Most people who aren’t right-wing nut jobs know how to admit when they’re wrong about something and how to be happy for something that actually is a positive for the majority of people who aren’t already rich, regardless of how that result was achieved.

Tariffs are normal, they encourage a strong local economy that doesn’t get screwed over by a dominant economy that decides to use the trade relationship against the local economy, but they haven’t been “aggressive” since the last time they were used as an act of war and ended up causing a depression.

Wait, you were a child of the Great Depression? 'cause the US has been promoting free trade with low tariff rates since the end of WWII

Probably MAGAs will feel so vindicated they will literally start murdering people opposed to Trump.

We’ve already seen quite a few shooting, and attacking the Capitol, and most of the people getting off mostly free.

So we’ll see even more of it.

The question is inconsequential.

The empirical and historical information we have demonstrates that this is a patently stupid policy.

That would certainly be quite surprising. The expression of Trump being right is flexible enough to be interpreted in various ways.

The only plausible way would be if he achieves some largely meaningless concessions and the media spins it as a win. But if the American electorate gets the idea that the US can get free stuff by throwing a fit, then any agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.

Well, I guess that’s the answer. If Trump achieves anything positive with this, then the reaction with be self-destructive.

Do you have any particular scenario in mind that ends with Trump being vindicated?

deleted by creator

Since the odds are so slim of tariffs at this scale further boosting an economy that was already pretty vigorous - I think the more important question is, who are you going to scapegoat when tariffs don’t work as advertised? Immigration? George Soros? Biden? Deep State? Panama and Greenland? Her emails? Will you swallow the doublethink when Murdoch and Bezos’s fake news tell you a recession is really sort of a boom, and vodka rations are up 8%?

How can he be right when it’s pretty much a wrong decision? Tariff isn’t new, country does that to protect or nurturing the local industry so it won’t get wrecked by bigger fish coming into the local market.

But there is cost to that, because once the bigger brand established locally and people relying on them, and local brand has since been demolished, tariffs gonna hurt so many people without alternatives to consider. It take years for the good effect of tariff to establish. What frump did is put a sweeping one with the 10% minimum for all country EXCEPT russia, and some as high as 34%. This have serious consequences outside of stock market, the so called “blue collar” he’s trying to protect is the one gonna hurt the most, and it gonna take years if not decade(s) for such tariff to take effect.

What china did cannot be replicated beyond their land. They can survive on their own for years if they close off their port today. The whole thing by china is planned, drump and the depublicant can’t even figure out the mathematical equation of tariff. What they did is turning friend into enemy and pretend it’s a win.

He won’t be right about tariffs because he (and you, I suppose) has a gross misunderstanding about how tariffs should be implemented. Tariffs are typically used to strengthen a local product. Say that we wanted to support Napa wine. We might introduce a tarrif on importing wines from our largest competitors. This would increase the cost of the foreign product in relation to the domestic product and encourage consumers to buy locally. So, why won’t this work if we just tarrif everyone for everything? Well, we don’t make everything so they’re isn’t a local option to buy instead. Not just for you, but for the companies that make the things you consume. Oh, then let’s just build up the industries to make everything. Even disregarding that we don’t have the ability to produce everything due to, well, climate and resources, that would cost many millions of dollars and years of investment before seeing a profit. Which is a nice idea if businesses had any faith that the tariffs are permanent, which they don’t not only because the current administration (likely lol) won’t be in power forever, but also because the current administration has said that they are willing to negotiate. So why bother making the investment when you can import again soon? And lastly, if we try to strong-arm everyone at the same time, they’ll just band together without us. They don’t need to trade with us if they have an alternative in a more profitable trade partner, and we’ve just incentivized the entire world to look for a better option than us. We did that. All at once. The idiocy is frankly astounding.

And the last time they have been used by the US in 1930, they ruined the economy.

Removed by mod

The big difference between the US and China is that China is often close to the bottom of the supply chain.

America doesn’t have the infrastructure already in place to supply the raw materials and basic essentials to manufacturers.

Until this is the case (and I’m phrasing it optimistically but the reality is it never can be the case), all manufacturers have to pay extra just to have access to the things they need to produce their goods.

This cost is passed on to the consumer.

Like another commenter pointed out, there just isn’t a domestic supplier of many products. Crucial rare earth metals and various other minerals just aren’t available. Heck, to my knowledge, there isn’t even a domestic manufacturer of light bulbs anymore.

Without putting anything in place before implementing these tariffs, he’s guaranteed that prices will go up on almost everything.

He is not.

A tariff is a tax that increases the price of imported goods.

Tariffs are used to push people toward domestic alternatives to imported goods.

However, today, there are no domestic alternatives to most important goods.

So, all it’s doing is increasing the burden on the average person.

Companies are not going to invest in domestic production. They are going to spend that money lobbying to have tarriffs removed. Because guess what? Once tariffs go away, consumer prices are not going to go back to what they used to be. Instead, megacorps are going to pocket the difference as profit.

Yeah you definately sound a lot older than most lemmy users, what are you doing lurking here creep. Don’t you have a bingo game to attend or something

Tariffs don’t “work” or “not work” it’s not a binary outcome. Just as measuring “the economy” is pretty much impossible, so is attributing economic outcomes to one single feature of the regulatory environment, They interact with the rest of the economic environment and some variety or work, production, trade, investment and distribution will occur. Over time all aspects of the system will change, adapt and react. Most changes have winners and losers and they can be counted or balanced off differently.

It it were paired with bank regulation and asset ownership regulation and a coherent industrial strategy, maybe also forex controls, maybe some counter cyclical macroeconomic policy (extremely unpopular these days) the outcomes would likely be quite different from a low regulation free for “all”. “All” is probably “a few with relatively unconstrained access to enough capital or credit to hoover up assets of the losers”.

But then a smaller subset of those things might also change the outcomes on their own. Either way it would be a matter of time and adaptation of a complex system.

It also depends what you think the objective is before you understand “success” or “failure”, the goals might well be social as much as economic. If the objective is trash the small scale asset ownig middle classes and enrich the elites economically then it might be working already.