We don’t have infrastructure to produce a lot of the components in the things we buy, and even if we did, it would inherently cost a lot more to produce than in the countries that are about to have tariffs placed on them. That the US ever was a manufacturing powerhouse was, in my understanding, a very “place and time” sort of deal after World War II. Not only were all of our competitors recovering from being bombed, but we also advanced to a services based economy very quickly, raising the standard of living beyond a point that manufacturing jobs can typically afford to support. I’m no economist though; I just watch one on YouTube, and “the middle income trap” is a frequent topic.
Tariffs can serve as a stimuli to build out local manufacturing capacity, which sounds pretty leftist to me. I understand arguments for laissez faire policies but at heart they are liberal and not left. It’s the refusal to accept it that led to far right being as popular as it is.
Anyone promising to return people to previously prosperous economic conditions will be popular, even if people don’t know that the promise can’t possibly be delivered. Coal isn’t coming back either, and there’s no “clean” version of it, but if all you’ve done in your life is coal, you’ll vote for the guy who says he’s bringing coal back.
I’m not here to convince liberals that they should try to care for the poor. I’m here to argue that the jig is up - people are voting for literally anyone, including fascists, that promises to change the course.
That second part is exactly what I just said. Is it caring for the poor to lie to them about economic realities, or to raise the cost on everyday items via tariffs when money is already tight? Again, I’m no expert, but I’d rather vote for promised solutions that I understand to actually work rather than the ones that sound good and don’t work.
We don’t have infrastructure to produce a lot of the components in the things we buy, and even if we did, it would inherently cost a lot more to produce than in the countries that are about to have tariffs placed on them. That the US ever was a manufacturing powerhouse was, in my understanding, a very “place and time” sort of deal after World War II. Not only were all of our competitors recovering from being bombed, but we also advanced to a services based economy very quickly, raising the standard of living beyond a point that manufacturing jobs can typically afford to support. I’m no economist though; I just watch one on YouTube, and “the middle income trap” is a frequent topic.
Tariffs can serve as a stimuli to build out local manufacturing capacity, which sounds pretty leftist to me. I understand arguments for laissez faire policies but at heart they are liberal and not left. It’s the refusal to accept it that led to far right being as popular as it is.
Anyone promising to return people to previously prosperous economic conditions will be popular, even if people don’t know that the promise can’t possibly be delivered. Coal isn’t coming back either, and there’s no “clean” version of it, but if all you’ve done in your life is coal, you’ll vote for the guy who says he’s bringing coal back.
Trump was basically the equivalent of the guy in your street that says when he’s president, everyone gets a million dollars and a pony.
I’m not here to convince liberals that they should try to care for the poor. I’m here to argue that the jig is up - people are voting for literally anyone, including fascists, that promises to change the course.
That second part is exactly what I just said. Is it caring for the poor to lie to them about economic realities, or to raise the cost on everyday items via tariffs when money is already tight? Again, I’m no expert, but I’d rather vote for promised solutions that I understand to actually work rather than the ones that sound good and don’t work.