Tariffs are great. They protect the struggling domestic IT industry and gives it time to ramp up its production of vintage computer parts.
replies(14):
First, overall, the US has increased manufacturing output over the last couple decades. 2019 was the highest year ever, covid interupted a bit, but levels are back there again.
However the number of people involved has dropped a lot. US manufacturing prefers automation and prefers to manufacture things which are high-volume, low labor.
A good parallel is agriculture. Foods produced in the US (and the US produces a lot of food) tend towards low-labor. Think fields of wheat or corn, not vegetables. Most fresh produce comes from cheap-labor regions like Mexico (or is grown locally with foreign labor.)
So really your point is not about American manufacturing, but rather American labor.
Secondly, this free market you refer to is the American consumer. They are very price sensitive, and deeply favor cheap over good. This contrasts to a lot of the rest of the developed world which strikes more of a balance in this regard.
Since labor is cheaper elsewhere, it follows that cheap imports are favored (by the consumer) over the locally produced items. Unfortunately the imported good is often of a higher quality now (because foreign manufacturers can afford quality and still be cheap.)
So, the politicians you speak of (regardless of party) are reluctant to medel, partly because of unintended consequences, and mostly because the only real lever they have is to increase the cost of imported goods (ie tarrif them) which in turn gets consumers upset. (Witness the fury of the voter in 2020 because of more expensive goods.)
Thus while it's helpful to blame politicians, politicians are elected by consumers. Consumers who could by local, but choose not to. Consumers who vote against politicians that cause price hikes. (Even when those same politicians incentivise local production with things like CHIPS act.)
You can blame politicians, and indeed corporations all day long, but the consumers are voting with their wallets, and "cheap" is the only metric they care about.
There’s always things being supplied for at lower prices. That is what product or service improvements do.
Your car is vastly safer than a Ford Model T. Air bags, better brakes, power steering, AC - all of which make it a vastly superior vehicle. If inflation worked the way you implied, the price of it would have constantly gone up, and never would it have managed to be affordable.
Firms reduce the cost of production and get to sell more to larger numbers of consumers. Total revenue = $ value * N customers.
You expand further on your position in the second part of your para, but that is fundamentally about how wages have not gone up over time. Which has nothing to do with inflation. It has MUCH more to do with the labor markets, and the pay people are getting for their labor.
You're talking about something different than what I was - improvements that make a product better without the price going up (because the cost is small enough to become the new baseline, either by market stickiness or regulation). Those don't affect CPI, and therefore make life better at the same price. So I agree with where you're coming from there.
My point is about the manufacturing/product innovations that make prices go down (regardless of whether quality gets better or worse). Take for example offshoring, which was sold as maybe your local factory will have to lay off some people but we will have less expensive items at the store so we will all win on average. But it's a trick because the Fed creates a feedback loop that makes it so prices cannot go down on average.
Wages haven't risen as fast as consumer price inflation because that new money is injected into the financial industry (the fake "fiscal responsibility" of the Republican party). And when too much newly created money finally leads to too much demand for labor and wages start rising, the Fed then tamps down on the monetary creation.
But I was talking more about a mindset. And of course speaking generally- lots of people (everywhere) have budget constraints.
Having traveled in the US and Europe I'd suggest that in the US "volume" is rewarded as "good". For the same amount of money, "more" is preferred to "good". In contrast in Europe it's less "look how big the plate is" and more about "better quality."
So, to rather over-simply things, I'd describe US food as "bland, loaded with sugar, lots of it", whereas Europe is more "smaller quantities, less processing, more farmer's market".
Not just food. But across the board. Cheap = good.
And yes, I'm talking generally big-picture here - it's a culture thing - there are lots of counter examples if you look hard.
That's fine and indeed about the only way it even can be done in a country with higher wages. The question is, why can't we do more of that? Basic simple components like capacitors should be possible to automate, so what's preventing it? Why don't we have policies tuned towards causing more domestic automation?
The number of jobs won't be what it was when it was done by hand, but that's never coming back either way, and some is better than none. Meanwhile you reduce dependency on adversarial countries.
> the only real lever they have is to increase the cost of imported goods (ie tarrif them) which in turn gets consumers upset.
There is another alternative: Lower the cost of domestic goods, i.e. lower taxes or provide credits to domestic manufacturers. For example, allow capital investments in domestic manufacturing to be deducted immediately rather than over time.
This is actually one of the longstanding major problems with the US tax code right now. It creates a preference for international supply chains because that allows profits to be shifted into countries with lower tax rates and penalizes purely domestic supply chains.
In 1924 a Ford Model T cost $260. Adjusted for inflation to 2025 this is <$5000. The average new car price in 2025 is ~$50,000.
No, supposed quality adjustments hide lower production volumes: https://www.palladiummag.com/2025/10/03/how-gdp-hides-indust...
> Motor vehicles, bodies and trailers, and parts: actual light vehicles produced down 11%, real gross output of vehicles up 39%, real value-added up 125%. Inputs as a percent of gross output rose from 74% to 77%.
> Steel mills & manufacturing from purchased steel: in raw tonnage, steel shipped is down 18%, real gross output is up 5%, real value-added is up 125%. Inputs as a percentage of gross output rose from 73% to 74%.
