This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I would agree, but only in case when tariffs actually have some impact on targeted nation. Again, the free trade doctrine would mean that tariffs are bad just for the country enacting them. There is no game theory where you have two players and one just shoots himself in his foot. The other player either does not care, or maybe he can use the now injured other player to take advantage of. He should definitely not "retaliate" by shooting his own foot. It does not make sense.
So even if adopting this game theory framework - if tariffs are so universally bad, why interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake? And if tariffs are so effective that they help the enemy player at your own cost, then tariffs are actually useful and good at least in some case and we can have honest discussion who is benefiting and who is losing given certain trade framework. That is the core of the cognitive dissonance I am talking about.
No, if your opponent shoots himself in the foot (and splatters blood on you, which is irritating and expensive), you respond by shooting him in the kidney and try to dodge the blood spray.
When the US put tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum, the Chinese put tariffs on American soy beans, which directly hurt the republican heart land and didn't really hurt their own farmers all that much - Brazil was still selling soy beans after all.
Effectivity, this is a step beyond the standard prisoners dilemma. You can choose where you defect, and the gain/loss can be very asymmetrical. It also can be more than monetary gain/loss, since the payoff might be in geopolitical position or voter opinion instead of trade balance.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm no economist, but my understanding is that tariffs harm both parties. If, likely due to ideological reasons, someone makes a mutually negative sum decision, then you're justified in punishing them.
So they're not just shooting themselves in the foot, the spread from the shotgun is hurting the other party too. They're making a mistake that hurts you too, and you'd very much prefer they didn't do that, even if you're agnostic on whether you want them better or worse off.
Sure, but then the question is how and why. Details matter in this case as reasons may bring more light into the whole issue of tariffs.
Moreover this to me seems quite a different statement: any country that refuses to trade with us under any circumstances except of condition of absolute free trade, is harming us and we will retaliate. This is quite a statement, especially when it then comes to oxymoron of mandatory "free" trade. You would probably not deal like that with an individual.
Also there is more to this type of thinking. In this framework Trump is then also right regarding VAT/Sales tax. If country A has sales tax of 20% and uses this tax for instance to provide free health care, then it is using taxes on foreign goods to artificially bring benefits to its domestic workers. Country B with sales tax of 0% is thus "harmed", right?
This is why details matter.
A VAT applies equally to foreign and domestic goods. It is not similar to a tariff.
Whether applying a retaliatory tariff (harming both sides) in order to kick the first side into dropping their tariff is a quantitative question that can easily differ from one situation to the next. It is not amenable to a reductio like "any country that refuses to trade with us under condition of absolute free trade is harming us and we will retaliate".
It is similar to tariff, as VAT on foreign goods is used to subsidize domestic production. Revenue from VAT is used to subsidize domestic infrastructure, healthcare and other benefits for domestic workers and companies, or they can even provide direct subsidies. None of these are available for factories or workers from foreign manufacturers who get nothing from VAT imposed on goods they produce. So in the end domestic producers reap more advantage compared to what they pay as a tax.
Okay, so what are these quantities and what are costs or benefits to that? If retaliatory tariffs are beneficial then under what conditions? What if these conditions are met when you are the one enacting the tariff as first mover - should you do it?
It's the subsidy to domestic production that's the issue here, not the VAT for raising revenue. The VAT falls on domestic and foreign producers equally. An income tax is no different from a VAT in this respect.
The cost to the retaliating entity of the foreign tariff, and hence the benefit of getting rid of it. The cost to the retaliating entity of the retaliatory tariff. The chance of success, and how long it would take.
Under the assumptions in this discussion (that a tariff harms both sides), the conditions cannot be met enacting the tariff as a first mover.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Furthermore, despite obvious structural problems the USA is economically much healthier than the EU, Canada & Mexico.
So from a leverage / bargaining position tariffs make a certain sort of sense; we are much more well placed to absorb the hit and bounce back. It’s like a Mexican standoff where one person has a Kevlar vest and the other person has the shakes from alcohol withdrawal.
It’s completely in line with the “Daddy’s home” / “My house my rules” vibe that sustains the MAGA movement. Trump has been entirely consistent in his sentiment that the USA has been taken for a ride by its supposed closest allies and partners, and it’s time to play our hand. He’s been saying it for like thirty years, it’s his most deeply help political belief as far as I can tell.
We are stronger than Canada, Mexico, the EU, China, and Japan. We are not strong enough to pick a fight with all of them at the same time! The only sane trade policy for industrialization is to encourage trade within the Americas, with our friends, with whom we exert outsized influence as opposed to the EU and the Pacific. Free trade has very clearly worked in this context as evidenced by the comparative economic success of the US. The extent to which it hasn’t is the extent to which we should fuck with it (not much) which I was under the impression that we already resolved under Trump 1.
How much has Canada actually taken advantage of the US?
At the end of the day, the US will not be a net exporter and have the strongest currency in the world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link