An alternative view on tariffs?

[nigel99 551]

I stumbled across this YouTube video and found it quite interesting. I realise it’s a 20 minute video, but the presenter lays out how this is a high risk but potentially viable solution to the US retaining its global role. 

I don’t understand history and global economics enough to know if it’s complete drivel. 

 https://youtu.be/1ts5wJ6OfzA?si=tMBqy0MuORPp5j2C

[BIGUN 1,371]

8 hours ago, nigel99 said:

global economics enough to know if it’s complete drivel. 

@13.44 minutes into the video, he specifically says, the authors did not lay out a plan, it was more like a cookbook with recipes. Tariff chaos is not a negotiating tool. And, let's not forget that it was American businessmen who shipped the jobs overseas for lower wages to increase their profits. I doubt they'll bring jobs back for $3,000/month when they can maintain a $100/month workforce and no HR headaches. 

The only thing we'll see (are seeing) here is a recession and a "We're winning HUGELY."  

[nigel99 551]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

@13.44 minutes into the video, he specifically says, the authors did not lay out a plan, it was more like a cookbook with recipes. Tariff chaos is not a negotiating tool. And, let's not forget that it was American businessmen who shipped the jobs overseas for lower wages to increase their profits. I doubt they'll bring jobs back for $3,000/month when they can maintain a $100/month workforce and no HR headaches. 

The only thing we'll see (are seeing) here is a recession and a "We're winning HUGELY."  

Yes I heard that part. You’re right nobody is going to want to buy a pair of Nikes made in the USA that cost 10x the current price.

The other issue is that anti US sentiment is high and Boycott USA movement is gaining a lot of traction. Our government has started pumping money into a Buy Aussie campaign and although not as strong as the Canadian and EU movements people are actively boycotting American products. Once supply chains shift, it’s going to be very hard to get them back. 

[gowlerk 2,238]

7 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

Once supply chains shift, it’s going to be very hard to get them back. 

Exactly. Trump will be POTUS for 4 years. There may be some changes to production for some products but the price of building factories combined with a labour shortage in the US makes it very unlikely those kind of investments are going to happen. Instead the new taxes on imports will drive inflation. The damage will come fairly quickly and at a significant level.

[nigel99 551]

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Exactly. Trump will be POTUS for 4 years. There may be some changes to production for some products but the price of building factories combined with a labour shortage in the US makes it very unlikely those kind of investments are going to happen. Instead the new taxes on imports will drive inflation. The damage will come fairly quickly and at a significant level.

True, although I was thinking about the boycott campaigns causing other nations to look elsewhere. For example my local supermarket sells American oranges. If consumer boycotts cause them to buy elsewhere, what is the incentive to go back?

[JoeWeber 2,790]

3 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Yes I heard that part. You’re right nobody is going to want to buy a pair of Nikes made in the USA that cost 10x the current price.

 

I'll wait to see if the currently $160 a pair Nikes I wear now increase by much, same with the Apple products I use. Seems to me that both companies long ago priced according to the most the consumer will pay for the brand, not according to value. 

[jakee 1,553]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I'll wait to see if the currently $160 a pair Nikes I wear now increase by much, same with the Apple products I use. Seems to me that both companies long ago priced according to the most the consumer will pay for the brand, not according to value. 

True, but they're also quite fond of the many billions of dollars they make each year and would prefer not to see that fall. So they may still be some knock on effect.

[JerryBaumchen 1,415]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I'll wait to see if the currently $160 a pair Nikes I wear now increase by much, same with the Apple products I use. Seems to me that both companies long ago priced according to the most the consumer will pay for the brand, not according to value. 

Hi Joe,

From back in the day:  In early 1964 there was a lot of rumors going around about the ParaCommander.  One was that it was going to cost ~$500; you could, at that time, by a Pioneer 28 ft 1.6 Lo-Po canopy for ~$190.

Then, in the Spring of '64, Security came out with the Crossbow.  This canopy was as close to the ParaCommander as they could make it; Pioneer had the license for the LeMoigne design.  The XBO canopy came on the market at $224.50.  Later that Summer, Pioneer brought their ParaCommander to the market at $225.

Hmmmm,

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 2,238]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I'll wait to see if the currently $160 a pair Nikes I wear now increase by much, same with the Apple products I use. Seems to me that both companies long ago priced according to the most the consumer will pay for the brand, not according to value. 

Yes, that seems to be the pricing strategy. Meaning as the cost increases the profit margin must go down as will the stock price. 

[nigel99 551]

Well here’s an alternative view on how tariffs work. Donny thinks that the drug dealers are paying tariffs on fentanyl.