←back to thread

177 points belter | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bluescrn ◴[] No.43623756[source]
Unstoppable force meets 104% tariff...
replies(4): >>43623816 #>>43624173 #>>43624269 #>>43626416 #
api ◴[] No.43623816[source]
First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Part of this extreme reckless tariff push is definitely protectionism for the fossil fuel industry.

replies(5): >>43624000 #>>43624005 #>>43624027 #>>43624062 #>>43626917 #
1. WillPostForFood ◴[] No.43624000[source]
Do you think that was Biden's motivation when he put a 50% tariff on solar panels?

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ustr-biden-tariff-increase-...

replies(2): >>43624188 #>>43624788 #
2. kstrauser ◴[] No.43624188[source]
> The move builds on tariff hikes finalized by the Biden administration in September that target strategic product categories from China

You can argue about whether tariffs are good or bad, but in any case there's a vast difference between "target[ing] strategic product categories" and bluntly hitting entire ccTLDs.

replies(1): >>43624425 #
3. bryanlarsen ◴[] No.43624425[source]
The Biden tariffs were balanced by substantial incentives to build solar manufacturing capacity.

edit to respond to dead comment:

The Chinese wasted way more money on Solyndra's than the US did. Most of their solar power startups were failures too. Yet now they dominate because they subsidized more than one and didn't give up after one failed.

replies(1): >>43624844 #
4. mywittyname ◴[] No.43624788[source]
Targeted tariffs to protect or foster certain industries are acceptable. Blanket ones are not.

And they should be set just high enough that the industry remains competitive while not allowing for price gouging. We know companies will seek to maximize their prices. So if a foreign competitor is selling for 8% cheaper, then tariffs should be no more than 9%. We know from experience that manufactures will sell at the same price as foreign competition and will pocket the difference.

They should also be gradually reduced over time. The goal is to have domestic industries become globally competitive. And that necessarily means that companies need to strive to improve efficiency so they can match or beat the prices of global competitors. If that can't happen, then maybe those companies need to go away.

The reason tariffs are bad in the long term is A) it incentivize global competition to become even more efficient; B) it encourages domestic industries to be non-competitive. So the industry being favored by tariffs will never grow into a global power.

So tariffs on solar panels are fine, so long as they come with other incentives to spur domestic consumption (to drive efficiency gains) and a plan to lower those tariffs over time.

Blanket tariffs are pretty much never good, the only good reason to institute blanket tariffs on a country is as a prelude to direct conflict. As it will provide a market incentive for consumers to replace goods from that country with a more expensive alternative.

After all, a blanket tariff on all the goods coming from a country is a type of economic sanction. So a country who puts tariffs on the goods of every other country in the world is effectively feeling the impact of the first phase of conflict, when allies come together and enact trade barriers with a country. And why to countries band together to push economic sanctions on an adversary? To hurt their economy.

So TL;DR: Biden solar tariffs - well thought out and likely productive. Trump tariffs - pushing yourself in the face.