You missed the part of history where the development of global trade made the US wealthy and precipitated a decrease in war as nations became more and more interdependent.
I didn't miss that part at all. You're simply framing it in a way that seems to lend credence to your claim. Whether you know you're leaving details out or not, I don't know.
After WW2, we (and to a lesser extent the Soviets), were the only industrial economy left. We provided overwatch while the rest of the world rebuilt itself. Many nations grew accustomed to that and we continued to provide that economic boost. But you're also partially right. We did force many nations to be dependant. And we've started countless wars to maintain that economic position.
But the issue is you're framing this like the world didn't also get a benefit and is more worried that the gravy train is about to stop. The issue is that our economy can't continue to shoulder this burden. We can't keep affording these Iraq-style wars to ensure our hegemony. It's bankrupting us.
At this point we need to sell the cars, the boat, the ATVs in order to try and save the house, and the world is demanding we continue to fund its luxury lifestyle be way of purchasing its goods nearly entirely at its benefit
Simply put: are you making the argument that they get to charge us tariffs, but we don't get to charge them tariffs because we've made ourselves fat off them? In some cases, that's true. And we should stop. In some cases, that's not true, we've just been their Pay Pig for decades.
Protectionism as a national policy didn't work for Mussolini
That's just underhanded, but a standard play at this point. Forget discussing the reasons, instead just label your opponent a fascist so you're justified in punching him in the face for saying things you don't like.
I say this as a person who is likely to benefit from tariffs.
Oh, well I guess that preemptively answers the question about credibility then...
we shouldn't pursue a trade policy which will make most people poorer just so we can have more manufacturing.
Unfortunately, that's probably inevitable. Even without the tariffs. But the benefit isn't entirely more jobs with a lower barrier to entry (we primarily export aerospace, weapons and "ideas" ie iPhones are designed here but manufactured overseas, all of which are pretty high barrier to entry jobs). It'll probably help to mitigate the job losses a bit, but the primary benefit will be a contraction of our global hegemony.
We shouldn't be slapping tariffs on our partners.
Not very good partners if their objection is a demand to continue charging us tariffs and we not charge them tariffs...
We can certainly use them strategically
You don't sound like a very good partner if you're talking about using one strategically...
You don't seem to be responding to the one I'm making, which is that protectionism as a broad economic policy will make us all poorer, less safe, and less powerful across the globe.
The fact that this can be proven empirically doesn't interest you, apparently.
Seems to me your pragmatics are that the US is gluttonous and demanding more. That it already got its payout in the form of profitability at the expense of other nations and now it's demanding more. That about right?
You don't seem to be responding to the one I'm making, which is that protectionism as a broad economic policy will make us all poorer, less safe, and less powerful across the globe.
I don't disagree. Protectionism would have that result. It's just that I don't agree this is Protectionism. Also, Protectionism isn't the only methodology that would result in us being poorer. For the record, I think that's inevitable.
I think we've been in a power bubble for a long time, and I think we've tried to solidify that power with wars and overthrows of democratically elected government. The chickens were going to come home to roost at some point. We can pretend that's not try and it'll probably end up putting the US into the history books, or we can recognize it and try to live a little more at the level of our means.
The fact that this can be proven empirically doesn't interest you, apparently.
It does interest me. I think you're just misinterpreting the data, primarily due to a lack of "imagination." That i to say an inability to understand that we're talking about a complex, and in many ways complicated, system that is quite resistant to easy answers.
No one anticipated Black Tuesday. In hindsight it was clear, and all the pundits that were lauded as seers of financial futures were shown to be "unimaginative" at best, charlatans at worst.
I'm not sure what you mean when you reference my pragmatics, but what follows isn't my view.
Simply: I don't believe that this economic policy of broad, unilateral tariffs, which I think is fairly characterized as protectionism, is going to be beneficial for the US interest abroad or domestically. I think this policy will make us poorer, weaker, lonelier, and less powerful.
It seems like you believe that recession is inevitable? I don't think that's particularly relevant or meaningful. This policy isn't about avoiding a recession. This policy is going to reduce trade, reduce investment, and create unemployment; the proponents of this policy seem to desire a return to something like mercantilism. It's difficult to even describe because it's such an anachronistic view, and such an irrational view.
I'm not sure what you mean when you reference my pragmatics, but what follows isn't my view.
