politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Not thrilled about this. The tariffs were about the only damn thing I agreed with Trump about. Not exactly the way he was going about them but nonetheless they could have done a lot of good over the long term. Some damage on the short term, but that pain is overdue frankly.
Our economy has progressed from manufacturing to the tertiary sector just as it moved on from mining and agriculture (primary sector) over a century ago.
Not only that, but the way these were implemented is such a big component that can't be glossed over. We need food - that's included too? Just how quickly do you think we can get mangoes growing in Wisconsin for us to eat here in America? And if you want to bring up the ridiculousness of that idea... Exactly.
I am under no impression that manufacturing would return to the US to create jobs. If it did came back it would have needed to be highly automated. That being said, for me it is a moral imperative that we stop mass consumption of goods produced by people in abhorrent conditions. Bring it back here automate it all. Like Apple says they couldn’t produce the iPhones here but put enough pressure and I bet they’ll figure out a way; doesn’t Huaweii have a factory making phones with no humans in it at all? I do agree that the haphazard nature of the implementation meant that this was doomed from the start. But I was hopeful.
To address your second point:
I would argue that mangoes aren’t a necessity to your diet, you can replace them with fruits that do grow in the US. But I agree monoculture is a huge issue that has a somewhat easy solution but no one wants to touch the farmers living of the governments teat. Tariffs could have been a good tool to stop subsidizing them, without having a collapse in their agricultural sector.
Yes, I'd love to see a decrease in the cheap utter crap we are producing/consuming on this planet, and of course I'm all for humans being treated properly. But blanket tariffs with no apparent consideration of how people are generally treated in those countries (only how we are tariffed) won't encourage anyone to solve that.
It was a flipping example. There are plenty of fruits you can replace that with. And in the winter we have hardly any fresh produce and have to rely on, for example, Chile (which has its summer conveniently during our winter. Yay geography). IIRC a ton of the world's garlic comes from China. Could we survive on our own locally-produced food alone? Perhaps. Would we have the same variety we enjoy today? Probably not. Year round? Almost certainly not. Can it all be done as quickly as these tariffs are implemented? Fuck to the no!
It doesn’t matter if he considered the conditions because he can’t force them to stop exploiting their workforce. But the net effect would have been a floor to the price of production at a global level so corporations would have to choose between slave labor, complex supply chains and overseas shipping costs or domestic labor with lower shipping costs and somewhat simpler supply chains.
Yes the economy would suffer. Medicine is bitter. The option is watching the train derail in slow motion.
Sure he can. Or at least use it as a tool to help curb it. Anyone with the authority to exercise tariffs (in this case, that turned out to be the issue, but aside from that) can say that x industry in y country is exploiting their workers and products related to that industry is subject to whatever tariff they choose to implement. They may even use their powers (if only advocacy here) to help those affected. Thing is, Trump doesn't give two shits about any of that, so if any progress is made in the areas in which you're concerned it's out of dumb luck and nothing else.
If Trump's message is to be trusted, he wants to make deals and have more people buy from us, meaning global consumption might shift (assuming deals are made and all) but certainly not go down
It's a shame you're being downvoted for making valid points. I think the problem is that many people can't endorse a trump policy, even if it might eventually have an unintended positive outcome. I don't blame them either - I get the impression that a lot of the tariff stuff we've seen so far has been market manipulation for the benefit of shit-sack and his wealthy backers.
I've acknowledged like the ~two times he had a good idea. This is not one of them, and wouldn't accomplish what the OC wants to see accomplished.
It's a bad idea all around. On top of being illegally executed.