American tariffs and the return to 'fair trade' | Glen Diesen

[Scott]

I really liked Glen Diesen's article, as it helped my understand the new American tariffs. I had heard that tariffs -can- be good, but I also now feel that the U.S. has gone overboard- Diesen's article confirms this. I think the last 2 paragraph from his article sums up his point:
**
The repatriation of supply chains will take decades. To ensure tariffs are temporary, there needs to be economic activity to enhance maturity and competitiveness – such as technological development, vigorous industrial policies and infrastructure investments. This has not been done in the US as the financialization of the economy and the oligarchy have created excessive rent-seeking. The economic war against China has made matters worse, as banning the export of advanced semiconductors has resulted in the loss of huge market shares, diminishing available funds for research and development. Lastly, the excessive use of tariffs breaks the multilateral rules agreed upon by the World Trade Organization, and other countries will retaliate.

Temporary and moderate tariffs can be a reasonable instrument to enhance competitiveness, yet they come with significant risks. The US insistence on dominating and preventing the rise of China, rather than accepting a new international division of labour between equal great powers, has resulted in the tariff instrument being used too aggressively and thus, making the US destined to fail.
**

Full article:

American tariffs and the return to 'fair trade'

Prof. Glenn Diesen / op-ed in CGTN

glenndiesen.substack.com

 

[Neoclitorus]

I really liked Glen Diesen's article, as it helped my understand the new American tariffs. I had heard that tariffs -can- be good, but I also now feel that the U.S. has gone overboard- Diesen's article confirms this. I think the last 2 paragraph from his article sums up his point:
**
The repatriation of supply chains will take decades. To ensure tariffs are temporary, there needs to be economic activity to enhance maturity and competitiveness – such as technological development, vigorous industrial policies and infrastructure investments. This has not been done in the US as the financialization of the economy and the oligarchy have created excessive rent-seeking. The economic war against China has made matters worse, as banning the export of advanced semiconductors has resulted in the loss of huge market shares, diminishing available funds for research and development. Lastly, the excessive use of tariffs breaks the multilateral rules agreed upon by the World Trade Organization, and other countries will retaliate.

Temporary and moderate tariffs can be a reasonable instrument to enhance competitiveness, yet they come with significant risks. The US insistence on dominating and preventing the rise of China, rather than accepting a new international division of labour between equal great powers, has resulted in the tariff instrument being used too aggressively and thus, making the US destined to fail.
**

Full article:

American tariffs and the return to 'fair trade'

Prof. Glenn Diesen / op-ed in CGTN

glenndiesen.substack.com

don't suck Chinese cock then come on here and drip jizz everywhere.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I really liked Glen Diesen's article, as it helped my understand the new American tariffs. I had heard that tariffs -can- be good, but I also now feel that the U.S. has gone overboard- Diesen's article confirms this. I think the last 2 paragraph from his article sums up his point:
**
The repatriation of supply chains will take decades. To ensure tariffs are temporary, there needs to be economic activity to enhance maturity and competitiveness – such as technological development, vigorous industrial policies and infrastructure investments. This has not been done in the US as the financialization of the economy and the oligarchy have created excessive rent-seeking. The economic war against China has made matters worse, as banning the export of advanced semiconductors has resulted in the loss of huge market shares, diminishing available funds for research and development. Lastly, the excessive use of tariffs breaks the multilateral rules agreed upon by the World Trade Organization, and other countries will retaliate.

Temporary and moderate tariffs can be a reasonable instrument to enhance competitiveness, yet they come with significant risks. The US insistence on dominating and preventing the rise of China, rather than accepting a new international division of labour between equal great powers, has resulted in the tariff instrument being used too aggressively and thus, making the US destined to fail.
**

Full article:

American tariffs and the return to 'fair trade'

Prof. Glenn Diesen / op-ed in CGTN

glenndiesen.substack.com

I am finding it interesting that your grapevine looks a lot like mine.

This is a complement.

 

[Cypress]

I had heard that tariffs -can- be good, but I also now feel that the U.S. has gone overboard

I don't think you favored Kamala Harris. So prepare to live with the consequences of Trump and don't complain about what you voted for.

 

[Neoclitorus]

I am finding it interesting that your grapevine looks a lot like mine.

This is a complement.

it's a Chinese dick vine.

yes you both suck it.

 

[Neoclitorus]

I don't think you favored Kamala Harris. So prepare to live with the consequences of Trump and don't complain about what you voted for.

don't fucking tell people what to do bitch.

 

[Libhater]

 

[Libhater]

 

[Scott]

I don't think you favored Kamala Harris. So prepare to live with the consequences of Trump and don't complain about what you voted for.