> If the quality adjustment is 32%, the value-added increase becomes 652%!
> Another “quirk” of real value-added is that inflation adjustments and quality adjustments get applied retroactively, which creates wild inflections from small changes. In simplified terms, let’s say that, in 1997, car sales were $100 billion, and were still $100 billion twenty years later in 2017, with no changes due to inflation or input costs. Input costs in both years were $75 billion, meaning $25 billion in value-added in both years. The only thing that changed, let’s say, was that the “quality” of cars got 10% higher thanks to software innovations like Apple CarPlay and design improvements like crumple zones for safety—neither of which add to recurring production input costs. So, let’s say, our economists would adjust the 2017 figure to be $110 billion in “real” terms and show a small 10% increase, right?
>
> Instead, the way it works is that a recent “base year” is taken, in this case 2017, and the base year is never adjusted. So rather than adjusting from $100 billion to $110 billion, the “real” output of 1997 is retroactively adjusted to be lower, in this case $91 billion, to get the same 10% increase. But then, our value-added in 1997 has fallen to $16 billion, and the increase in “real value-added manufacturing” has jumped from 10% to around 50%! We have created a 50% increase in car manufacturing not by actually producing 50% more cars or “objectively” making cars 50% better, but just by playing around with statistics and definitions.
Of course they encounter their own political hurdles. Think Solar, Electric Cars, CHIPS act etc. But they become political footballs, even to the detriment of local interests. (Witness Florida reps voting to repeal CHIPS even though Florida got a lot of CHIPS money.)
So yes, companies want consistency in the supply chain, and current US politics doesn't offer that.
It's not like every single Chinese consumer decided they didn't want American soybeans. More authoritarian countries have strong import controls; helps with both having high (inefficient) employment but also your citizens aren't going to wonder why all these cool stuff (fridges, etc) are always imported and the local stuff sucks.
Nevermind that the bounds of what consumers have to buy/consume are entirely drawn and selected by investor prospectus, and business collusion, in an environment shaped by regulatory capture or selective compliance!
I'm open to accepting some blame on consumers, but trying to scapegoat them as the root of the problem is horseshit of the highest order.
MBA's and investors of the past 50 years drank deep of the draught of economic growth through regulatory arbitrage by off shoring, labor replacement above all else, and trying to chase shareholder returns over stakeholder returns. Fuck you, got mine in the socioeconomic sense.
But economics shapes culture, too. There are certainly no shortage of subcultures trying to swim against the grain - buy American, local/organic food, German tool enthusiasts, even the tech community's libre software and anti-cloud. It feels like they remain subcultures because they're fundamentally fighting an uphill battle against top-down prices/advertising/etc set by large market makers. Which is why I initially took issue with your comment, framing it solely in terms of individual choice.
But the dynamic extends other places too, say the housing market with everything "move in ready" being beige, spec grade fixtures, and "fancy" appliances bought from a market for lemons. Trying to chew on that it still feels like not exactly what people prefer, but rather what people don't disprefer - the least offensive option to enable economies of scale (which once again comes down to monetary policy supporting the housing bubble, but I'm certainly not trying to ram the whole topic back into that)
So subsidies, by their nature, are govt putting their finger on the scales, picking winners and losers.
And of course companies competing with those industries (coal versus solar) will lobby, and provide votes.
Bearing in mind of course that ultimately subsidies are just a tax on all citizens for the benefit of some.
So the question then is, what are you going to tax and how much? The problem right now is that we're so bad at it. To begin with the government burns money like there is no consequence to it. Huge payouts to affluent retirees who don't need the money, defense contracts for things the military doesn't even want, etc. And yes, that means you need to stick your foot up the rear end of some lobbyists. Stop being the people who say it can't be done and start being the people doing it.
> You can't (shouldn't?) subsidize all industries.
If you stop wasting preposterous amounts of money then you could lower taxes across the board and remove the anti-subsidy. But taxes are also by category anyway.
So for example, don't lower the tax rate on dividends but create new credits and deductions and faster depreciation for capital investments, or make R&D fully deductible in the first year. In other words, if you make money and use it to buy a Ferrari, you're paying tax. If you use the same money to build a factory, you get to deduct it right away. Then you're effectively subsidizing all kinds of new factories or new construction, but not subsidizing purchases of imported products. Which is like a tariff in the sense that it makes domestic products relatively more attractive, except that it does it by making things less expensive rather than more expensive.
Terms like "highest ever" conceal that US industrial production only grew by about 13% in the last 25 years [1]. However, in that same time, the US population increased from 281 to 340 million [2]. Meaning that per capita industrial production decreased by 6.6%.
> So really your point is not about American manufacturing, but rather American labor.
No, my point is about treating markets and the economy as if they have no effect on sovereignty or independence, and about only looking at the consumer, not the worker or the citizen.
> the only real lever they have is to increase the cost of imported goods
That's sure not the only lever that Chinese politicians have, and they took full advantage of that, first to industrialize, and now to take over industries left out to dry by their home governments who think the Free Market can do no wrong. Learned helplessness at its worst.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INDPRO/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...