We are all Slave now.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Over the long term, protectionism is supposed to create more favorable trading terms.

Over the long term, tin foil hats are supposed to keep the Deep State from listening to your thoughts.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

And you're crediting the (incoherent) story told by a lying, corrupt grifter and pretending it's in good faith.

You left out ignorant and stupid.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

And you're crediting the (incoherent) story told by a lying, corrupt grifter and pretending it's in good faith.

It's intended to be profitable for his "friends" and/or punish his enemies.

1. No. That's how all protectionism is supposed to work. Unless you think proponents of it are arguing, or have ever argued, "We need to wreck things for exporters to help some domestic industries, and we intend this situation to be permanent. Sorry, exporters. You're fucked."

2. I think Trump is actually doing this because he thinks he can win a trade war. He's just that clueless. Maybe there's some graft in it for him, but this one looks more like simple stupidity.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Over the long term, tin foil hats are supposed to keep the Deep State from listening to your thoughts.

TM

2. But he has trotted out good ole' Art Laffer to support his tariffs. Seems now that Uncle Milty is gone, Art's happy to fall in with the market interference supporting crowds.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, are you familiar with Anand Giridharadas? A friend was telling me about him this weekend, and it sounds like you might dig his stuff.

No. But thank you. His third book sounds particularly interesting, and I need a new one to read. (The other two also sound good.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't know. You don't know. The Luddite's didn't know. The world is way more complex than your little stories.

I've got some support (the last seventeen years of our economy in re labor and wages). But I'd love to be wrong here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You don't get to say "I didn't intend the principal and obvious consequence of my actions". That's the "I shot the sheriff but I didn't mean to kill him" defense.

Making it worse, you rely on "intent" being something remote and off in the distance, when the other consequences are direct and immediate. "When I shot the sheriff I wasn't trying to kill him just to get prison reform which I thought his successor might favor."

You were defining protectionism as a policy intended to harm exports. You did not include the necessary caveat that it is supposed to do that only in the short term, to rebalance trade, after which exports are supposed to recovery. Your usual snide, half-considered reply would leave the impression protectionism is a policy designed to screw one sector permanently, which it clearly is not intended to do (as that would be ludicrous).

I agree with you that protectionism is flawed and will have an awful effect on exports and not achieve rebalancing. But that's a different discussion from what it is technically intended to do.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You were defining protectionism as a policy intended to harm exports. You did not include the necessary caveat that it is supposed to do that only in the short term, to rebalance trade, after which exports are supposed to recovery. Your usual snide, half-considered reply would leave the impression protectionism is a policy designed to screw one sector permanently, which it clearly is not intended to do (as that would be ludicrous).

I agree with you that protectionism is flawed and will have an awful effect on exports and not achieve rebalancing. But that's a different discussion from what it is technically intended to do.

You can assume the usual snide response, but if you need me to make it explicity, please work on your reading skills.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Note in your response you are now distinguishing between "short term" and "long term" harm. If I may rephrase: "Sure, we knew it would do harm to HAVE A TARIFF ON SOYBEANS SO THEY WOULD SELL FOR LESS ON THE GLOBAL MARKET, and we know doing that harms the soybean farmers, BUT, in the long term, we think it will work magic that will benefit them because, um, uh, well, I don't know."

Or are you of the view that the tariff put on soybeans by the Chinese was never expected when we put a tariff on steel coming in, so we shouldn't think of it as the intent of the protectionism, because, we really expected protectionism just to go one way and it's not nice that someone else responds by doing what we just did?

Choose your brand of idiocy.

Note: if you want to say, sure, the people advocating tariffs are idiots, ignoring all the real world implications, applying a bizarre logic in which cause and effect are suspended, well, that's fine, but that is what it is.

