Trade protectionism is an interesting theory.
-
Trade protectionism is an interesting theory. The idea is that by imposing tariffs and other regulations on foreign manufacturers you shelter and grow local manufacturing and protect local manufacturing jobs.
The US lost 8k manufacturing jobs in the month of May.
It's not hard to understand why, supply chain uncertainty is making US manufacturers risk-adverse, but since no one knows if the "protection" will ever exist or last for more than a week it's not making jobs.
-
Trade protectionism is an interesting theory. The idea is that by imposing tariffs and other regulations on foreign manufacturers you shelter and grow local manufacturing and protect local manufacturing jobs.
The US lost 8k manufacturing jobs in the month of May.
It's not hard to understand why, supply chain uncertainty is making US manufacturers risk-adverse, but since no one knows if the "protection" will ever exist or last for more than a week it's not making jobs.
Reblog by @seananmcguire · 1 video
💬 129 🔁 99752 ❤️ 111875 · congrats lil buddy that’s the worst anyone’s ever done it
Tumblr (www.tumblr.com)
-
Trade protectionism is an interesting theory. The idea is that by imposing tariffs and other regulations on foreign manufacturers you shelter and grow local manufacturing and protect local manufacturing jobs.
The US lost 8k manufacturing jobs in the month of May.
It's not hard to understand why, supply chain uncertainty is making US manufacturers risk-adverse, but since no one knows if the "protection" will ever exist or last for more than a week it's not making jobs.
My basic understanding is that this could work if you did it for a small sector of the economy: made the trade protections last for years. This would give US manufacturers incentives to open factories and create manufacturing jobs. Then in theory the protections are phased out once the companies have a foothold.
I don't know enough about economics to know if it really works, but it makes sense as explained.
Anyway we aren't doing this. I don't get what we are doing.
-
My basic understanding is that this could work if you did it for a small sector of the economy: made the trade protections last for years. This would give US manufacturers incentives to open factories and create manufacturing jobs. Then in theory the protections are phased out once the companies have a foothold.
I don't know enough about economics to know if it really works, but it makes sense as explained.
Anyway we aren't doing this. I don't get what we are doing.
@futurebird I think what we’re seeing is not protectionism but a pure shakedown. The intended beneficiaries of Trump’s actions are (in order) Trump, the Trump Org, people who give Trump kickbacks in return for unfair trade advantage, and inside-traders.
There is no policy, no goal beyond short-term profiteering, no public interest, no thought given to long-term impact. It’s a mobster shakedown, plain and simple.
Nice business you got there, would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.
-
@futurebird I think what we’re seeing is not protectionism but a pure shakedown. The intended beneficiaries of Trump’s actions are (in order) Trump, the Trump Org, people who give Trump kickbacks in return for unfair trade advantage, and inside-traders.
There is no policy, no goal beyond short-term profiteering, no public interest, no thought given to long-term impact. It’s a mobster shakedown, plain and simple.
Nice business you got there, would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.
I think you are correct. But, it might be surprising how many Americans are excited about protectionism. Just from having family from PA who worked in the steel mills (gutted by "free trade") there is an old multi generation wound. And if you didn't get educated and bounce whole happy working class communities were destroyed.
I think Trump taps into that yearning but I need people to get that he's Just Not Doing It. None of them ever will.
-
F myrmepropagandist shared this topic
-
I think you are correct. But, it might be surprising how many Americans are excited about protectionism. Just from having family from PA who worked in the steel mills (gutted by "free trade") there is an old multi generation wound. And if you didn't get educated and bounce whole happy working class communities were destroyed.
I think Trump taps into that yearning but I need people to get that he's Just Not Doing It. None of them ever will.
The neighborhood where my father grew up which was a lovely Black neighborhood, next to a Little Poland, and Little everything else looks like it was *bombed* Almost nothing is standing.
All of those communities are gone and anyone who didn't leave is struggling.
Places change, that's fine, but I watched this happen in my 40 years of life.
-
I think you are correct. But, it might be surprising how many Americans are excited about protectionism. Just from having family from PA who worked in the steel mills (gutted by "free trade") there is an old multi generation wound. And if you didn't get educated and bounce whole happy working class communities were destroyed.
I think Trump taps into that yearning but I need people to get that he's Just Not Doing It. None of them ever will.
@futurebird I was going to write the same thing when I saw your reply!
I think people wrongly equate tariffs with protectionism. Tariffs are just a tool, while protectionism is an overarching strategy. Tariffs can *hurt* American businesses, too: e.g. the Chicken Tax hurts US automakers more than it helps now.
I’m not sure if protectionism through tariffs ever helps—the 1930s protectionist tariffs led to the Great Depression after all—but we do know that NO protectionism hurts US workers…which is where your example comes in. For the past 40+ years, the US “free trade” policy essentially ANTI-protectionism: we exported US labor to countries with worse human rights and living standards to benefit capital. The result was devastating stagnation in wages, a destruction of US industries, and a widening of inequality.
And like you said, Trump is tapping into this: his base thinks he’s reversing the harms free trade, which he most certainly is not.
-
@futurebird I was going to write the same thing when I saw your reply!
I think people wrongly equate tariffs with protectionism. Tariffs are just a tool, while protectionism is an overarching strategy. Tariffs can *hurt* American businesses, too: e.g. the Chicken Tax hurts US automakers more than it helps now.
I’m not sure if protectionism through tariffs ever helps—the 1930s protectionist tariffs led to the Great Depression after all—but we do know that NO protectionism hurts US workers…which is where your example comes in. For the past 40+ years, the US “free trade” policy essentially ANTI-protectionism: we exported US labor to countries with worse human rights and living standards to benefit capital. The result was devastating stagnation in wages, a destruction of US industries, and a widening of inequality.
And like you said, Trump is tapping into this: his base thinks he’s reversing the harms free trade, which he most certainly is not.
@drahardja @futurebird Just quietly reading this from a steel town in one of the countries affected by US steel and aluminium tariffs, and thinking about Australian steelworkers and their struggling communities. Is there a way forward if we can think about all of this with something in common?
-
@drahardja @futurebird Just quietly reading this from a steel town in one of the countries affected by US steel and aluminium tariffs, and thinking about Australian steelworkers and their struggling communities. Is there a way forward if we can think about all of this with something in common?
@kate @drahardja @futurebird The historical examples of effective protectionism are for relatively small economic sectors, with time frames, and with the acceptance/understanding of trading partners, which means the policy gets applied with forethought and planning and prior negotiation.
Trying to wall off the whole economy (Smoot-Hawley) doesn't work; random flailing, well, it's not entirely random.
