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.
With the reduction in immigrant workers, is it not possible that despite the 93,000 reduction in manufacturing jobs that more Americans are working now than a year ago?
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.
What the folks at WSJ have blinded themselves to, is the way that disconnecting trade from mutual defense and shared values has created a few very big commons problems. In effect we have created a system that rewards corrupt and irresponsible nations like China, Mexico, Ireland and Austria. Which in turn punishes our responsible allies like England, France, Germany and Canada.
Your first reaction is that think I'm crazy but step back and really look at what's been going on. We complain about Germany becoming reliant on Russian oil and gas but ignore how they are being forced to compete against companies that get their parts made in China and assembled in Mexico. The German have to save money somehow, so they buy the cheapest energy they can get their hands on.
In the meantime, they have to compete against Austria and Ireland who spend little to nothing on defense. So either Germany raises it taxes and drives it's businesses to it's neighbors, or piles itself in debt like France and England have done. Of course piling themselves in debt hasn't saved England's or France's manufacturing.
Same is more or less going with the US, Mexico and Canada. Our ally Canada has also watched it's industrial base and middle class eroded. Now they can't afford to spend enough on defense and are facing a huge financial collapse since they more or less followed the failed script of over inflating their housing markets. Meanwhile Mexico gets more factories while doing nothing to help defend the global supply chains feeding those factories.
Free trade and mass immigration are failing for some very well known economic reasons. The folks at the WSJ along with plenty of others at places like the CATO institute just keep trying to cherry pick which economic principles they are willing to pay attention to. Yet just like how governments micromanaging their economies and being overly generous with welfare always leads to stagflation, ignoring the commons problems created by disconnecting from mutual defense and shared values leads to bankrupt states with weak militaries.
Then try explaining how Belgium can spend 4% on defense and keep it's taxes competitive with Ireland or Austria while spending enough on education and infrastructure, to again, remain competitive with Austria and Ireland.
Like wise, explain to me why a working class American should accept cuts to our domestic programs so we can keep spending billions protecting all those foreign built ships from pirates off the coast of Somalia or terrorists in the middle east, even while America struggles to find the facilities and expertise needed to replace our warships on a reasonable timeframe and budget.
You can't. The folks at WSJ can't. The folks at CATO don't even bother trying.
Given that my future, and the future of my family, including my wife's extended family in France depend on the speed at which we the people in the free world figure out that "free trade" is a poverty trap, I won't give it a rest.
So either ignore me and quit responding, or at least try to come up with a counter argument for how we stop rewarding corrupt and irresponsible nations and start rewarding and protecting not only our own economy but the economies of our responsible allies.
Any argument regarding American manufacturing trends should also include manufacturing GDP - which is near all-time highs.
Yes, it's a smaller percentage of the entire GDP, but as companies have moved towards robotics and automation - yes, fewer less skilled workers are required, but the volume of product and the dollars of goods produced (even adjusted for inflation) is up not down.
One wonders how much governmental data can be trusted since the last BLS director who brought bad news got fired…or maybe it was because she was a woman. Regardless, the message has been sent to all “don’t bring me bad news!”
Great piece. The free trade economists who spent decades telling displaced workers to accept painful tradeoffs for the long-run payoff are now crying about one year of modest job losses, (mostly of foreign workers). The manufacturing PMI, industrial output, productivity gains, and job openings all point in the right direction. Reindustrialization takes time, that's always been the honest argument. Critics should know that better than anyone.
If I made stuff, I would not start a big expensive buildout in the USA? You crazy? And the democrats come back into power and don't support this then where am I? They would start the cheap labor thing again to buy votes, and I'm stuck with all these expenses?
Democracies die by slow suicidal deaths, throughout history how they go.
The university = The "New Religion" (religion of nihilism)
Great post! I understand the complicated relations among one manufacturer and another, and even one worker and another, but I always wonder about the numbers for counting US jobs and US workers per se. If we, for instance, "lose" 40,000 jobs that were all being performed by 40,000 workers here illegally in the first place, I'm guessing those were radically under-compensated jobs that US workers weren't missing much (because they weren't doing) anyway. So far as I know, BLS does not categorize foreign workers into who's here legally and who isn't, which seems to be a major info gap. Thank you for the perspective here!
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.
With the reduction in immigrant workers, is it not possible that despite the 93,000 reduction in manufacturing jobs that more Americans are working now than a year ago?
