Tariffs: Why Is It Fine When Others Use Them, But Not the US?

[Swirlythingy2025]

Lots of countries use tariffs to protect their own industries like China, India, even the EU. But when the US does it, especially under someone like Trump, people act like it’s a global crisis. Why?

I fear one effect of trump throwing a wrecking ball into worldwide trade and everyone’s economy, plus his turning on America’s historical allies will be to increase the influence and power of China (and also various of the rich Islamic countries) throughout the world, and decrease America’s. I hope (though am not convinced) that Europe can step up and to some extent hold the position of liberal democracies.

That's hilarious, when you consider that they cost £20 in Primark. I understand the point of the thread, but it's unthinkable to think anyone would be able to afford this. I would rather go without.
Principles are expensive.

That was my point really. That is the price point of quality goods made by a skilled unionised workforce in the UK (or US). I am willing and able to pay that but I know many many won't or can't.

Thank you for understanding, I felt that they came off as a bit snarky

It's certainly true that Trump may be remembered as the environmental president. Nothing reduces economic impact like large numbers of people being poorer and consuming less. And I will say for him that he shows no particular fetish for blowing stuff up and starting hot wars, which is probably his greatest plus in my book.

It would be nice if he'd ever shown any sign of environmental concern otherwise or in other decisions, and was less keen to trash talk other countries in a way that could result in more war.

Environmental impact [sigh]

But you have to have production capabilities already up and running locally to do that, don't you? How does it work in the meantime?

This comment highlights the issue: if you're already struggling with the CoL you certainly won't shell out 10x the current price for a pair of jeans made locally, however much you want to support Welsh workers. If that applies to all everyday items like toasters, ovens, iPhones or hoovers, the cost of running a household with modern appliances will only remain a preserve of the rich. Now what? someone will need to look after the home the old-fashioned way, right? sewing, cooking, dishwashing etc. guess who will be doing that? Women of course. Now let's keep thinking a little further on - because those MAGA types are also anti immigration and natalist, they'll incentivise women to have more babies and bar them from working (all part of the same rationale). So, if we take the reasoning to the bitter end, we end up with a small rich elite that benefits from eye-wateringly expensive mod cons and the rest of the masses, back to the 19thc with us.
I don't think for a moment that the above will ACTUALLY happen, but it is the kind of absurd implications that those guys think we'll roll over and contemplate without a fight. At least, let's show them how fucking stupid it is to try and roll back two centuries of progress.

What’s the other route? Higher consumption, lower taxes as off shoring production, increasing reliance on China and Asia whilst they build military power?

Do people want more production security or very little?

So you agree that my scenario is a fairly logical and plausible one?
The alternative is to focus on innovation and not kill it through Doge, ramp up tech research not JUST through private investors (Musk is being a selfish git here) but through federal grants pumping funds into clean energy research, defence (absolutely a key point) and robotics. Like, you know, progress... How the brightest minds are being hounded out of the US for stupid ideological reasons is utterly beyond me. How research is undermined across the board is utterly beyond me. True power lies in tech advances. That's what China is doing. Manufacturing and supply chains are not the key battleground in my view. Also, because as highlighted by PPs, the workforce will not benefit. It's naive to think it will.

@StandFirmI’m not sure about your scenario. The one factor that someone (inadvertently) highlighted in pp is automation. If that does ramp up the cost of labour difference becomes less pronounced. We don’t really want to rely on cheap labour, and sometimes posts on here will say that about Temu etc, but don’t want to pay more either, automation could help there.

There’s still a benefit to on shoring in that instance as you get profit / taxes rather than it going o/s.

As for continuing as we are with high consumption and increasing reliance I think @GasPanic made some good points. We’re in a kind of party of consumption which politicians don’t want to interrupt, but long term where is China and others v the west

At first the people have to tolerate the higher prices, or go without.

But eventually the manufacturing jobs come back on-shore, then the people get better pay and can afford the higher prices.

That is the theory.

I would guess there is a huge premium built into that price, as these are obviously a brand aiming at a wealthy market.

If ALL jeans available in the UK were either made in the UK by well-paid workers, or subject to tariffs if imported, I would guess the lowest price 'bargain' jeans might be about £40, but they would be better quality than Primark and similar shops currently sell.

A quick Google search tells mean jeans in 1970 (before globalised production) cost $10 to $30, which is only £8 to £25 approx. So £40 is a conservative estimate.

'me that' not 'mean jeans'

I think there are two extremes.

Globalist, where global trading is good. Because Americans get loads of cheap stuff off the backs of the Chinese, who work themselves out of poverty in the process, benefiting both parties. The hope is if China achieve superpower status, the country will be all nice and democratic and friendly.

Isolationist, where global trading is bad, because you are effectively trading your future security for piles of cheap stuff now, by enabling China to establish itself as a long term global competitor.

So the first is a short term view, and what might be expected as a result of capitalism (which tends to have no long term view and just wants to maximise profit in the short term) whereas the second is a long term position. You can throw environmentalism into the mix as well, which largely comes out on the isolationist side (more expensive less stuff is less bad for the environment, especially since it is not shipped halfway around the world in the process).

The Globalists generally pretend to be politically left wing/liberal but are in fact anything but). I am not sure what the isolationists are. Both sides seem pretty much out for themselves to me but as ever hide under a veneer of social acceptability.

Objective interpretation is difficult, because people still very much seem to want to attach themselves to either being left wing or right wing, while espousing policies that are in fact anything but IMO.

I’m probably being really stupid here but this is making no sense.

Sounds like the plot of a novel by Margaret Atwood.

I was wondering if the first option could last as the west might find it hard as taxes leave.

Now I’m listening to a press conference from the WH where someone is doing well to cover this stuff. I think they might be able to do it, and reorder production.

I am not sure that enough jobs will eventually be available (see point about automation) neither am I sure that better pay will necessarily be the outcome. The world has changed through globalisation of the last 30 years - whether you believe that's a good or a bad thing. I personally never believe that going back to the past is an option. Whatever happens next will be unprecedented and we just don't know what the effects will be.

...Especially as his true agenda is selling US oil and gas to the EU so that the EU depends on America for literally everything.
He couldn't care less about the climate. He's a denier who's just allowed climate research to be gutted and data deleted.

@EuclidianGeometryFan yes they are a premium product but mainly because there is little point in making non premium clothing in the UK. Our comparative advantage in that market is highly skilled workers and artisan skills, the advantage countrie slike Cambodia have is vast volumes of cheap partially skilled labour you need for cheap fast fashion.

Rich, highly skilled countries pretty much always become net importers of manufacturered goods.

I reckon there's a fair few people who might like this podcast if they don't already listen, so posting it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd/episodes/player They cover stats that have been in the news, including stuff on tariffs.

And Trump is trying to depict those poorer countries selling lots of cheap stuff that Americans like buying as 'ripping off the USA'.

What a fuckwit he is.

My guess for the cause of that might possibly be that most of the people who are bemoaning the UK's 10% but hardly commenting on the fact that's half of the 20% he's slapped on Europe might actually, you know, live in the UK....???? What do you think?

£40 for jeans seems very low priced if all the fabric production (cotton production, weaving, dyeing) & sewing was done on a living wage. The price will be higher still if basic environmental standards are applied. I'd assume those Welsh jeans use cotton produced in an ethical & environmentally sound manner, and whilst there must be profit it's probably not as much as you'd think.