier to make if we had a more systematic and more permanent tariff regime in place that gave industries and countries more ability to plan ahead.
If we consider the loss of purchasing power due to increased prices (tariffs passed on to consumers) and finished profits for reinvestment (tariffs not passed on to consumers), what does the affect on the broader U.S. work force look like?
Modest tariffs employed rationally have a modest economic impact. They are not the Armageddon, nor the catalyst of a manufacturing renaissance, that partisans on each pole claim.
Of course, Don doesn't remotely employ them rationally, they're merely another tool in his grift toolkit, a shakedown mechanism to solicit personal tribute. If he was serious about the actual policy, he'd want to make them permanent via legislation.
Tariffs can't be looked at in isolation. They aren't merely a technocratic economic tool, they're part of a broader geopolitical landscape. As Don prosecutes MAGA's Middle East war in Iran, he's learning this simple lesson the hard way. As he casts about for someone to rescue him from his disastrous war planning, he finds deaf ears from the allies he has shunned in his America Alone quest. Isolationism has always been a cheap, easy political ploy, perfect for Don's demagoguery. But damn it's embarrassing to watch a US president humiliate himself like this as he grovels to Putin, Europe, Asia, etc.
Tariffs by themselves might not even be high enough to make manufacturing in the US more profitable, at least we get some revenue. Another thought is that though our labor costs are high a robot doesn't get wages, use health insurance, retire, or get comp for injuries.
Ultimately at the least, we have to make a small amount of everything we import in case there is a supply disruption we can ramp up production and will already have a route for needed materials.
Fifty years ago I watched manufacturing slow and close in the old factories of the east coast, slowly the rust spread to the midwest and the entire US. We can't exist without manufacturing, and it will take time, maybe decades, but we have to make things.
Griswold's piece is just the WSJ article in reverse, applying it's own logic and facts. Between the WSJ and Griswold, I would tend to trust the WSJ's logic and trust much, much more.
"Griswold's piece is just the WSJ article in reverse, applying it's own logic and facts."
Isn't that the nature of a reply generally? You could have just said you like the WSJ better.
Ah, but I enjoyed bashing Griswold as he similarly did in bashing WSJ. Turnabout is fair play.
The WSJ writes in the interests of big businesses. I prefer someone who thinks of America.
Well, if America is to re-industrialize, it will be the readers of the WSJ, not Commonplace, who make it happen. Not sure Commonplace's audience has the right amount of capitalists and entrepreneurs. Pointy-hatted commentators, yes, but capitalists and entrepreneurs, no.
It's not the job of business or investors to re industrialize America unless that is how to make the most profit. Many now realize there is more to a nice place to live than profits for large companies.
The business of America is business.