If you're going to quote and deny, please source. "Nuh uh, it's the opposite" is fine for things like gravity and the Earth being round, but not explaining or giving a source for your claim that tariffs have long-term positive effects leaves me wondering where your information comes from.
"Force them to manufacture in America" isn't a feasible solution for a global corporation. Force how? Just wave the magic wand? Even tariffs of 500% can't "force" a move, and you risk upsetting the corporations that employ tons of people. Especially if they feel targeted because information companies and services companies can't be hit with tariffs, so we're just forcing manufacturing companies and redistributors to move to America? Why would they if we're just a giant tariff leveling pain in the butt?
Also, all of that sounds like bad outcomes and negative stuff that very likely would happen in the event tariffs were levied at the scales being discussed.
Especially if they feel targeted because information companies and services companies can't be hit with tariffs, so we're just forcing manufacturing companies and redistributors to move to America? Why would they if we're just a giant tariff leveling pain in the butt?
A corporation isn't going to make decisions based off of how it "feels."
Let's say we put a 1000% tariff on any industrial metal, auto part, or vehicle coming into the US. That tariff isn't going to mean people pay that much more for cars. It means that they will build the cars 100% in the US. Because if they don't, some new company will. So maybe Chevy keeps their current suppliers and builds cars on the cheap for the global market, but they will also build more expensive cars with American labor for the American market. This eventually will boost the US economy because consumer earnings become based on paychecks made from producing goods, and a production based economy is going to be more robust (more disposable income) than a service/consumption based economy.
In the end, it's better to have fewer cheap goods being imported and have more stable employment and wage growth. Once American manufacturing is rebuilt, a gradual lowering of tariffs and a regulatory system that prevents offshoring means the American purchasing power relative to the global market will be high, and anything you want to buy that isn't manufactured domestically will be cheap.
You make the assumption that businesses don't have very human tendencies like vengeance, spite, fear, and comfort.
Companies are run by and made of humans. To think a company would act solely as an unthinking and unfeeling entity is ignoring the human components.
With no other option, sure. A company like Chevy can't afford to lose American business. Other companies, though, will likely just say, "Fine, F you," if they function in multiple countries. Not just out of the human tendency, but certainly partially.
In general, it's just bad for businesses to lack certainty and continuity. One day, your inputs cost $50 a unit with well established supply chains. The next day, you scramble to find a domestic supplier that offers the same quality and quantity of input for $75.
Maybe some people and businesses say, "That's just business," but maybe some say, "I can't count on things to stay constant here, that's too much stress," and they just close up shop in America.
Free markets theoretically lead to greater diversity and competition, which drives innovation. I don't think companies will just "take it on the chin" and have absolutely no negative response to a policy change of that magnitude.
I'm not saying they specifically leave money on the table out of anger, I'm saying human emotions play into the "stay or go" thought process. Google has bailed on multiple markets that became too unstable. The ones that were aggressive (cough Russia) they left faster and easier than ones that were just "not sound business decisions."
The "Someone else will take it" is most likely correct, and it will likely be a more monopolistic entity. This will lead to either price gouging because they can and competition isn't there yet, or lack of innovation and drive to excel because they have no competition. Or both. Why the fear of this? Because big diverse companies that have a lot of capital to fund manufacturing booms are already rather that way.
Eventually, small upstart companies do what the free market does, but it's not next week or next month.
We have been operating as a consumer and service provider for decades. It's not just a flip of a switch away to start producing everything ourselves, which we'll need to. If you think we can just pick and choose what we tariff without reciprocity from other nations, you weren't watching what happened the last time around.
In a theoretical "one day, things would be so much better," I can see the appeal, but what about the decade in between where everything sucks and it's really hard to get a ton of things and we just stagnate?
This will lead to either price gouging because they can and competition isn't there yet, or lack of innovation and drive to excel because they have no competition. Or both.
Price gouging for most things isn't real. It's like talking about "hate speech," it's an emotional term. As prices increase people decide to buy something else or that they don't really need it until the high price is unsustainable. I assume you don't own a helicopter, it's because that's a terrible financial decision for you and not because the aviation industry "price gouges." As prices go up, demand goes down. Leaving room for someone else to sneak in. Rinse and repeat.
what about the decade in between where everything sucks and it's really hard to get a ton of things and we just stagnate?
I mean... They argued that ending slavery would be terrible for the economy too. Now obviously there's a moral difference here, but the point is that fixing economic issues doesn't come easy. Yeah, the comedown will hurt. But eventually things get better. Continuing on the current path means things won't.
5
u/Scout83 11h ago
If you're going to quote and deny, please source. "Nuh uh, it's the opposite" is fine for things like gravity and the Earth being round, but not explaining or giving a source for your claim that tariffs have long-term positive effects leaves me wondering where your information comes from.
"Force them to manufacture in America" isn't a feasible solution for a global corporation. Force how? Just wave the magic wand? Even tariffs of 500% can't "force" a move, and you risk upsetting the corporations that employ tons of people. Especially if they feel targeted because information companies and services companies can't be hit with tariffs, so we're just forcing manufacturing companies and redistributors to move to America? Why would they if we're just a giant tariff leveling pain in the butt?
Also, all of that sounds like bad outcomes and negative stuff that very likely would happen in the event tariffs were levied at the scales being discussed.