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.
Welcome to the “new” right. Enjoy.
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.
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.
Why assume that the readers of the WSJ and of Commonplace are different sets of people?
What the folks at WSJ have blinded themselves to, is the way that disconnecting trade from mutual defense and shared values has created a few very big commons problems. In effect we have created a system that rewards corrupt and irresponsible nations like China, Mexico, Ireland and Austria. Which in turn punishes our responsible allies like England, France, Germany and Canada.
Your first reaction is that think I'm crazy but step back and really look at what's been going on. We complain about Germany becoming reliant on Russian oil and gas but ignore how they are being forced to compete against companies that get their parts made in China and assembled in Mexico. The German have to save money somehow, so they buy the cheapest energy they can get their hands on.
In the meantime, they have to compete against Austria and Ireland who spend little to nothing on defense. So either Germany raises it taxes and drives it's businesses to it's neighbors, or piles itself in debt like France and England have done. Of course piling themselves in debt hasn't saved England's or France's manufacturing.
Same is more or less going with the US, Mexico and Canada. Our ally Canada has also watched it's industrial base and middle class eroded. Now they can't afford to spend enough on defense and are facing a huge financial collapse since they more or less followed the failed script of over inflating their housing markets. Meanwhile Mexico gets more factories while doing nothing to help defend the global supply chains feeding those factories.
Free trade and mass immigration are failing for some very well known economic reasons. The folks at the WSJ along with plenty of others at places like the CATO institute just keep trying to cherry pick which economic principles they are willing to pay attention to. Yet just like how governments micromanaging their economies and being overly generous with welfare always leads to stagflation, ignoring the commons problems created by disconnecting from mutual defense and shared values leads to bankrupt states with weak militaries.
You and the corruption. Give it a rest.
Then try explaining how Belgium can spend 4% on defense and keep it's taxes competitive with Ireland or Austria while spending enough on education and infrastructure, to again, remain competitive with Austria and Ireland.
Like wise, explain to me why a working class American should accept cuts to our domestic programs so we can keep spending billions protecting all those foreign built ships from pirates off the coast of Somalia or terrorists in the middle east, even while America struggles to find the facilities and expertise needed to replace our warships on a reasonable timeframe and budget.
You can't. The folks at WSJ can't. The folks at CATO don't even bother trying.
Give it a rest.
Given that my future, and the future of my family, including my wife's extended family in France depend on the speed at which we the people in the free world figure out that "free trade" is a poverty trap, I won't give it a rest.
So either ignore me and quit responding, or at least try to come up with a counter argument for how we stop rewarding corrupt and irresponsible nations and start rewarding and protecting not only our own economy but the economies of our responsible allies.
You’re over thinking it. Things will work out just fine.
"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.
Any argument regarding American manufacturing trends should also include manufacturing GDP - which is near all-time highs.
Yes, it's a smaller percentage of the entire GDP, but as companies have moved towards robotics and automation - yes, fewer less skilled workers are required, but the volume of product and the dollars of goods produced (even adjusted for inflation) is up not down.
One wonders how much governmental data can be trusted since the last BLS director who brought bad news got fired…or maybe it was because she was a woman. Regardless, the message has been sent to all “don’t bring me bad news!”
Great piece. The free trade economists who spent decades telling displaced workers to accept painful tradeoffs for the long-run payoff are now crying about one year of modest job losses, (mostly of foreign workers). The manufacturing PMI, industrial output, productivity gains, and job openings all point in the right direction. Reindustrialization takes time, that's always been the honest argument. Critics should know that better than anyone.
If I made stuff, I would not start a big expensive buildout in the USA? You crazy? And the democrats come back into power and don't support this then where am I? They would start the cheap labor thing again to buy votes, and I'm stuck with all these expenses?
Democracies die by slow suicidal deaths, throughout history how they go.
The university = The "New Religion" (religion of nihilism)
Great post! I understand the complicated relations among one manufacturer and another, and even one worker and another, but I always wonder about the numbers for counting US jobs and US workers per se. If we, for instance, "lose" 40,000 jobs that were all being performed by 40,000 workers here illegally in the first place, I'm guessing those were radically under-compensated jobs that US workers weren't missing much (because they weren't doing) anyway. So far as I know, BLS does not categorize foreign workers into who's here legally and who isn't, which seems to be a major info gap. Thank you for the perspective here!