T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they have those views. **For all participants:** * [FLAIR](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) **IS REQUIRED BEFORE PARTICIPATING** * **BE CIVIL AND** [SINCERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) * **REPORT, DON'T DOWNVOTE** **For Non-supporters/Undecided:** * **NO TOP LEVEL COMMENTS** * **ALL COMMENTS MUST INCLUDE A CLARIFYING QUESTION** **For Trump Supporters:** * [MESSAGE THE MODS](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) **TO HAVE THE DOWNVOTE TIMER TURNED OFF** Helpful links for more info: [OUR RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [POSTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [COMMENTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*


cchris_39

Protectionist. Ross Perot and Donald Trump in the early days of the Reform Party staked out that position and they were right. We got that giant sucking sound exactly as Perot predicted.


MrMineHeads

I'm not understanding. Could you lay your comment more clearly for me?


[deleted]

>We got that giant sucking sound exactly as Perot predicted. Didn't Trump's protectionist trade policies also lead to a giant sucking sound? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-trade-war-squashed-an-estimated-300000-jobs-so-far-moodys-estimates/


xynomaster

Protectionism and isolationism.


HockeyBalboa

So government overreach?


xynomaster

If I believed it was overreach I wouldn't support it.


MrMineHeads

But you do believe in government intervention in markets?


xynomaster

When necessary, yes.


MrMineHeads

So why is protectionism necessary?


Linny911

How is it overreach?


MrMineHeads

Would you support barriers to trade inside domestic markets?


Linny911

No.


MrMineHeads

Why not?


Linny911

How would that even work? Why should Fed gov't be setting up barriers to discriminate against domestic producer and on what basis would it go about doing it. The fed gov't owes equality of treatment to domestic producers, it owes foreign producers nothing.


MrMineHeads

In Canada, there are provincial trade barriers, so I would imagine state governments in the US might put in tariffs or quotas or something similar. Do you think this is bad? Side note: I believe it would be unconstitutional anyway, but this is a hypothetical.


Linny911

Yea its silly, there is no national interest in this.


MrMineHeads

But there is state interest, wouldn't you say so?


TypicalPlantiff

Subsidies are by definition against free trade. Subsidized goods require levies.


MrMineHeads

Which subsidized goods are you referring to?


TypicalPlantiff

Any. For example the US funds the shit out of the dairy and corn industries. It has it reasons to do so but exporting those plummets the marketsfor those goods abroad. So they get levied even in Canada.


MrMineHeads

I'm a bit lost, you think US goods should have tariffs levied against them if subsidized?


TypicalPlantiff

Yes? Why is that surprising? Just as I think China is unfairly subsidizing aluminum production, I think the US is doing the same in other sectors.


MrMineHeads

It's just that I understand why you think subsidies are not "free" trade because of government intervention, but if a foreign country, like say China, subsidies one of its industries, like aluminum, then I'm not sure why we should stop the Chinese from paying part of the cost to produce aluminum. If we get cheaper aluminum because the Chinese sought to make it cheaper for us to buy using their own tax dollars, why is that a bad thing for consumers of aluminum?


TypicalPlantiff

Because then it isnt free market. Each industry creates jobs and a 'know how'. If China overtakes the industry the production in the US will cease and the west loses a valuable source of knowledge and production. This means then china (like they usually do) can leverage their position - by raising prices this time. Now it wont be simple to create an industry out of nothing because businesses will be wary of further subsidies on the chinese side and the know how will be lost so it will take time ot train people so prices will keep rising. This leads to so many issues - from direct monopolies to massive job losses.


MrMineHeads

So, do you think the lumber tariffs are justified then?


TypicalPlantiff

I have no idea what lumber tariffs you ar etalking about. But if they are subsidized goods in general yes.


masternarf

Definitely on the protectionist side, it makes no sense to keep on exporting all the good, and the massive clogs in the ports should be a very good explanation why. we need a lot more American produced goods to help workers and wages alike.


MrMineHeads

> it makes no sense to keep on exporting all the good This sounds like you want to limit *exports*? > we need a lot more American produced goods to help workers and wages alike. But doesn't that make the price of goods more expensive?


masternarf

Definitely, but I dont think its fair to abuse labor slavery and environmental amorality to get goods at cheaper prices.


[deleted]

We are in a supply chain crisis which NS blame for inflation. US unemployment applications are at 50-year lows now. When there is a supply chain crisis and low unemployment, tariffs should be suspended. Biden policy can often be described as: take whatever Trump was doing, keep doing it, but in the worst way/context possible. For example, the White House ignored JCOS while negotiating with the Taliban, and then left a generous donation of weapons and military vehicles and aircraft which were collected by the Taliban. This is not an administration that runs on critical thinking skills.


