It sure was implied by you guys in this thread. US hurting themselves. US will pay. US Consumer will pay. Why should Canada and Mexico worry about punitive tariffs put on by the US if US is going to be the one to pay them? Yes the importer will pay and some cost will go to the US consumer but the countries getting hit hard are the ones that the tariffs are being placed on. There are pros not just cons to tariffs. The US would become a producing nation again not just a consumer nation. Canada and Mexico would have to find other nations to buy their products. Over the long haul the US would benefit from tariffs. It would break out dependency that we now have on other countries. Dependency = the downside to free trade.
You should be happy then when Trump creates a giant trade war with his supposed allies. Canada should slap huge tariffs on the US because you guys don't control the import of guns into our country, and we have a huge trade imbalance in services . Just thought I'd throw Trump's thought process right back at you. Canada and the US don't even have an unbalanced trade situation. Heavy Oil is a sweet deal for the US, you get the cheapest Oil you can get on the planet and sell it refined at a huge profit. There is no way in hell you can frame that as a negative for your country. Stop importing our Oil and we are running a large trade deficit with you mostly SERVICES. But Trump would rather score points with his clueless cult than actually have a strong economy. And without our Oil, you'll have to import it at a higher cost from elsewhere. No, your numbers on this aren't rational note Chevron just had massive layoffs announced how does that translate into "drill baby drill" ( hint - it doesn't, drilling has to be profitable for private firms ). The US is hurting themselves. That's factual.
"Drill Baby Drill" is the dumbest slogan out there since the idea that Mexico would pay for the Wall. You'd think "traders" would understand the economies of the energy sector but based on this site not at all almost no one cared when I told everyone to buy Cdn Oil firms in fall 2020. I'd love to see anyone on here explain exactly which firms are going to increase their production and where. Shale is basically done no more expansion is possible. Many of the firms have frozen or reduced production as a gift to their shareholders. They don't trust NA govt who left them high and dry when Oil prices were lower.
I wish there was a way to separate these discussions about Trump into categories. We need to recognize that we can like some of his policies, and absolutely hate others, and acknowledge that he has no clue. For example.... Trump I think is right to want to protect the border, stop the flow of illegal immigrants, go after the deep state by cutting off their funding via some of these organizations designed to help the world but which really just waste taxpayers dollars and funnel them into the hands of politicians. On the flip side, Trump is probably going to fuck up the economy (even though he wants to bring jobs back home), bring back inflation, maybe has some bad economic policies, probably will no do a good job on Gaza, etc. I for one think that if the one thing that he manages to do is expose and eliminate the government spending and funding of these career politicians, its a huge win.
But at what cost to the american consumer? The reason you import goods is because you can't produce enough to meet the demand or you can buy them cheaper on the open market. If americans could manufacture goods competitively and make a buck at it I'm sure they would have done it already. Pricing is based on supply and demand. Take away the supply and the price goes up. So the question is how much is it going to cost to MAGA??
The Robber Barons moved manufacturing outside of the US. Canada didn't twist GM or Ford's hand to come build cars in Canada. I don't see him slamming any CEOs. Maybe he should force them to bring manufacturing back? Why doesn't he make Tim "Apple" bring iPhone production to the US?
