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.
Comment on dear republicans, what's the point of alienating every single ally of the US?
MJKee9@lemmy.world 3 days agoI’m having a hard time following. How is the trade war going to lead to recovering outsourced jobs? Isn’t it more likely to cause businesses to decrease their US operations?
The reason why jobs are outsourced is so companies can take advantage of cheaper labor and operation costs. Other than sending the us economy into a downward spiral that makes people want to work at slave level wages… Not seeing the connection.
S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 days 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 3 days 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 3 days 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.
MJKee9@lemmy.world 3 days 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 3 days 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 the US economy when shipping was only momentarily interrupted.
MJKee9@lemmy.world 3 days 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 3 days ago
How do you bring back outsourced jobs without a trade war? The capitalists will always prefer them outsourced, and a trade war is the only thing that’ll cut them off from that labor.
MJKee9@lemmy.world 3 days ago
That position has a few inaccurate assumptions. The first being that the machines of capitalism, corporate entities, are tied to geographical regions. Today Apple could just move its base of operations to a country. Willing to have it. That isn’t the US. All the company cares about is profit. It doesn’t care about profit while having its base of operations in the United States. If the political climate is too unpredictable and the profits aren’t easily obtainable, they’re going to move to some place where the profits are more easily obtainable.
Another assumption you’re making is that capitalism is the only solution. It really doesn’t make sense addressing this assumption. If you believe one way, my words on the internet aren’t going to make you believe it another way.
But another assumption implied in your thesis is that bringing back jobs is going to fix the problem. This conclusion fails to consider the fundamental nature of capitalism. Capitalism only prevails when there is constant growth of profit and more importantly for your position, growth of the consumer base. The reason why the United States were such successful Capitalists, was because of our booming population Post world war II. You had this constantly increasing stream of consumers that are necessary for the companies to make profit along with a stable and ever-growing manufacturing base. Those conditions don’t currently exist in the United States.
To that end, the countries at an advantage for the next capitalistic explosion are those with huge populations like India and China. So trying to win the international battle of capitalism is a losing proposition for the United States in the foreseeable future.
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 3 days ago
To your point, I believe Apple’s based in Ireland on paper for tax avoidance purposes. But your statement leaves out any effects or tariffs, or possibly being blocked out of a market altogether. A company can leave, sure, but a country can just as easily retaliate.
For the record, I’m a socialist. I’m not onboard with any of this madness. Just pointing out that there are significant gaps in the capitalist logic here.
bluewing@lemm.ee 3 days ago
Which businesses? Foreign companies or local ones? Do you wish to have your money shipped overseas to purchase a vacuum cleaner? Or would you rather pay a bit more and have you hard earned dollars stay here in at home to help pay wages to your neighbors?
MJKee9@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Who do you think transfers more money out of this country. The individual citizens buying vacuum cleaners, or corporations and billionaires who funneled their money to tax havens overseas. The only people harmed by the current economic policy are individuals trying to feed their families. Corporations are making more money than ever before. The wealthiest people in the world are more wealthy than they ever have been in recent history.
But you know what? Let’s just put all the blame and responsibilty on the families. They should have bought their vacuum cleaners from cousin Billy down the street. The shitty economy is all their fault.
Do you hear how silly that sounds?
PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 days ago
Does the foreign vacuum work better? Is it more compact? Are the technologies it is built on protected by IP law? If it’s a cheap junk crescent wrench that I’ll use once because I need it only once, I’d rather not pay double for quality.
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I agree with your sentiment, but I don’t believe there’s any way to put genie back in the bottle.
I think the more realistic path forward will be made available with advancements in automation and small scale, limited batch manufacturing. But neoliberals will fight those efforts tooth & nail, because neoliberalism requires large scale centralized and specialized manufacturing to maintain broad power by controlling imports & exports. Diverse small batch manufacturing would allow for self-sufficient smaller communities, and threaten the current power structure.