Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "Why Trump's tariff plans are dangerous | Douglas Irwin | The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie" video.

  1. To the question of "solar panels wash up on the beech, would we destroy them?" - I wouldn't suggest relying on them if you know the oceans were strategically against you.
    7
  2. I agree, the Trump and Biden China tariffs are good policy. But, how is it good policy to place an especially high tariff on Canada or Mexico, countries Trump negotiated a free trade deal with, himself? Where is the national security angle on that? How will other countries take trade negotiations seriously when Trump is just going to rip them up whenever he wants?
    7
  3. All taxes are going to limit economic growth, the question is what is the tax that has the least impact, because at the end of the day there are going to be taxes. And the answer is a tax on land values, but after that, tariffs are on the better end. But 25% tariffs on Canada? I don't see it as good policy to economically attack an ally. Same is true with mexico but at least there is an argument around lowering wages.
    3
  4. Ya tariffs on China make sense. But I don't think the US has higher income or corporate taxes than Canada or the US. And if it does, and your right that this is the issue, why would the solution be to declare trade war on the world instead of just passing a sales tax and cutting income taxes?
    2
  5. Also Canada has a VAT of 5%? That isn't very high. I certainly don't think it justifies a 25% tariff.
    1
  6.  @pin65371  I assume that's a joke, but I don't see how it could help anyone.
    1
  7. All your examples have interconnected government led industrial policy. I won't say tariffs aren't a part of that, but it's disingenuous to claim that is the difference. If you think the government should run the economy, just say so.
    1
  8. @johncronin6977  I agree with having industrial policy. I disagree that tariffs alone are a good economic policy. I can give counter examples, Brazil, South Africa, where all tariffs have done is prop up garbage companies and forced people to buy overly expensive junk. If you want tariffs to protect industry, they need to be part of a comprehensive plan that ensures quality, investment, and ongoing development. And frankly, you need a lot of government control in the economy for this to work. Also, most of your examples, the country is focusing it's Policy on some new sector of the economy where it can create a clear advantage, not trying to compete in established industries.
    1
  9. @johncronin6977  I guess my only "critism" of you point is it's not so much a "tool" as a drillbit, and if you don't have a drill, it's just something to stab your hand with when you reach in. And atm, Trump has talked a lot about tariffs, and not so much about industrial policy overall.
    1
  10. @johncronin6977  I agree that national policy can create competitive advantage. However, it often comes at the expense of other areas of the economy. And it has to be said, Japan and South Korea may have the worst demographics in the world, definitely if you exclude formerly command Soviet economies, and while they did a wonderful job creating industries, it's questionable how well that has turned out for the actual people. Americans want manufacturing back so they can have 3 kids a dog and a white pick dense around a suburban house. I don't know if that's realistic, but it's certainly not the economic outcome for Japan or South Korea. That said, I'm pretty pro government support for Energy Infrastructure, I don't think you can really screw up subsidies that make energy cheap, and logistical infrastructure, both public rapid transit and national transportation infrastructure. And I would support Manufacturing capital subsidies (in fact it's something Biden did well) and wage subsidies (particularly paying half of wages for training employees, so long as the employee remains with the company for ~5 years).
    1
  11. I guess my point is it's less of a "tool" and more of a "drillbit", and without a drill, it's just something to hurt yourself with when you stick your hand in. And I haven't seen much talk about the drill itself, just a lot of praise of drillbits. I agree policy can create competitive advantage. But I'd hazard that it often comes at the expense of other areas of the economy. South Korea and Japan have just about the worst demographics of any country that wasn't Soviet. There are strategic reasons to want manufacturing, but I'd wager most Americans want the good middle class jobs that support a family - and that doesn't exactly align with the multigenerational no child houses in your examples. That said, I also support industrial policy. And tariffs are a part of that. I think government backing, or even nationalization, of resource sectors, energy, and transportation can all be very valuable (and frankly hard to screw up unless you create some monolithic monopoly). And in terms of manufacturing, I would love to see Capital investment incentives (which Biden actually did quite well), wage subsidies (particularly training tax credits that pay out over several years so long as the employee stays employees), research hubs for industry (to get rid of R&D tax credits which are useless and increase industry information sharing), and planned industrial parts with centralized power/heat provision and a clear goal for interconnected users. And I think Capital gains taxes should be time sliding, so that the tax rate starts at 100%, but over 20 years falls to 0%, to encourage long term investment..
    1