While there are more peaceful ways of rebalancing trade, unilateral tariffs would be able to rebalance things on the long term. The problem is that alot of people in HN think in terms in export-driven economy, when in reality the majority of USA's economy is consumption, it's the largest consumer in the world. Loosing access to foreign markets dosen't mean as much to USA as it does to the rest of the world loosing access to USA.
Long term, manufacturers will come back or be created to grab all those customers. But for the rest of the world, it's much harder for suppliers who lost a massive chunk of their customers to suddenly find new customers beyond what's already existing. Creating demand is notoriously harder than increasing supply. And it dosen't help that the majority of other major economies are also export-based, so unless if some are willing to run deficits (and they won't), there's literally nowhere else to go other than a global recession. Developing countries are far too poor and would essentially be turned into captive markets bereft of industrialization.
I don't agree with the implementation of Trump's policies, but this is going right back to Keynes' concerns about limitations of global trade balancing, it's a long time coming, and much of the blame does come back to the surplus economies that doubled down on manufacturing rather than transitioning to consumer based economies.
Balance trade? Trade isn't a single ledger that needs to be in balance.
If you read that article about Haas automation, they say that they import cast iron and PCBs, presumably they import some chips and use some domestic chips, they put these all together and sell machine tools (big machines used to make machines, the exact sort of thing that trump et all are banging on about needing to be made in the usa, which last I checked, Oxnard california counts as "USA").
Nobody in the USA makes cast iron in the volume needed by haas; nobody in the USA makes PCBs at the price point needed by haas. Nobody's going to be able to start domestic production of either now, because they'd need to import all the materials from elsewhere to make the cast iron foundry, and nobody's going to take the chance that their multi million dollar investment isn't going to be ruined by trump changing his mind in a month.
So whatever you think you're arguing for, the world's way more complex than you think it is. And this execution of whatever the plans are, has been so far beyond inept as to land in a different scale altogether.
>Balance trade? Trade isn't a single ledger that needs to be in balance.
By definition, global exports must be matched with global imports to sum to zero, unless if you are trading with aliens. This is basic double-entry accounting and mainstream economics.
>Nobody in the USA makes cast iron in the volume needed by haas; nobody in the USA makes PCBs at the price point needed by haas. Nobody's going to be able to start domestic production of either now
On the long term, factories can be built, workers can be trained. If the price point of manufacturing is more profitable domestically than through outsourcing via tariffs, then investment will naturally flow to account for those opportunities.
But like I said, what you fail to see is that firms like Haas Automation are not reflective of the larger US economy, the majority of the US economy is supported by consumption, not manufacturing, and actually it's the top 10% that accounts for almost 50% of domestic consumption, meaning a whopping 10% of US consumers account for 15% of global consumption. Counter-Tariffs aren't going to mean as much to Investment Bankers, Lawyers, Doctors, Senior SWE etc. People will come to and build production if China is not available because they will want to grab the lucrative opportunities of the largest consumer base in the world.
On the other hand for surplus exporters, bereft of such a consumer base, unless if they find a way to make up for that consumer base (which is very difficult), all those factories are going to close down very quickly, and mass unemployment ensues. It's not just China, it's possibly Vietnam, most of SEA, Germany, Japan, etc. And that matters for the negotiating table, hence why many did not pursue counter-tariffs. But they've been doubling down on manufacturing rather than shoring up domestic consumption, the US reaction is by definition the Beggar-Thy-Neighbour as a consequence of their greedy actions.
The larger argument really is for a more balanced global trade, where countries current account balances would be near 0. It's true that US consumption rate will probably need to go down for it, but that also means that the rest of the world would be increasing their consumption (and their living standards) rather than suppressing domestic demand for the sake of manufacturing fetishism. It would be an all around more resilient to trade shocks than the status quo today.
Do you have balanced trade with your gas station? With your dentist? The double entry book keeping has to balance after all. Oh, you use money, and each party has their own ledger. Maybe your dentist is taking advantage of you, but it isn't because they never exchange your gasoline for polishing your molars.
Let's go back to a real world example -- a successful machine tool manufacturer in the united states, theoretically the very thing we want (which in fact, I totally agree with -- such companies are important in a huge number of ways).