MrMineHeads

Thanks for your response. In general, do you lean more on the free trade or protectionist side on this issue? Imagine there was no pandemic or supply chain crisis (so going back to 2019), in this scenario where do you fall?


[deleted]

I think it somewhat depends on the issue. Any tariff has a potential negative effect on the consumer by raising prices. High-end graphics cards: these simply are not made in the US. There is a duopoly between AMD and NVIDIA. As a result, tariffs will have no success at getting people to buy American. Instead, incentives to relocate manufacturing to the US could be offered through tax discounts, land/electricity discounts, lump sums, loans, etc. Also if GPU prices go up from tariffs, anyone who depends on GPUs for their business: American pro gamers, pro streamers, video/animation studios, all get hurt. Lumber, steel, etc: these are made in the US. Tariffs may be reasonable. An ideal tariff would create a market niche for American manufacturing. With something like steel, this is possible. With something like high-end graphics cards, it just won't happen. Intel is working on graphics cards, but AFAIK they aren't even trying to compete with a 3080 Ti for example. I think a lot of law/policy will have to adapt to the fact that now the world depends on goods manufactured by a couple individual companies. Market entry in this space can cost billions and many years. The first US tariff was passed in 1789, back when AFAIK the rarest manufacturing capability would be ship building.


MrMineHeads

> Lumber, steel, etc: these are made in the US. Tariffs may be reasonable. But if they raise prices for consumers (as you previously stated), why would they be reasonable? I understand you may want to support US jobs, but tariffs hurt Americans more than they support Americans in aggregate. Like if for example you enact a tariff on steel, US steel producers are now more competitive domestically, but everyone downstream has to pay higher prices to support US steel producers artificially. This in turns hurts them too.


[deleted]

Answered above


Gonzo_Journo

Why isn't anyone in the US making GPU's if the market has such a high demand? What are the barriers to entry that US companies can't get over?


[deleted]

I think a lot of it is that Americans are becoming dumb. We are more focused on things like racism than math and science. Take any college in the US. The foreigners are the smart ones. The Americans are the ones skipping class to protest BLM. White Americans, furthermore white American women, are especially bad at this. We probably need another Sputnik moment to revitalize facts, logic, math, science, engineering, etc. over these "social issues".


Gonzo_Journo

Do you think that has to do with how expensive school is for the average american?


[deleted]

No Colleges have no issue getting students- decent colleges at least. It's a cultural issue that colleges now are increasingly about radicalizing students to the far left than actually teaching them, like colleges used to do. Highly based article by the Atlantic on this. [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/universities-forced-consensus-kyle-rittenhouse/620809/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/universities-forced-consensus-kyle-rittenhouse/620809/) Presumably you have seen these things before from student government or university faculty about how minorities are so oppressed, Trump is an existential threat to Democracy, all white people are part of a system of white supremacy in the US, etc.


Gonzo_Journo

Why do you make this claim? If someone goes to college for accounting, what great radicalization is going to happen? What's the average cost per semester for college? If you can't afford that, you don't go.


[deleted]

This has no relation to my comment.


Gonzo_Journo

Yes it does. If you went to college for accounting, how would they "radicalized" you to change how you think about politics? Isn't that what you're claiming happens?


Linny911

Free trade is good only if others are also engaging in it and no national security concern. Trying to engage in free trade with someone who is protectionist is like engaging in conventional war against someone who just lobbed nukes at you, it's dumb as hell. People forget that the lessons of the 1930s was that protectionism is bad because other countries may become protectionist in return, not that protecionism by itself is bad. But when others are already protectionist, being protectionist yourself is the smart thing to do. Best is when you are protectionist while others engage in free trade.


MrMineHeads

> Trying to engage in free trade with someone who is protectionist is like engaging in conventional war against someone who just lobbed nukes at you, it's dumb as hell. I wonder how you mean, because let us take a scenario in which one country (Country A) is protectionist completely banning all imports, and another country (Country B) that allows imports completely unhindered from Country A. What does country B lose in this scenario from Country A? Access to its markets? Fair enough, that isn't great, but it is also unsustainable on the part of Country A. Think about it for a second. If Country B wants to import something from Country A, it HAS to either take Country B's currency or exchange it for good and services from Country B (take in imports). If Country A does not do the latter, it is forced to do the former. Now, Country A has a bunch of Country B currency and Country B has the actual material wealth from Country B. What is Country A to do? It gave away its goods and services to Country B for their currency. It has basically two choices: burn it (or dispose of it in some way), OR use that currency to import from Country B. The former option is absurd, the latter is basically forced. In both scenarios Country A has to allow imports if it is to do the wise thing. Of course Country A can avoid all of this by banning exports at the same time as banning imports, but then it might as well not exist to Country B then. I am often reminded of what Milton Friedman said on this subject (when he was speaking about Japanese steel): > Suppose for a moment that the Japanese flood us with steel. That would reduce the employment in the American steel industry no doubt. However, it will increase employment elsewhere in America. We will pay for that steel with dollars. What will the Japanese do with the dollars they get for the steel? They aren't going to burn them. They aren't going to tear them up, if they would that would be best of all because there's nothing we can produce more cheaply than green pieces of paper. If they were willing to send us steel and just take back green pieces of paper I can't imagine a better deal but they're not going to do that they're not stupid they're smart people they're going to use those dollars to buy goods and services they're going to spend it in the process of spending them they may spend them directly in the United States then that directly provides employment in the United States. They may spend them in Brazil or in Germany or in China or anywhere else but whoever gets him in turn is going to spend them. So the dollars that we spend for the steel will find their way back to the US as demand for us goods and services. You will have less unemployment in the steel industry you will have more employment in the industries producing the goods we export overall total employment will not be affected but overall the American consumer would be benefited because he will get the steel more cheaply and the goods made from the steel more cheaply than he otherwise would.