The reason US companies they outsource is more money for the corp and CEO's LOL We can make and manufacture quality products. I well remember when other countries wanted MADE IN USA. The free trade fiasco benefits the corporation and top level people in them not the worker. We got to make it so that the US becomes a manufacturer again. Then companies will migrate to USA to make their products here. Investment will come here as it will be cheaper for them to make it here than other places and the USA workers will also benefit. Make it hard for countries to export their products to US and they will open factories here. The reason free trade was jumped on like in NAFTA because US manufactories could move their companies to other countries hire cheap labor and screw the American worker while the companies make $$$$$$$$$$$$$. That don't trickle down to the USA worker but that goes in the companies coffers. "Lincoln's first speech on the tariff question was short and to the point. He said he did not pretend to be learned in political economy, but he thought that he knew enough to know that 'when an American paid twenty dollars for steel to an English manufacturer, America had the steel and England had the twenty dollars. But when he paid twenty dollars for the steel to an American manufacturer, America had both the steel and the twenty dollars.'" "On another occasion Mr. Lincoln is quoted as saying: 'I am not posted on the tariff, but I know that if I give my wife twenty dollars to buy a cloak and she buys one made in free-trade England, we have the cloak, but England has the twenty dollars; while if she buys a cloak made in the protected United States, we have the cloak and the twenty dollars.'" The 1885 book Graab says "if we buy £ 1000 worth of goods from abroad , the foreigner gets the money - or the money's worth , in some shape or form - and the foreign workman gets the work he wages ; while if the articles are produced in England , we have the goods , we have the work , and we keep the money too ." "But consider this quote that I assure you is also by Lincoln: when I buy a car from a stranger outside my household, the stranger gets the money and I get the car, but when I buy a car made by my wife, we get the car and the money too." And Adam Smith's view as well. It's frequently conveniently omitted from discussion of the idea these days, but Smith's famous "invisible hand" came specifically from a discussion about the benefits of keeping the scope of your economy local when possible and "preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry." Mr. Lincoln continued---Now, fellow-citizens, I must confess that there are shades of difference in construing even this plank of the platform. But I am not now intending to discuss these differences, but merely to give you some general ideas upon this subject. I have long thought that if there be any article of necessity which can be produced at home with as little or nearly the same labor as abroad, it would be better to protect that article. Labor is the true standard of value. If a bar of iron, got out of the mines of England, and a bar of iron taken from the mines of Pennsylvania, be produced at the same cost, it follows that if the English bar be shipped from Manchester to Pittsburg, and the American bar from Pittsburg to Manchester, the cost of carriage is appreciably lost. [Laughter.] If we had no iron here, then we should encourage its shipment from foreign countries; but not when we can make it as cheaply in our own country. This brings us back to our first proposition, that if any article can be produced at home with nearly the same cost as abroad, the carriage is lost labor. Now whether Lincoln actually said some of these things has been debated by others but nevertheless what is important are the concepts regardless of who said them.
Yep our politicians facilitated this free trade fiasco that doesn't benefit America over the long haul. Mr T is going to fix that. Unless our politicians succeed in stopping him. Change is on the horizon boys. Best get use to it and embrace it!
It should be mentioned that you haven't considered comparative advantage. IOW, the USA could make the things they import but there are better uses of that production capacity. So, to say that "they [USA] would have done it already" is misleading. For example, it's a lot more profitable to design an iPhone than it is to assemble it... therefore the USA is more productive by offshoring the assembly and focusing on the design. And, even though it may be more expensive to assemble the iPhone outside the USA, so much more money is made from the designing process that any loss is made up. This is why, from a purely economic perspective, immigration and free trade are good things. However, politics play a big role in addition to economics. So MAGA may pay no cost or even benefit! There are less educated workers who do not understand esoteric principles of pure economics and simply see a lack of "good jobs". Such workers don't consider (or significantly discount) the advantages they get as consumers. If your average MAGA voter prefers reliable, back breaking work instead of cheap goods and services that's up to them. Psychology is strange. It's counterintuitive or perhaps an unintended consequence but possible nonetheless. There are other considerations too. For example, running the country as an autarky may serve some security benefit. Ultimately, there's no cut and dry answer and so I agree that it's interesting to consider.
We agree on this. Well partially. The goods you buy in the US today are priced where they are because of cheap laror and lax regulations in the countries that produce them. To manufacture them in the US is going to cost more. If you pay american workers more the cost of the end product goes higher. No one else is going to want to buy high priced american goods when they can buy them cheaper from other countries. Therefoe american goods will have a limited market. Tarrifs will force US suppliers to find other markets, when that is done that source of goods will have dried up for the US. If the US changes its mind about importing a product and the country suppling the product has found another buyer, the US will more than likely have to pay more than they are now. I think we agree that american business will suffer. Tarrifs will increase the cost of just about everything. It's possible that more jobs will be created but to be competitive my guess is that AI and robotics will fill a lot of the new positions. If the US can produce goods cheaper than other countries then why aren't they. My guess would be taxes, regulations and labor costs.