Former President Donald Trump, flanked by two John Deere tractors, said Monday that if the company moves manufacturing to Mexico, he will impose a 200-percent tariff on the products it imports to the United States.
Trump’s pledge to protect American manufacturing jobs came during a roundtable in Smithton, Pennsylvania, with farmers, former Acting Director of National Security Ric Grenell, Republican Pennsylvania Senate nominee Dave McCormick, and former U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY).
“I just noticed behind me John Deere tractors. I know a lot about John Deere. I love the company, but, as you know, they’ve announced a few days ago that they’re going to move a lot of their manufacturing business to Mexico,” Trump said.
“I’m just notifying John Deere right now: If you do that, we’re putting a 200-percent tariff on everything that you want to sell into the United States,” Trump warned.
As Breitbart News reported, John Deere announced hundreds of layoffs in June that took effect August 30, as the company prepared layoffs at a plant in East Moline, Illinois, and in Davenport, Iowa.
“They haven’t started it yet. Maybe they haven’t even made the final decision yet, but I think they have,” he said.
I am honestly a little curious... People on the left must surely agree with this..? It is economic nationalism: keeping working class jobs at home for the benefit of the local workers.
Obviously, there's a lot more that should be done if you are pro-worker, but it is also interesting that much of the Left dismisses these policies and sees it as unfeasible to maintain the American working class and revitalize the rust belt.
I think this is where you get a split between leftists and neoliberals. (Note: I'm not a political science expert)
I'm totally open to opposing views on this, because I don't think this is something that gets discussed enough/honestly, but my first impression is that I'm totally in favor of this.
I read Chip War (book on the history of Silicon Valley) and it covers up to Trump's decision to put tariffs on Huawei, effectively ending their ability to monopolize the 5G market. I found myself supporting that as well, even though he makes his opinion known that Obama likely would not have done that - I doubt Biden/Harris would either. Granted, I think that's because they'd be crucified for being anti-feee market and using government overreach. That said, silicon valley companies are happy to accept government support when it helps them compete against TSMC (supported by Taiwan's gov). Imo, they do this because they want it both ways (gov support and low taxes/regulations). This is gross but I get it, so I'm usually just mostly disappointed in the American people that are asleep and rather stupid (not entirely their fault, but entirely their/our responsibility)
Yeah, like I am totally a supporter of protectionism because it makes sense to throw a bone to local industry and enable them to compete, especially when that is the de facto position of most societies around the world.
It's also bizarre to do massive bailouts for certain industries then just become super principled about the free market on another one.
I had heard it said that the reason why the US sometimes tolerates grave trade imbalances and sending jobs abroad is because it gives us a lot of diplomatic clout.
Like I just recently learned that when India is negotiating deals with the USA, the issue of H1B visas is openly discussed. The reason that Indians take up such a massive amount of the H1Bs doesn't have much to do with collusion within the immigration system - it has to do with promsies we make to unload their skilled workers into the US since they depend on the remittances they send home and being able to give some kind of good deal to their own citizens who have an education. It is a massive pressure relief valve that they can send huge amounts of Indians abroad since it means that they do not have to provide opportunities for them at home (because there are none). Without this, there'd likely be a hell of a lot more unrest in India.
This is exactly it. I've yet to see an argument for taking separate stances that is honest about the pros and cons. It always seems like there's a bias depending on the situation and we're meant to forget previous policies
This and your last point are great! I think that's really what gets missed. It doesn't help that politicians and media companies seem to communicate in a patronizing way. Like, just tell us what's the benefit of using slave labor or selling more weapon's to shady groups. Tell us how much it'll cost to change and who gets impacted. Let us have an honest transparent discussion. (/crazy, never gonna happen talk)
I recall learning about President Diaz in Mexico (he was a dictator) and how he allowed Americans to basically own everything (natural resources, railroads, large industrial corporations, etc.) while Mexican citizens were left to become a permanent working class with no chance of ever competing. Interestingly, he was praised during his time in office by the most famous American robber barons and considered a great leader that helped make Mexico become "industrialized" and modernized. They said those things out loud and seemingly meant them
I still genuinely do not know if the people praising him were using him and laughing quietly or if they genuinely saw it as a net positive for the average Mexican citizen at the time living as indentured servants forced to shop at company stores and whatnot. Like, if they genuinely believe it benefits the country to have such levels of inequality, it's almost more worrying
I now honestly believe that a bunch of them like to believe their own shit, or that they have to convince those among them of their own shit in order to just make the process of rallying support for unsavory characters palatable. Just like how normal people will just go ahead with what the mainstream media tells them, normal billionaires will do the same...
So, the CIA creates the PR lines for the major media mouthpieces around the world and everyone just endorses them.
I bet the funniest conversation we never get to be a part of is when major bankrollers of the Democrats/Republicans (or your local versions) call each other up a day after the political banquet and ask one another if it's really about the party line for real or about the profiteering & realpolitik.
The situation with Latin America has been overwhelmingly depressing since... forever.
Capitalism basically "works" for the developed world because we are at the end of the supply chain.
... When a median income American or a Frenchman or a Japanese person does poorly in school and then spends 3-4 years binge drinking or doing club drugs before joining the workforce, they can go to a trade school and end up with a solid income, a three or four bedroom home, two cars, everyone with a smartphone, cable TV, a gaming addiction, and a tidy little family with upward mobility...
... When a median income Filipino or Nigerian or Indian does absolutely everything right, tries hard and school, and they aren't one of the most talented 5%, they will break their back and work six days a week to simply maintain their position in a world of shit.
But bowtie professor man at University can explain to you why it's fair because SUPPLY & DEMAND... You are born in an area where an unskilled laborer gets to be in the service industry making $3,000 a month with a high school degree, and skilled laborers in many other countries making 1/8 that... And this imbalance is a FEATURE, not a BUG, because, if you haven't noticed... I am sitting in air conditioning and shit posting on the internet and I am not working my fingers to the bone in Bangladesh next to a fan.