Regarding Yglesias and Luttwak: Yglesias makes the common mistake of blaming the Jones Act for the decline of American shipbuilding. The real culprit is Reagan’s decision to stop subsidizing shipbuilders. It’s an industry it’s a good idea to subsidize (unlike, say, corn). The Jones Act serves a national security purpose by giving US merchant mariners chances to practice their craft so they’ll be ready if they’re needed in a major war.
I’m one of the few people who thinks NAFTA was a good idea but PNTR with China was a mistake. The US *gained* manufacturing jobs throughout the mid and late 90s, including in Obama-to-Trump states Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin. It wasn’t until China joined the WTO that the mass exodus began.
It can be good to liberalize trade with a smaller neighbor that can benefit from your close attention. You can even call it a noble act of charity even though you’re also getting low prices out of it. It’s quite another matter to liberalize trade with a colossus that’s looking to become your great geopolitical rival. That’s a national security risk even though you get low prices out of it.
Two theories on Trump and tariffs- 1- lower the valuation of stocks will allow wealthy investors supporting Trump to buy low, and then Trump removes tariffs and watch the stock prices rise again, benefiting his wealthy supporters. 2- Some countries (China, in particular) are considering bitcoin to replace the dollar as the standard currency, why encourage that thinking by de-valuing the dollar at this time? Can anyone respond to these theories?
You're right on point 1, and with regards to point 2, Bit Coin is still a playground for fraud, so while you think China would thrive there, they'll fail because they cannot subvert it. The development of a BRICS currency is more likely.
John, Thank you for your prompt reply. I agree about Bitcoin, which I consider ultimately a ponzi scheme, but the development of an alternative to the dollar is something being considered in China and Trump's policies, which may change global market alignments where China gains influence and financial heft should not be discounted. Farid Zakaria's recent commentary on tariffs in the Washington Post and CNN provide a clear take on the reality voters should know and embrace.
Americans decrying higher costs because imported goods now cost more shows how ignorant (malevolently or otherwise) we are of the human costs of importing cheap products and environmental costs of consuming out-of-season produce. If nothing else this should reduce our participation in fast fashion, Temu, and deforestation.
Avocadoes anyone?
Now if we could just free our minds from the TikTok chains.
There are so many layers of assumed goodness via materialism here that nobody in our culture seems able to cut through. Tell me why you need half the things on Amazon? In your shopping cart at Walmart?
You do realize if you make things cheaply, either by labor abuse or by reducing quality, you improve margins, while winning the opportunity to sell again with faster turnarounds. (Oh Luddites, you faded too soon!)
Regarding Yglesias and Luttwak: Yglesias makes the common mistake of blaming the Jones Act for the decline of American shipbuilding. The real culprit is Reagan’s decision to stop subsidizing shipbuilders. It’s an industry it’s a good idea to subsidize (unlike, say, corn). The Jones Act serves a national security purpose by giving US merchant mariners chances to practice their craft so they’ll be ready if they’re needed in a major war.
I’m one of the few people who thinks NAFTA was a good idea but PNTR with China was a mistake. The US *gained* manufacturing jobs throughout the mid and late 90s, including in Obama-to-Trump states Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin. It wasn’t until China joined the WTO that the mass exodus began.
It can be good to liberalize trade with a smaller neighbor that can benefit from your close attention. You can even call it a noble act of charity even though you’re also getting low prices out of it. It’s quite another matter to liberalize trade with a colossus that’s looking to become your great geopolitical rival. That’s a national security risk even though you get low prices out of it.
Two theories on Trump and tariffs- 1- lower the valuation of stocks will allow wealthy investors supporting Trump to buy low, and then Trump removes tariffs and watch the stock prices rise again, benefiting his wealthy supporters. 2- Some countries (China, in particular) are considering bitcoin to replace the dollar as the standard currency, why encourage that thinking by de-valuing the dollar at this time? Can anyone respond to these theories?
You're right on point 1, and with regards to point 2, Bit Coin is still a playground for fraud, so while you think China would thrive there, they'll fail because they cannot subvert it. The development of a BRICS currency is more likely.
John, Thank you for your prompt reply. I agree about Bitcoin, which I consider ultimately a ponzi scheme, but the development of an alternative to the dollar is something being considered in China and Trump's policies, which may change global market alignments where China gains influence and financial heft should not be discounted. Farid Zakaria's recent commentary on tariffs in the Washington Post and CNN provide a clear take on the reality voters should know and embrace.
Americans decrying higher costs because imported goods now cost more shows how ignorant (malevolently or otherwise) we are of the human costs of importing cheap products and environmental costs of consuming out-of-season produce. If nothing else this should reduce our participation in fast fashion, Temu, and deforestation.
Avocadoes anyone?
Now if we could just free our minds from the TikTok chains.
There are so many layers of assumed goodness via materialism here that nobody in our culture seems able to cut through. Tell me why you need half the things on Amazon? In your shopping cart at Walmart?
You do realize if you make things cheaply, either by labor abuse or by reducing quality, you improve margins, while winning the opportunity to sell again with faster turnarounds. (Oh Luddites, you faded too soon!)