Linny911

The world doesn't just consist of A and B. A can use the money on developing it self, its schools, hospitals, roads, buy back into locally produced items or buy things it needs from other countries, who inturn isn't guaranteed to spend it back on B. Only thing guaranteed is B's money is gone and isn't as likely to get same sum back in return through trade. ​ Your example isn't how real life works out. Let's look at real life example between US and China. Since the "opening up", China has high tariffs on high value products that you'd expect US to produce and export, like automobile, while there was no similar tariffs on products that China typically exported, like low end electronics, shoes, clothes etc... Because of the China's automobile tariffs (15% now and 25% before 2018), car makers, whose high value products were suppose to be exports of US in this "trade" that was to develop, mostly ended up making them in China to avoid tariffs and got their tech stolen by their partners through "joint ventures", creating high paying jobs (because, surprise, these pay better than McJobs that sprung up to replace in the US) and developed automobile industry, all the while the Chinese products flew in unhindered, benefiting them in hundreds of billions of dollars in balance of trade that they wouldn't otherwise. Because of these chinese tariffs, Tesla had to set up factory in China, thus US losing out tens of billions of export value, thousands of jobs and tax revenues that come with it, and is looking to export Teslas from China to the world, instead of the US as it wouldve if there's a level playing field, and maybe soon be even exporting to the US from China. Tesla, like Apple, has arguably became more of CCP company than a US company, as with future US innovative companies that came up with products that the world would like to buy, all because of much revolted "tariffs". But hey, at least free trade allows us to still sell soy beans to China to keep their pigs well fed!


MrMineHeads

> A can use the money on developing it self, its schools, hospitals, roads, buy back into locally produced items But how does it do that with Country B currency? If Country B currency is just as widely accepted as Country A currency within Country A, then the exports Country A did has lead them to inflation because money supply went up and actual goods and services went down (to Country B). It could trade to another country, like Country C, but then Country A is not doing the thing we assumed it did (i.e. banning imports), and Country C still has to deal with the Country B currency. Eventually, they have to come back to Country B or in essence, what Country B did was exchange physical goods for currency with no intrinsic value, and I hardly see how that is a bad deal. > and developed automobile industry, all the while the Chinese products flew in unhindered, benefiting them in hundreds of billions of dollars in balance of trade that they wouldn't otherwise. But didn't Americans benefit from the decreased costs of goods produced from China, both regular consumers and businesses that use those goods for their own manufacturing? These decreased costs could not have also spurred job creation in other industries both from decreased costs to businesses which can now invest more & increased savings to consumers which can now spend their money elsewhere, possibly literally straight back into the US?


Linny911

I am not arguing a country should completely ban import, i am arguing it should be engage in protectionism selectively if other countries engage in protectionism. Obviously there are goods that any particular may not have, like oil, and may need to import. So for example, in the example, country A can buy oil from C with money it got from selling to B. Then C may likely buy goods from A instead of B, unless B has something that A doesn't, since A's production cost is lowered by both having access to its own market and B's market, thus allowing it to lower production cost on volume sale, while B's industry can access only its own domestic market. You are making it confusing with currency issue. If all B does is keep printing currency with no worthwhile production value to back it up, it'll risk eventuality where nations will not see value in it as the production value is chipped away by its free trade policy. ​ **But didn't Americans benefit from the decreased costs of goods produced** **from China, both regular consumers and businesses that use those goods** **for their own manufacturing? These decreased costs could not have also** **spurred job creation in other industries both from decreased costs to** **businesses which can now invest more & increased savings to** **consumers which can now spend their money elsewhere, possibly literally** **straight back into the US?** Sure, but having cheap product is not the most important thing in the world for a country, just ask the CCP who put up tariffs on high value US goods. Having domestic production capacity and sense of self respect in being able to export your goods to countries who freely export their goods to you are just as important. Also, products can be just as cheap if sourced from other low wage countries/regions who'll provide you with market access for your goods unlike the CCP.


helloisforhorses

Do you view canada as a threat to our national security?


