Modern conventional warfare isn’t like it was in 1941. It’s fast, expensive, exceptionally lethal, and involves fewer participants than it used to. In 1941, access to resources was a huge deal because warmaking was a the greatest industrial enterprise in human history; the belligerent powers were churning through equipment and sundries in incredible amounts. A loss of access to oil, rubber, or aluminum would have been either wildly expensive in terms of finding alternatives (see Germany’s constant efforts to synthesize oil) or simply would have reduced your ability to keep fighting (the gradual loss of resource to Japan.)
If the USA has reductions in access to steel starting next week, would it really have reduced military capability in six months? Not really, no. The number of ships, planes, tanks, trucks, etc. used by the U.S. armed services is a fraction of what it was in the past; the makeup of a modern armed forces is a much smaller number, of higher value assets, than it used to be. In the Second World War the U.S. Navy ended up operating over six thousand ships. The USAAF had over 80,000 planes in 1944; it lost more than 90,000 between operational losses and accidents. There aren’t that many warships and warplanes in the whole world today. That sort of effort could not have been kept up without access to staggering amounts of resources, flowing on a daily basis. The challenge today isn’t volume of physical resources; an F-22 isn’t any bigger than a B-17, and ships (except the aircraft carriers) aren’t any bigger and in some case they’re smaller. The challenge is the technical complexity.
Today, U.S. steel production even at reduced levels is easily enough to replace its military needs if it comes to that.
How can it be bad for the USA steelworkers long term?
Why should other nations impose tariffs against our exports, but we let their exports come in without a tariff?
I think the tariffs will create more jobs here and put the USA in a better position regarding the need to import. There should be a slight rise in price, but it won’t last forever.
Other nations hurt by exporting less to the USA, might agree to waive their tariffs.
You guessed wrong. I have no idea what side Trump is on. Personally, I’m in favor of few barriers to trade. If we need to protect certain industries that are critical for national security I will concede that point.
My comment that you quoted had nothing to do with Trump by the way. It was strictly concerned with the thread topic which was “are trade wars good?”
As a strict hypothetical? You can link the elimination of barriers to one type of trade to a concession to engage in other trade you might not have had a strong inclination. So, let’s say we were to impose an oil tariff on Saudi Arabia in order to hurt their ability to sell as much in the US. We could then say buy 40 F-16s every 5 years and pay for technical support for the fighters and we won’t impose the tariffs.
Well, now we are selling a product and a service we might not otherwise be selling. Now is that “optimally” efficient for the world in the sense of what a pure free trade agreement might result in? Perhaps not. But it can be argued that it’s better then supplying Saudi Arabia with tons of cash for oil in order for them to enrich Russia with the purchase of Migs and Russian technical advisers.
Look at China. Yes, in an economic sense free trade benefits both of us. In a strategic sense it might lead to war as one side begins to fear the other side’s ascension and takes steps to constrain the ascension.
But that’s all hypotheticals and speculations. In the real world, sometimes you can get stuff by waving a stick. Now, I’m not saying that’s the best way to get stuff. I’m just saying it can work.
I think the danger with Trump and other isolationists/populists is they are forgetting how much more rich and powerful the US is in the aggregate with the US’s role as hegemon. Are there sub-populations that are not benefiting proportionately? Yes. But focusing on the aggrieved to spite the whole is long term counterproductive.
I’d much rather see a shift to a reasonable amount of socialism to mitigate the howls of the poor and unemployed than losing our role as the shaper of world trade deals and governing institutions by engaging in tactics that look a lot more zero-sum.
I’d just like to point out that Trump’s national security argument makes no sense.
We have plenty of close allies who sell us steel products and that we sell our own steel to, as well. Suggesting that we need more steel production to last through a war that prevents us from importing steel is ridiculous. It’s WWII thinking at best and denies the readily available sources we have both from allies and here at home.
And, raising the cost of these metals (which is exactly what tariffs do) raises the cost of our ships and planes. That doesn’t improve national security. If anything it makes national defense more expensive.
Also, we can affect relations with other countries through trade. High tariffs with no specific purpose defeat that. We’ve raised large tariffs on China in the past, including on steel. But, those had specific purpose. Once accomplished, those were removed. That is not what Trump is doing today.
We export steel and aluminum. We import steel, add value (making stainless, wire, or whatever) and then export it to other countries who want it for their manufacturing. Tariffs placed by the US aren’t going to go unanswered by other countries. Plus, even without the tariffs of other countries the price of our steel will rise due to the Trump tariffs, making our steel exports less competitive with steel from other nations.
In general, US manufactured goods will be more expensive due to the higher cost of these metals that tariffs cause. Again, that will impact US manufacturing sales at home (as prices rise) and overseas, perhaps especially in overseas markets where our products again stand more of a chance of facing tariffs.
There will probably be more jobs in steel and aluminum production, but the rising price of these metals will impact jobs broadly throughout US manufacturing.
The national security exemption was a hypothetical of where it might make sense to engage in a sub-optimal economic practice. The OP asked a *general *question.
It does seem as though the blue collar workers who supported trump because he promised them goodies are the ones who are being most shafted by his policies.
He’ll point to a job here or there that he “saved”, while whole industries collapse around him.
The day of the family farmer being economically viable ended nearly a century ago. They have only managed to struggle by with the help of various subsidies and supports. In some ways, having the bulk of family farms go bankrupt and sell their arable land to agricultural corporations does make things more efficient, gives us even cheaper food, but does have the downside of consolidating our food production in the hands of fewer people. It is a transition that should be manged carefully, so that farmers are not left homeless, and our food supply stays secure.
Just creating policies that drive farmers out of business, while slightly amusing from a schadenfreude standpoint, as most of the people most harmed are people that supported the politicians that are harming them, is not a carefully controlled transition.