it’s like you believe you can tariff them expecting they won’t do the same. Why do you believe the rest of the world is not going to retaliate and why do you believe America can prosper without the rest of the world?

What’s the point of having a military alliance with countries you puts tariffs on? That’s unfriendly to say the least.

  • S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Well the people will still need that things that were imported, eventually you’ll have to have an industry to cover that need. Picture this just an extreme case. All clothes are made abroad, imagine the tariff makes it “unbuyables”. The people will still have the need for clothes so that creates the space for someone to start making clothes and sell them eventually making a textile industry.
    Now the problem is this could take years the internal industry could be shit and a myriad of other problems that will surely will affect the poorest people the most. Economics explained has a good video on it you should check it.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      this could take years the internal industry could be shit and a myriad of other problems that will surely will affect the poorest people the most.

      Yes, and it will be expensive either way. When you buy a bag of imported tube socks for $5. You’ve got tube socks in a fair trade. When you pay $20, you have 4x less tube socks. The foreign seller can still buy US agriculture, resources, or houses, or bonds to lower our interest rates with the money without forcing you to overpay for tube socks. Globalization has multidirectional benefits.

      • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Multidirectional benefits maybe, but most of the negative effects of shipping interruption are experienced by the receiver. You’re assuming any company has the capacity to make the socks here at all (to meet our needs). Production limits will cause most people to do without, regardless of if they could pay the increased cost.

        • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I think your point is, first the tube socks go to $20. Then someone (maybe a Chinese who is now global expert in sock making) in US figures out a way to make them for $19, 2 years after their investment.

          • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            My point is there’s shortages, along with probably hoarding & scalping, and many people simply go without socks for years. It takes time to build up manufacturing capacity.

            And that’s assuming a completely peaceful transition. God knows how long it’ll take to build up that manufacturing, if the loss is due to a hot war, and resources are primarily needed for a war effort.

    • MJKee9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      How does creating a local industry of cheap knockoffs help the US economy exactly? What you’re describing is turning the United States into a random poorer country. That plan only makes sense if the ultimate goal is to diminish the United States economy and its influence in the world. That benefits China and India. It doesn’t benefit the United States domestically.

      Here’s a better idea, invest in your people to create an economy and society that doesn’t rely upon raping other country for labor and materials.

      • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Because turning your country into a service economy, with no local manufacturing capacity, is insanely stupid from a national security perspective. We’ve already made this mistake, and it’s part of how China is able to exert so much control over the US.

        Just look at what happened to the US economy when shipping was only momentarily interrupted during the pandemic.

        • MJKee9@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          You understand that the only way the current economic policy results in what you’re suggesting is everybody is brought down to such a desperate place that they are willing to work for pennies to possibly feed their family crumbs. All because the corporations that are paying the wages want 98% profit, not 97% profit. And the reason is national security concerns? If you’re worried about national security concerns then why base a solution on capitalism? We are putting more and more power and placing more and more preference on the corporation as opposed to the individual. A corporation does not give two shits about national security concerns. The only thing they care about is how can we use national security breaches to make more money.

          Therefore, your line of reasoning just doesn’t make any sense. It assumes that you live in a world that doesn’t exist. Furthermore, it completely ignores the source of the problem: unregulated capitalism. If your national security is dependent upon your economic policy, you’re doing things wrong.

          • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            38 minutes ago

            I think you’re misunderstanding. I’m a socialist. I’m pointing out to the capitalist supporters than none of this makes sense.

            Personally, I think we should transition to a centrally planned socialist economy, and move away from mass manufacturing to as-needed small batch manufacturing by investing in local manufacturing capacity for individual communities wherever possible. Specifically, I believe 3D printing technologies can be expanded and improved upon for this aim.

            But the neoliberals will oppose that, because their power is maintained by controlling imports/exports, and preventing communities from becoming self-sufficient to not rely on imports. It’s why the IMF and World Bank always force countries to become dependent on imports.