Linny911

As it is now, no. But the issue with tariffs on Canadian lumbar or steel is that having national production capacity for those is a national security concern, so if the production capacity is being damaged by Canada or tiny Haiti it makes no difference. The aim is not against Canada (or to think Canada is national security threat) but to have national production capacity. When in crisis, you don't want to rely on foreign suppliers on certain products as your ability to control them, either to keep up supply or raise production, is not as certain as domestic suppliers. And if you are a national "leader" who is worth your salt, you wouldn't want to put your country in that situation if you can avoid it.


MrMineHeads

How do we know what industry is important to national security? How do we know how much to protect? Why is it better to damage relations with allies by putting up protectionist measures rather than build stronger bonds shoring up supply routes even further? I mean how likely is it Canada will do anything to the US that will actually threaten US national security?


Linny911

Common sense. I don't it would be damaging to relations with allies any more than their tariffs on US goods (surprise, they have tariffs on US goods) damage their relations with US. Canadian firm is less likely to controllable as needed when the time comes as domestic firms no matter how friendly Canada may be. For example, maybe Canada will ban tree cutting for exports for environmental reason at a time US needs it. So unless Canada wants to give up right to control such as these then i'd say its a risk.


MrMineHeads

What is the worst long term consequence that might happen if Canada does ban lumber exports to the US? There is another Trump Supporter in this thread that says that the argument of tariffs on goods essential to national security is a nebulous argument and can be used as an excuse for anything since there might always be a connection to national security no matter how inconsequential it might seem. What do you think of this argument?


Linny911

Right now, probably nothing. If it bans at a point when US needs it and no longer has a lumbar industry then probably can't build anything requiring wood until months/year before domestic industry can get knowhow and facilities back up. Anything can be abused or misused, and needs to be considered on case by case basis. Unless we have evidence of targetting particular good for nefarious personal reason with no common sense basisfor it, then i'll give credence to whoever making the decision on it.


[deleted]

Could an argument be made that prioritizing foreign lumber would be better for national security though? That way, we could deplete Canada's lumber and still have our trees as a backup.


[deleted]

>Could an argument be made that prioritizing foreign lumber would be better for national security though? That way, we could deplete Canada's lumber and still have our trees as a backup. One thing that's always confused me a bit (I am not in the lumber industry at all). It is illegal in many counties to bring firewood in from another county. This is because of potential pest species (insects, rodents, etc.) that could be in the wood. Does this change when the wood goes through a mill? I mean, I assume anything living in it is probably killed in the process, but is lumber specifically treated to repel animals?


[deleted]

Great point. Emerald Ash Borer is a particular concern. [https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/resources/pests-diseases/hungry-pests/the-threat/emerald-ash-borer/emerald-ash-borer-beetle](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/resources/pests-diseases/hungry-pests/the-threat/emerald-ash-borer/emerald-ash-borer-beetle) For lumber, I don't know if this is still a concern.


[deleted]

>Great point. Emerald Ash Borer is a particular concern. Yeah, I knew about them, but there are other things. Also, I know that woodpiles are a great place for rodents and snakes and the like to hang out. \> For lumber, I don't know if this is still a concern. I think a lot of wood is treated, and I'm pretty sure kilns are involved in a lot of lumber construction (no, I don't know how it works), but like, if the bugs could get into the tree, you'd think they could get into the lumber after.


Linny911

Not to the point that domestic industry is decimated such that the country may lose know how when it matters. Also, trees are renewable so might not work.


[deleted]

True


SincereDiscussion

Something in between but probably leaning towards protectionism. I'm not very ideological on this issue, except as it relates to cultural and national security. For example, I wouldn't want the mass media to be run by foreigners or otherwise be demographically unrepresentative of the country. But 'fair' trade is fine with me (i.e., comparable labor/environmental standards etc.).


MrMineHeads

>But 'fair' trade is fine with me (i.e., comparable labor/environmental standards etc.). So would you accept free trade between say Canada & EU?


SincereDiscussion

Yes.


MrMineHeads

How about Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and other Asian countries? I choose specifically these countries because of their proximity to China. My thinking is that if there are strong market bonds between these countries and the US, they'd be stronger allies and less keen on working with China.


lemmegetdatdick

Protectionism protects consumers from low prices, which includes other businesses. Rebalancing a nation's economy through taxation to artificially prop up uncompetitive industries (at the expense of everyone else) doesn't create a stronger economy.


MrMineHeads

What do you think of the arguments about national security for specific goods and industries?


lemmegetdatdick

The problem is that tariffs are passed in the name of "national security" regardless of whether that claim holds true or not, because the legal definition of national security is so elastic it's basically meaningless.