What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[crazy canuck]

He's been pretty consistent about using tariffs and deregulation to create Gilded Age levels of economic expansion and concentration of wealth. 

I am not seeing the consistency you are.  His stated reasons for applying tariffs vary depending on who he is talking to and the day of the week.

[crazy canuck]

All of this could be true. My point is simply that, whatever Trump thinks about tarifs, or about presidential authority, it has awakened and helped crystallize political positions in others that I think will long outlast him, and gain great her coherence and traction.

I don't think that is accurate.  What are you seeing to think there has been something crystalized within the Republican party.  What I am seeing is a bunch of Republicans who are just too cowardly, I think the technical term is shit scared, to oppose what he is doing.

[Bauer]

All of this could be true. My point is simply that, whatever Trump thinks about tarifs, or about presidential authority, it has awakened and helped crystallize political positions in others that I think will long outlast him, and gain great her coherence and traction.

A lot will depend on how the economy does probably.  Unfortunately even with Terrible policies there's still strong potential the economy doesn't really show meaningful data for a long time, so Fox News and friends can continue living in a fantasy world.

[DGuller]

I think it would be wise to be prepared for the possibility that tariffs would at least in part be accidental brilliancy.  I do think that a little bit of friction in trade may not be a bad thing, once you put a dollar figure on the costs of social upheaval and instability.  It would be counterproductive to set the narrative that tariffs would lead to unavoidable disaster, only for that to not pass.

[Bauer]

All of this could be true. My point is simply that, whatever Trump thinks about tarifs, or about presidential authority, it has awakened and helped crystallize political positions in others that I think will long outlast him, and gain great her coherence and traction.

I don't think that is accurate.  What are you seeing to think there has been something crystalized within the Republican party.  What I am seeing is a bunch of Republicans who are just too cowardly, I think the technical term is shit scared, to oppose what he is doing.

Another thing to consider is that a lot of politicians go with the flow.  If the current policies (free trade) are in place for a long time, it's less likely any run of the mill politician will change them.  But if the economy does ok ish, then the next republican president may not have the balls to admit the policies were wrong.

[crazy canuck]

All of this could be true. My point is simply that, whatever Trump thinks about tarifs, or about presidential authority, it has awakened and helped crystallize political positions in others that I think will long outlast him, and gain great her coherence and traction.

I don't think that is accurate.  What are you seeing to think there has been something crystalized within the Republican party.  What I am seeing is a bunch of Republicans who are just too cowardly, I think the technical term is shit scared, to oppose what he is doing.

Another thing to consider is that a lot of politicians go with the flow.  If the current policies (free trade) are in place for a long time, it's less likely any run of the mill politician will change them.  But if the economy does ok ish, then the next republican president may not have the balls to admit the policies were wrong.

Yes, that is a possibility.  But not very probable. Just this week speakers at the Cato Institute were calling for Tariffs to be removed from Canada. Can't get more core Republican than that Institute.

[Zanza]

Cato Institute is libertarian, the MAGA GOP is authoritarian. They might have been close to Republicans in the 2000s, but are not anymore.

[Sheilbh]

Cato Institute is libertarian, the MAGA GOP is authoritarian. They might have been close to Republicans in the 2000s, but are not anymore.

I'll come back to respond on some of other points but - but Cato weren't even core Republican in the 2000s. They are libertarians and were strongly opposed to the Iraq War and a lot of War on Terror policy in general. They also didn't like Bush's "compassionate conservatism" side of things like No Child Left Behind etc. I'm not sure when, if ever, they've been really core to the Republicans, as long as I can remember they've been a little heretical.

I think the key think tank in the 2000s was probably the AEI which was absolutely aligned with the Bush Administration, particularly on foreign policy and there as a pipeline from AEI to administration jobs. The equivalent now in being aligned with (and a provider of staff for) the administration is probably someone like the Claremont Institute.

[Razgovory]

I think it would be wise to be prepared for the possibility that tariffs would at least in part be accidental brilliancy.  I do think that a little bit of friction in trade may not be a bad thing, once you put a dollar figure on the costs of social upheaval and instability.  It would be counterproductive to set the narrative that tariffs would lead to unavoidable disaster, only for that to not pass.

I'm inclined to agree with you.  Tariffs are inefficient, but the cost-benefits we have from free trade have not been evenly shared. The gains from that efficiency mainly go to the top quintile and costs go to the bottom 50%.

[HVC]

But how does increasing consumer costs benefit that bottom 50%? If anything they'll be hit harder.

[Neil]

Well, it looks like the markets aren't enjoying the idea that Trump isn't chickening out.  Either that, or he's just crashing the market to scoop up some assets on the cheap again. 

[DGuller]

But how does increasing consumer costs benefit that bottom 50%? If anything they'll be hit harder.

I think that's like asking how raising the minimum wage will benefit the poor, since they'll be paying higher prices for goods and services.  The answer may well be the same:  in the long run, they will gain more than they will lose.

[HVC]

But how does increasing consumer costs benefit that bottom 50%? If anything they'll be hit harder.

I think that's like asking how raising the minimum wage will benefit the poor, since they'll be paying higher prices for goods and services.  The answer may well be the same:  in the long run, they will gain more than they will lose.

But the labour costs are still significantly higher in America. So unless the tariffs go much higher its still cheaper to outsource so net effect is higher costs, is it not?

[DGuller]

But how does increasing consumer costs benefit that bottom 50%? If anything they'll be hit harder.

I think that's like asking how raising the minimum wage will benefit the poor, since they'll be paying higher prices for goods and services.  The answer may well be the same:  in the long run, they will gain more than they will lose.

But the labour costs are still significantly higher in America. So unless the tariffs go much higher its still cheaper to outsource so net effect is higher costs, is it not?

For some products the calculation will be more marginal than for others, for various reasons.  Maybe for some products the foreign labor would still be a much better deal, but for others the tariffs would leverage the cost of foreign labor so much that it will no longer make sense. 

Let's remember that labor is only a percentage of the total cost of the product, while the tariff applies to the whole cost of the product.  Therefore, if labor cost is the only source of advantage of foreign manufacturing, then a 10% tariff will counteract much more than 10% of the labor cost difference.

[Razgovory]

But how does increasing consumer costs benefit that bottom 50%? If anything they'll be hit harder.

I think that's like asking how raising the minimum wage will benefit the poor, since they'll be paying higher prices for goods and services.  The answer may well be the same:  in the long run, they will gain more than they will lose.

Yeah, if you go from working 14/hour flipping burgers to 25/hour in a factory but have to pay 40% more for everything then you come out ahead.  There is a also the element of prestige.  The work in the lower end of the service industry is demeaning and is held in low regard.  Someone here posted a thing about online dating stats a few years ago and the job a man held that woman found the least attractive was fast food service.  It's a low status job where you must take lots of abuse from the public for very little pay.