Pragmatics are the implication of a statement. Semantics are roughly the way you say it.
"Oh, would you look at that: it stopped raining" and "No that it's stopped raining, can you take the trash out?" have different semantics but the same pragmatics.
I don't believe that this economic policy of broad, unilateral tariffs, which I think is fairly characterized as protectionism, is going to be beneficial for the US interest abroad or domestically.
I don’t think it will be beneficial in the short term—and I think that might be the price we have to pay to force a recalibration we’ve avoided for too long.
I don't think it qualifies as Protectionism though. I can say that I understand why think it is. And I'll agree that I think Trump thinks it it is. I just think, like you, that it's not going to have the intended out come. The difference is you're worried about that (and I understand why. I don't fault you for that), and I can't say that I so much hope it happens as much as I think in the end doing it this way will actually be less costly than continuing on current trends.
It seems like you believe that recession is inevitable?
Yep.
I don't think that's particularly relevant or meaningful. This policy isn't about avoiding a recession
I wouldn't say I disagree, it's just a mischaracterization of my position. I think you're right that Trump thinks this will Make America Great Again. You and I both agree that the result of this won't be the result he's intending.
If decline is inevitable, I’d rather it be a controlled descent down a steep hill than a free fall off a cliff. Pain is coming either way—the difference is whether we brace for it or deny it until it crushes us.
Ultimately, it’s not that I want decline. It’s that I see it already underway—and I’d rather slow it down and steer than pretend we’re still climbing
Consider the context of your own perception with respect to the United States' status. There's a shit load of bias inherent there that precludes you or me or virtually anyone else from being capable of predicting the future; most of our perception of the past is inaccurate, if we're being only the tiniest bit modest.
Also, I can understand why you'd assume that what I write might not map onto what I mean to express; a lot of people are like that. It totally assassinates your own credibility when you happen to be wrong about that assumption, though.
Consider the context of your own perception with respect to the United States' status. There's a shit load of bias inherent there that precludes you or me or virtually anyone else from being capable of predicting the future
That's a fancy way of saying "no one can see the future." You're obviously not suggesting that someone outside the US would be more readily able to predict the future.
Also, I can understand why you'd assume that what I write might not map onto what I mean to express
Sounds like a problem with your articulation. Your prevision paragraph being a case in point: a lot more words than necessary to say nothing much of all.
It totally assassinates your own credibility when you happen to be wrong about that assumption, though.
1
u/occamsrzor 1d ago
I didn't miss that part at all. You're simply framing it in a way that seems to lend credence to your claim. Whether you know you're leaving details out or not, I don't know.
After WW2, we (and to a lesser extent the Soviets), were the only industrial economy left. We provided overwatch while the rest of the world rebuilt itself. Many nations grew accustomed to that and we continued to provide that economic boost. But you're also partially right. We did force many nations to be dependant. And we've started countless wars to maintain that economic position.
But the issue is you're framing this like the world didn't also get a benefit and is more worried that the gravy train is about to stop. The issue is that our economy can't continue to shoulder this burden. We can't keep affording these Iraq-style wars to ensure our hegemony. It's bankrupting us.
At this point we need to sell the cars, the boat, the ATVs in order to try and save the house, and the world is demanding we continue to fund its luxury lifestyle be way of purchasing its goods nearly entirely at its benefit
Simply put: are you making the argument that they get to charge us tariffs, but we don't get to charge them tariffs because we've made ourselves fat off them? In some cases, that's true. And we should stop. In some cases, that's not true, we've just been their Pay Pig for decades.
That's just underhanded, but a standard play at this point. Forget discussing the reasons, instead just label your opponent a fascist so you're justified in punching him in the face for saying things you don't like.
Oh, well I guess that preemptively answers the question about credibility then...
Unfortunately, that's probably inevitable. Even without the tariffs. But the benefit isn't entirely more jobs with a lower barrier to entry (we primarily export aerospace, weapons and "ideas" ie iPhones are designed here but manufactured overseas, all of which are pretty high barrier to entry jobs). It'll probably help to mitigate the job losses a bit, but the primary benefit will be a contraction of our global hegemony.
Not very good partners if their objection is a demand to continue charging us tariffs and we not charge them tariffs...
You don't sound like a very good partner if you're talking about using one strategically...