They import raw or partially finished materials (cast iron, blank or partially assembled PCBs); haas does a bunch of work on these materials, puts it all together and sells the finished product for more than all the raw materials cost to lots of other (typically different) people.
Now, because of blanket tariffs -- on things the US has no interest, capacity, or foundation to build, like cast iron. Nobody's going to make a PCB assembly company or cast iron foundry in the USA to meet this need, it'd take years, the products would be way too expensive, and the only possible market is ... haas automation? Never going to happen. Instead, haas will just raise prices and lose market.
The blanket tariff negotiation (I tariff all your stuff, or else!) is "Do what I want or I'll kill your daughter, eat your dog, and burn your farm!" -- but in this case, because trump's said the same thing to everyone, he's actually saying "Do what I want or I'll kill my daughter, eat my dog, and burn my farm!"
>Do you have balanced trade with your gas station? With your dentist? The double entry book keeping has to balance after all. Oh, you use money, and each party has their own ledger. Maybe your dentist is taking advantage of you, but it isn't because they never exchange your gasoline for polishing your molars.
I'm talking about global trade balance, your example is examining trade relations from a individual perspective that ignores the activities of other actors, when you need to be looking at the global sum of all exports and imports of all the actors involved. Namely put, in a closed economy, the sum of all the credits and debits between you, the gas station, dentist, etc will sum to zero. The economy of Earth in a similar manner is a closed system, we're not trading with aliens here. This is mainstream economics, you're going to woo-land if you're trying to deny this.
>and the only possible market is ... haas automation? Never going to happen. Instead, haas will just raise prices and lose market.
If the only possible market is Haas Automation then it's economically insignificant and not reflective of larger structural changes in the US economy. But that's a highly dubious assumption. Like I said, the US economy dosen't run on exports, the vast majority is consumption. The incentives are there to raise up entire supply chain given the massive profits involved here.
The thing about the blanket tariff negotiation tactic is that on the flipside, it is true that many of these nations very much were pursuing their own forms of economic nationalism with heavy protectionism and tariffs. For as much as American economists like to say that deficits don't matter, China, Vietnam, Germany, Japan all seem quite intent on maintaining a persistent surplus, whether through buying bonds to weaken their currency, heavy subsidies, or demand suppression at home to bring down wages. It's a bit absurd to expect American to uphold the principles of free trade while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the mercantalism of other nations. What Trump is doing is highly destructive, and there are better ways to negotiate, but it's a problem really that these surplus nations have created from the last few decades. And it's a problem not just for America, but for much of the developing world that will find to increasingly hard to climb up the value chain so long as China is dominating global exports.
No doubt there will be a recession, but on the long term, it will work. But for other countries, the situation will much worse because you cannot increase demand in the same way you can raise supply chains. That's why it's more likely that negotiated settlement similar to the Plaza Accords will occur, really in the question of whether we all seriously adhere to the principles of a free trade, or we collapse in a mercantalist free for all. In the world of a former, trade balances would close to zero because of the self-balancing currency effects of imbalances.
If you actually read the literature before Trump, this is something that has been talked about by Keynes, by Bernanke, by Stiglitz, by Katherine Tao, even admitted to a certain extent by Krugman. The hysterics of modern politics is that notion that "trade deficits aren't necessairly bad" has shifted to "trade deficits are never bad", when there are specific conditions when trade deficits are symptomatic of larger problems, and those conditions may be apparent right now for USA.
Long term, manufacturers will come back or be created to grab all those customers. But for the rest of the world, it's much harder for suppliers who lost a massive chunk of their customers to suddenly find new customers beyond what's already existing. Creating demand is notoriously harder than increasing supply. And it dosen't help that the majority of other major economies are also export-based, so unless if some are willing to run deficits (and they won't), there's literally nowhere else to go other than a global recession. Developing countries are far too poor and would essentially be turned into captive markets bereft of industrialization.
I don't agree with the implementation of Trump's policies, but this is going right back to Keynes' concerns about limitations of global trade balancing, it's a long time coming, and much of the blame does come back to the surplus economies that doubled down on manufacturing rather than transitioning to consumer based economies.