Free trade is balanced trade (surpluses some years, deficits others). The US has run a persistent deficit for 40+ years and pays for it substantially with debt. Trump is just the first president to (rightly) reject Reagan's prioritisation of the consumer over the producer. - ThreadSky

rcdavies.bsky.social • 70 days ago

Free trade is balanced trade (surpluses some years, deficits others).

The US has run a persistent deficit for 40+ years and pays for it substantially with debt.

Trump is just the first president to (rightly) reject Reagan's prioritisation of the consumer over the producer.

Comments

orlad.bsky.social•70 days ago

But the consumer has driven the trade deficit by buying more products? The question here is could a producer make trainers in the US for the price of the raw materials, production (inc construct, recruit and train) and shipping, circa $25 from the thread? Given the US cost of living I suspect not.

rcdavies.bsky.social•70 days ago

Yes, agreed. But the US govt will have to implement policies that worry less about the consumer. So if sneakers become more expensive and people buyer fewer overall, then good. That reduces consumer demand, & means more saving at the national level & likely greater investment in domestic production

orlad.bsky.social•70 days ago

If people buy less, fewer retail, marketing and distribution jobs. I would suggest US should focus on their strengths - services and the knowledge economy. This is where they have a trade surplus. Thoughts are cheap.

sugarcanebook.bsky.social•70 days ago

But in practice, this just means most people won't have financial access to branded footwear. It will become the domain of the rich, wealthy and powerful again, creating even more class disparity with people being mugged for their shoes and criminals using it as a status symbol.

orlad.bsky.social•70 days ago

Very true the haves and have nots. Though is this not the out workings of capitalism?

sugarcanebook.bsky.social•70 days ago

We saw it in the 80's - it was fucking awful and spurred many a John Hughes movie but branded everything is far more accessible now, within everyone's reach...but this is definitely going to row society back 40 odd years, I suppose it's whether GenZ can weather the storm and not fall for it.

rcdavies.bsky.social•70 days ago

Paying $200 rather than $100 means people will have access, just buying less often.

But, yes, it does restrict consumer choice.

sugarcanebook.bsky.social•70 days ago

Question: Do you have kids? 😉

My sons feet grow every 3 months. Poor quality cheaper shoes are also a false economy - they can destroy them in one day.

orlad.bsky.social•70 days ago

Yip I do but in UK kids clothing and footwear are not taxed. Albeit my youngest now wearing adult sizes 😬

xanadian.bsky.social•70 days ago

It's not just brand-name sneakers, though. It's food and medicine and baby clothes and a whole lot of stuff that's much more essential than Nike shoes. Tariffs are going to hit things people can't just shrug and say "I'll just do without." And even for shoes it'll kill jobs up and down the chain.

rcdavies.bsky.social•70 days ago

It is undoubtedly going to be painful. But before the era of mass outsourcing, the US was able to produce many of these things profitably and at low cost.

Not everything needs to be reshored, but many should (medicines for example).

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply