8
Donald Trump Vows 200% Tariff on John Deere if It Moves Manufacturing to Mexico
(www.breitbart.com)
Breitbart is well-known for being a nazi magazine.
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
8 points (59.5% liked)
News And Current Events
66 readers
1 users here now
For everything that is in the news and what's going on in the world.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
They are the mouthpiece of Jewish finance & neoconservatism designed to advance the cause of Zionism and attempt to redirect prole racism from conventional racism & Nazism towards Islamophobia and a very controllable anti-immigration movement.
They are actually what has been designed to prevent a popular far right movement from taking place minus one that is completely defanged and can simply be used to pour prole energy into forever wars to advance international capital.
It's pretty conventional stuff.
I don't know why anyone is so bothered by it - it's basically just three clicks to the right of CNN.
Yes, tariffs, thats great. Tax your people more you fucking con.
Without getting too deep into the intracacies, as a liberal, my thoughts are:
-
I would certainly prefer the jobs stay in the US
-
I don't know that Trump - assuming he were to win the election - can impose such tariffs based on USMCA. Like, I literally an bit an expert in that trade agreement, but there may be restrictions
-
Tariffs don't generally work like Trump claims they do. The consumer ultimately pays them almost every time. In this case, I don't know enough about tractor manufacturing, but there would have to be a viable alternative company manufacturing in the US for this proposed tariff to work as Trump seemingly intends.
-
Where tariffs can be really effective is in newer industries where there is limited competition and a tariff can directly level the playing field between a nascent US company and a foreign company where they have either a significant competitive lead or where that foreign company is getting incentovized by their government. Think the earlier days of solar panels or wind power, where the US could have helped prevent China from taking a huge lead in those industries and positioned US companies as the leaders. Tariffs work best when you have 2 major players and you can price one of them out early (in particular, before the manufacturing equipment and skilled labor have already left).
There's a lot of variables at play. I just don't see it being as simple as it's portrayed
Wikipedia's list of US tractor manufacturers has 34 entries. If JD tractors suddenly become 3 times the price, people will go elsewhere.
Trump is a moron swinging a hammer, but in this case a hammer will probably work. Issues arise when tariffs are put on things that aren't domestically produced.
The old tax and spend Republicans are at it again...
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.
It's also bizarre to do massive bailouts for certain industries then just become super principled about the free market on another one.
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
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.
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
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 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.
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
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.