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):
Of course he considered making chips and other components in the US, but he was few billions short to start the fab.
if that happened, the business already had seriously bad margins, bad cash flow, over-leverage, or maybe he was just doing it out of love getting paid maybe back for his time or not.
tariffs might’ve hurt, but they don’t collapse a healthy niche hardware company where buyers are presumably also into the niche.
seems weird i dont get it. can you explain further?
Let's say a companies margin was 40%. The cost of their constituent parts doubles due to tariffs, they are no longer making money as a result.
I hope this helps explain it for you.
For example, the company can raise its prices. How well that works depends on whether there is competition for the company's product. If the competition is also hit by the tariffs, then they're on an even playing field. If the competition is using native parts, then the competitor gets the business.
There are often no "native" alternatives.
Even the machines that make the chips are nearly all made in one country and then shipped around the world.
The amazing, modern nature of our modern world is built on the collective effort and knowledge of humankind globally.
Globally.
It's also done to protect local industries, hence the term "protectionism". For example, Canada's large tariffs on American milk are there to protect the local Canadian milk producers.
AFAIK, Trump's tariffs are meant to serve the following purposes:
1. so critical supplies, like chips, will be produced domestically
2. to raise money for the treasury
3. to convince countries that have high tariffs to lower them in exchange for the US to reciprocate in lowering ours
4. to incentivize foreign manufacturers to invest in factories in the US
5. to use them as a negotiating tool for other terms favorable to US interests
These are not crazy things. We'll see how things play out.
That assumes the customers are price insensitive. If you're making vintage parts for hobbyists and archivists, maybe they're not; maybe they don't get a raise just because the price went up and your thing is the thing they cut out of the budget when it all won't fit anymore.
3 and 5 are undermined by the fact that even nations with positive trade surpluses with the US, and countries like Japan with Trump first term negotiated trade treaties (which for Japan included major concessions already) are being hit with these tariffs.
1 and 4 are a problem because many of the inputs into building out US manufacturing capacity come from abroad and are hit by tariffs. Secondly many of the manufacturing inputs into making products in these factories would come from abroad and be tariffed, unless those supplies are bootstrapped domestically first but there is no policy to ensure this. Thirdly as soon as the tariffs go away, these factories would become uneconomical, so they are a gamble on that not happening in the lifetime of the factories.
Finally, who’s going to build and operate this huge new manufacturing sector? Infrastructure construction relies heavily on immigrant labour that’s being driven out, so does actual manufacturing, and there are no hordes of unemployed Americans lining up for manufacturing jobs. It’s addressing a problem that largely doesn’t exist, to build out less efficient more expensive ways to make stuff, in a way that can’t work anyway.
Manufacturing investment surged in the last few years with the introduction of the CHIPS and Inflation Reduction acts. It’s going to be hard to disentangle the continuing effects of that from the effects of the Tariffs, but it’s hard to see how the Tariffs can have a positive effect.
It seems that you're operating under the normally reasonable assumption that these policies were implemented after careful consideration with specific goals in mind. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the people involved in this are doing what they're doing for well-thought out reasons or ones that are meant to benefit America.
1) Stopped buying USA wine totally
2) Canceled our plans for vacations in the USA
3) Stopped buying USA orange (or any citrus) juice
4) Carefully check the provenance of any fruit or vegetable in the supermarket and actively avoid anything that comes from the USA
... and the list goes on.
I am not alone!
How do those immediate and tangible consequences serve the interests of the USA producers and companies affected, exactly?
And admitting that is why SCOTUS will kill them. Raising money for the treasury is Congress' job, not the executive's.
That's what the administration has stated as the goals of them.
For example, many foreign companies have announced plans to invest in creating factories in the US. How that will eventually work out will take some time to see.
> I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the people involved in this are doing what they're doing for well-thought out reasons or ones that are meant to benefit America.
That's a pretty fantastic assumption. I cannot think of a single instance of any President imposing a policy meant to hurt America. Of course, in my opinion, a lot of Presidents have pushed policies that I regard as destructive, but they didn't mean it to be.
Any change in policy will make things worse before they get better. For example, if you have surgery to remove a tumor, you'll endure a fair amount of pain and misery before getting better.
Making and shipping chips all over the world is what keeps Taiwan safe. They would never jeopardize that.
And the rest of the world as well, as collateral damage.
The presence of a few nationalistic morons doesn't wholly negate the goals mentioned by GP, and in fact, may be more important than ever.
1. That stated goals reflect real motivations
2. That every president and their administration operates with a coherent, disciplined strategy
3. That competence can be assumed by default.
Unfortunately these assumptions simply don't match anything we've seen from this administration.
There's a difference between good intentions, stated intentions, and effective execution of policy and there's nothing to indicate that these things are aligned here.
There's also nothing to indicate that the American democratic process guarantees a President who always has Americas best interests in mind and there's nothing to indicate that every person who has filled that roll has had that as their primary motivation.