←back to thread

842 points putzdown | 10 comments | | HN request time: 0.483s | source | bottom
Show context
pjc50 ◴[] No.43692988[source]
> China generates over twice as much electricity per person today as the United States. Why?

This appears to be completely wrong? All the stats I can find say that the US has about 4x the per capita electricity generation of China.

Other than that it seems to be mostly good points, especially the overall one: you cannot do this overnight.

> If you’re building a new factory in the United States, your investment will alternate between maybe it will work, and catastrophic loss according to which way the tariffs and the wind blows. No one is building factories right now, and no one is renting them, because there is no certainty that any of these tariffs will last

Policy by amphetamine-driven tweeting is a disaster.

> 12. Enforcement of the tariffs will be uneven and manipulated

Yup. The 145% level seems designed to create smuggling, and the wild variations between countries to create re-labelling. It's chicken tax trucks all over again.

> This is probably the worst economic policy I’ve ever seen

Per Simpsons: this is the worst economic policy you've seen so far. The budget is yet to come.

> If American companies want to sell in China, they must incorporate there, register capital, and name a person to be a legal representative. To sell in Europe, we must register for their tax system and nominate a legal representative. For Europeans and Chinese to sell in the United States, none of this is needed, nor do federal taxes need to be paid.

This is .. not a bad idea, really. It would probably be annoying for small EU and UK exporters but less so than 10% tariffs and even less so than random day of the week tariffs. Maybe one day it could harmonise with the EU VAT system or something.

(also I think the author is imagining that sub-par workers, crime, and drugs don't exist in China, when they almost certainly do, but somewhere out of sight. Possibly due to the internal migration control of hukou combined with media control?)

replies(11): >>43693137 #>>43693301 #>>43693319 #>>43693410 #>>43693431 #>>43693454 #>>43693553 #>>43693635 #>>43704244 #>>43705580 #>>43706047 #
like_any_other ◴[] No.43693410[source]
> Other than that it seems to be mostly good points, especially the overall one: you cannot do this overnight.

It's annoying Americans were given only two choices - offshoring is great and let's keep doing it, and, as you say, the opposite, meth-fueled let's bring back manufacturing overnight. The kind of slow and steady protection and promotion of home-grown industry that China and most of Asia so successfully used to grow their economies was completely absent as even a talking point.

replies(16): >>43693491 #>>43693509 #>>43693565 #>>43693767 #>>43694052 #>>43694176 #>>43695172 #>>43698484 #>>43704057 #>>43704570 #>>43704866 #>>43705785 #>>43706157 #>>43706354 #>>43707310 #>>43713322 #
1. taylodl ◴[] No.43694052[source]
Thing is, manufacturing in America is up. The 2008 crises dealt a blow, but manufacturing has been building-back. I don't think people realize how many high-value items are made in the United States. Let the East Asians make our mass-consumer junk while we focus on the high-value stuff.

Just goes to show the administration isn't working with facts and doing the hard-nosed analysis required to drive effective policy.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/tags/series?t=manufacturing%3Bou...

replies(3): >>43694263 #>>43694422 #>>43699270 #
2. _bin_ ◴[] No.43694263[source]
The administration is probably aware of this and doesn't care. A huge portion of his base were rust belt voters who want what are essentially handouts, which trump intends to achieve by forcing the American consumer to pay $30/hour for el cheapo goods that could be made elsewhere and have no tangible security impact.

You're mistaking the rhetoric he uses to sell this idiocy to the rest of the country for a good-faith argument.

replies(3): >>43694343 #>>43697642 #>>43706145 #
3. red_admiral ◴[] No.43694343[source]
> and have no tangible security impact

I would not object to a tariff on shitty IoT devices, with the level determined by things like if the default password is "admin".

4. like_any_other ◴[] No.43694422[source]
> Thing is, manufacturing in America is up.

I'm looking at the first chart, "Manufacturing Sector: Real Sectoral Output for All Workers" [1]. It grew until Q2 2000, when it was at 97.2. In Q4 2024 it was at 98.6. And let's not ignore how almost all leading semiconductor manufacturing (which are in and required for nearly everything) has moved to East Asia.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS

replies(2): >>43697504 #>>43708830 #
5. cutemonster ◴[] No.43697504[source]
This one also bad, stagnant last 15 years:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHMFG

Labor Productivity (Output per Hour) for All Workers

6. Yeul ◴[] No.43697642[source]
And America can't even export any off it because Trump managed to start a trade war with the rest of the world.

Apparently the US doesn't need allies anymore against China...

7. insane_dreamer ◴[] No.43699270[source]
> we focus on the high-value stuff.

agreed but Trump just gutted the CHIPS act for no other reason than because it was enacted by Biden (the typical "undo everything the last prez did" just like Trump 1.0).

You can argue that Intel is a badly run company, not worth saving etc etc, but if want to save US manufacturing, then Intel, and its ecosystem, would be the first place to start. Otherwise, TSMC, Samsung and China (still playing second-fiddle but investing billions to catch up) will dominate. Certainly better than trying to keep coal plants open.

Ideology aside it's really hard to find _any_ rational thought behind these moves.

8. throwway120385 ◴[] No.43706145[source]
The joke is on them. We'll simply buy less stuff and make due more with what we have.
replies(1): >>43707985 #
9. _bin_ ◴[] No.43707985{3}[source]
Yeah personally I buy very little and live pretty minimally so I'm not impacted much either way. I think most people's takes, however, are influenced by what is best for their pocketbooks short-term rather than for the nation long-term. And Trump is influenced by what's best for him short-term.
10. like_any_other ◴[] No.43708830[source]
I didn't notice it before, but these are not per capita numbers. In 2000, the US population was 281 million, and in 2024 it was 340 million [1]. So per capita, manufacturing went from 97.2 in 2000, to 81.5 in 2024.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...