You're right, I didn't. I didn't favour Trump either. If I were American, I probably would have voted for RFK Jr., but the democratic party and the mainstream media villified him so much that he decided that Trump was his best option. I still wouldn't have voted for Trump, but I -am- happy that Trump nominated him to be his Secretary for the Department of Human Health and Human Services.

 

[Scott]

View attachment 47355

Tariffs are definitely not always bad. The problem with a lot of Trump's tariffs is that they're not properly tuned to actually benefit Americans. I fully admit that I'm no tariffs expert, but I've been reading from several people who really do seem to know what they're talking about that are all saying the same thing on this. Here's a few more that I've briefly skimmed over that are saying the same thing:

‘American Empire Is in Decline’: Economist Richard Wolff on Trump’s Trade War & Tariffs

Wolff says the Trump administration’s tariff strategy is borne out of an ahistorical “notion of the United States as a victim” despite the fact that “we have been one of the greatest beneficiaries …

scheerpost.com

This Is Why Trump’s Tariffs Will Fail, While Backfiring Hard on the US Economy

Donald Trump has imposed high tariffs on countries around the world, falsely claiming they are “reciprocal”. Trump’s deeply contradictory policies will likely backfire, hurt the US economy, fuel in…

scheerpost.com

From the second article written by Ben Norton:
**
All countries on Earth will face a minimum tariff of 10%. Additional duties will be levied depending on how big a country’s trade surplus is with the US.

The completely contradictory and inaccurate way in which the Trump administration tried to justify this trade war on much of the planet was a reflection of the half-baked and ill-conceived strategy that the White House has proposed to supposedly revive manufacturing in the United States, reduce the chronic trade deficit, and create a new international financial order.

In reality, Trump’s tariff tactics are likely to backfire significantly, fueling high rates of inflation and failing to reindustrialize the US, while incentivizing countries around the world to accelerate their search for alternatives to the United States and the dollar system.
**

There is a silver lining for the very rich though. From Norton's conclusion:
**
Tariffs are essentially a tax on consumption, given the US imports so many consumer goods. Tariffs are also an extremely regressive tax. They put the burden of taxation on the poor and working class, who spend much more of their paychecks on cheap imported consumer goods, and have a high marginal propensity to consume.

Consumption by the rich is not significantly impacted by tariffs, and they have a low marginal propensity to consume. So tariffs are Trump’s way of imposing an enormous regressive tax, moving the burden of taxation off of capital and onto labor.

The US income tax system is already quite regressive in practice. On paper, it is supposedly progressive, but there are many loopholes for wealthy elites, and thanks to Trump’s tax cuts on the rich during his first administration, as of 2018, billionaire families in the US payed a lower tax rate than the bottom half of poor and working-class Americans.

Tariffs will be even more regressive. The Budget Lab at Yale University published an analysis in response to Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs estimating: “The price level from all 2025 tariffs rises by 2.3% in the short-run, the equivalent of an average per household consumer loss of $3,800 in 2024$. Annual losses for households at the bottom of the income distribution are $1,700”.

In short, if Trump’s alleged attempts to reindustrialize the US and/or broker a Mar-a-Lago Accord fail, at the very least, Trump and his billionaire allies will see their taxes significantly reduced, and the burden of taxation will have been moved onto poor and working-class Americans.

For Trump, that seems to be more than enough reason to impose sky-high tariffs.
**

 

[Cypress]

You're right, I didn't. I didn't favour Trump either. If I were American, I probably would have voted for RFK Jr., but the democratic party and the mainstream media villified him so much that he decided that Trump was his best option. I still wouldn't have voted for Trump, but I -am- happy that Trump nominated him to be his Secretary for the Department of Human Health and Human Services.

If you didn't vote, you have little standing to complain about Trump's global trade war. You were willing to take whatever the American democratic process gave you.

There wouldn't be a trade war if Harris were president.

 

[Neoclitorus]

If you didn't vote, you have little standing to complain about Trump's global trade war. You were willing to take whatever the American democratic process gave you.

There wouldn't be a trade war if Harris were president.

anyone can post want they want here, totalitarian bitch-face.

 

[Cypress]

anyone can post want they want here, totalitarian bitch-face.

You said you didn't vote either, so you obviously don't care very much about what political policies get put into place.

 

[Scott]

If you didn't vote, you have little standing to complain about Trump's global trade war. You were willing to take whatever the American democratic process gave you.

Have you heard of the serenity prayer? I'd say part of it applies here. I'll cut out the bit about God, as I know some people don't believe in one:
**
...grant me the serenity

To accept the things I cannot change;

Courage to change the things I can;

And wisdom to know the difference.
**

I did my part in online forums to express my displeasure with both of the front runners in the last Federal election, but I'm just a solitary voice and it became obvious that one of the 2 was going to win.

There wouldn't be a trade war if Harris were president.

Perhaps not. On the other hand, there may have been a nuclear war with Russia. I'd rather have the current trade war.