this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
9 points (100.0% liked)
Economics
234 readers
30 users here now
A sub for discussing Marxist economics and how the bourgeois economists did us dirty.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All we have to do is look at history to understand that
It's a bit more complicated than that. Tariffs have worked at various times in history as a valid tool of economic protectionism. The reason why they don't work for the US today is because the conditions today are vastly different. You cannot take something that works in one context and apply it to an entirely different context expecting it to work the same.
You also cannot take one tool in isolation and expect it to do the whole job when you have neglected and continue to neglect the much more important fundamentals: long term, systematic investment into infrastructure, education, housing, etc. ...all the things which are the necessary basis for industrial growth. You can't just adjust some numbers on a spreadsheet to make that stuff magically appear.
Bottom line: Ironically, this is still a pretty liberal approach to "ending neoliberalism"...not exactly a recipe for success.
Yup. Trump's historical example for tarrifs working for the US is the 1920s. But now we have a globalized economy which the US leads, and as such, the US is basically shooting its own legs off with these tarrifs.
I think Trump people sort of understand this, and want more direct control of resources to offset the looming economic disaster they are creating. That's where the mineral extraction deal with Ukraine comes in, as well as the demands to control Greenland, parts of Canada, the Panama canal, and the threats against Iran are coming in. The "appeasement" with Russia might be part of the same strategy so as to secure more cheap minerals, oil and fertilizers. It's all about rebuilding a US industrial base.
Trump and company would probably argue the disaster was coming anyway, so this is their best way forward, as it gives the US a chance to stay ahead while crippling their competitors and especially their "allies", who they want to make even more economically subservient to them. Unfortunately for them, I think they have woefully underestimated the willingness of the rest of the world to go along with it.
The "mineral extraction deal" with Ukraine is theater. It's a way for the US to "show who's boss", but as far as any real gains for the US from it, those are very unlikely. The infrastructure for extraction is just not there and won't be built during a war, the value of the resources is wildly overestimated, and most of the most valuable territory either is or is soon going to be under Russian control.
As for the rest of your analysis, yes, i agree. I think you summed it up nicely.
Oh indeed. I don't see the Ukrainian deal being beneficial for the US any time soon, and there's other more important motives behind it (perhaps among them making such egregious demands that Ukraine refuses and US has an excuse to exit the Ukraine war "gracefully"). But someone probably thought it might work, and then they can figure out a way to split the minerals with the the Russians.
I predict this is the pattern the Trump administration will follow for the next 1-2 years at least, if not for the whole term. It's standard American business"bull" tactics. Come in hard and aggressive, throw crazy threats, pressure using media and affiliates of the target, then make deals that give you everything in exchange for behaving somewhat more rationally.