I'm not of either view. I'm not defending protectionism. I think it's dumb and will not work. I'm saying, however, that you're confusing impact and intent. I understand your argument, but I still do not think you can conflate the two so recklessly.

a. Trump, dimwit, thinks protectionism will work and rebalance trade. So he engages in it.

b. It does not work, and the impact, which we who are not dimwits could see coming, is damage to our exports.

That b turns out to be true doesn't magically change the definition of protectionism. It just further demonstrates Trump's lack of skill in trying to use a strategy that has been proven ineffective and counterproductive.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You can assume the usual snide response, but if you need me to make it explicity, please work on your reading skills.

I can offer the same. An adverse collateral impact and an intent are very different things. The former is not the goal. The latter is the goal. The former can be an assumed risk, or a certain impact to be absorbed. But it is never the goal. If you say it is the goal, you have said something inaccurate. You were inaccurate.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You were defining protectionism as a policy intended to harm exports. You did not include the necessary caveat that it is supposed to do that only in the short term, to rebalance trade, after which exports are supposed to recovery. Your usual snide, half-considered reply would leave the impression protectionism is a policy designed to screw one sector permanently, which it clearly is not intended to do (as that would be ludicrous).

I agree with you that protectionism is flawed and will have an awful effect on exports and not achieve rebalancing. But that's a different discussion from what it is technically intended to do.

As to the serious response, exports don't recover. We've been through this before. Take soy, what is the first thing that happened when the tariffs went in: Brazil and China cut a big deal. Investors have already poured money into Brazil to invest in new soy production. Long term, now, Brazil is going to become a market where Chinese buyers look to have deals to ensure they don't have the political risk of being tied to the US market. Our soy markets have, in very short time, done an enormous amount for their competition. Long term, the mostly likely result is probably a drop in total soy cost because of increased supply, but it's not going to be business as usual.

This will play out in every other market - and we, as an established market, have the most to lose long-term from the opening of new markets.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can offer the same. An adverse collateral impact and an intent are very different things. The former is not the goal. The latter is the goal. The former can be an assumed risk, or a certain impact to be absorbed. But it is never the goal. If you say it is the goal, you have said something inaccurate. You were inaccurate.

These "goals" are fucking fantasies of the feeble minded.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think what you are saying is, where are the good jobs going to come from?

I think skilled labor will have a decent future. Lots of potential from various sources arising from new tech an attendant innovations. (Though I think we're setting up the mother of all STEM gluts.)

But we're not looking at any new good jobs for fungible labor. You and I see the same challenges there, I believe. That's beyond my pay scale, except to advocate for UBI.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. No. That's how all protectionism is supposed to work.

Protectionism is not "supposed" to work. Aside from Peter Navarro, almost no one who has given it any thought thinks it does.

Unless you think proponents of it are arguing, or have ever argued, "We need to wreck things for exporters to help some domestic industries, and we intend this situation to be permanent.

Yes, that is what proponents of it who are not named Navarro or Trump are arguing. Protectionism is in America very nearly always the result of regulatory capture.

2. I think Trump is actually doing this because he thinks he can win a trade war. He's just that clueless. Maybe there's some graft in it for him, but this one looks more like simple stupidity.

The most frustrating part of Trump is that it's next to impossible for anyone, including him, to know what he really thinks. I think there's a nontrivial chance that he really is so clueless to think he can win a trade war. I think there's a nontrivial chance that he doesn't care, as he think it makes him look "strong" against China, whom he sees primarily as a rival. I think there's a nontrivial chance that it benefits someone who he thinks it's in his interest to benefit (there is Russian oligarch money in the domestic steel industry, for example). I'm absolutely certain that he has not had any thought or discussion as deep even as this few quick words we've exchanged.

And I think there's at least a trivial chance that it benefits him directly in some way we've not yet seen.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

These "goals" are fucking fantasies of the feeble minded.

Again, I agree. But also again, whether protectionism works is a different discussion. I'm with you: It doesn't. But Trump apparently thinks it does, so he's resurrected it. I think it's clear he's feeble minded on many things, and this is one of them.