I think that attitude only covers a portion of Trump voters and might not be applicable to the Quebec decision but don't have any concrete data, Asimov's 1980 opinion piece on the USA may be more relevant to Trump voters and reflects most of the executive orders and appointments in 2025 so far: There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
That phrase is often used by the upper class to justify their habit of telling the lower classes what's good for them and, frankly, is exactly what's led to them being willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
As an example, "You didn't build that", while I get his point, it was poorly made and disregarded a lot of very hard work by the people he was talking down to.
That's why his supporters don't seem to care about his policies,flaws or ideology. They like him because those people hate him. That may look like cultish behavior because they change opinions based on his whims but I bet if he started acting like and was accepted by those "elites", his support would dwindle.
I think a lot of people look at the situation and don't understand it then just decide that his supporters must be stupid.
Could you explain that a bit more? I don't see it.
I'd wish that the EU would just shrug at the tariffs and not counter them, at least not on consumer goods, because in the end US tariffs cost the US consumer not the EU consumer. Obviously it is not that easy, because of jobs, refusal to be insulted and bullied, etc.
That’s short term thinking. Signed: a Spaniard who has seen all of the country’s industry dismantled since we joined the EU to be moved to Germany and Eastern Europe and now we’re screwed.
Anyway, why would some industry move from a comparatively low-cost country like Spain to a comparatively high-cost country like Germany?
Manufacturing goes where total cost of manufacturing is lowest. Transportation has become so cheap since the mid-20th century that it has lost all impact on deciding on manufacturing locations. Thus the consumer prices can also be low, independent of the location of the manufacturer and the consumer. Tariffs raise sales prices again in the flawed idea that this would raise manufacturing costs abroad. But of course they don't, and seriously, how would they? Tariffs just make imports more expensive and thus actually make prices go up for consumers in the levying country.
In the best case it creates a situation where an out-competed local manufacturer can start to manufacture again at cost and compete on prices. But obviously this will be higher than the price of pre-tariff goods, otherwise the local manufacturer wouldn't have been out-competed in the first place. I mean, come on, that's basic economics.
In the second best case the manufacturer just stops exporting to tariff country because its market vanished. Why would it vanish? Right, because consumers cannot afford the goods anymore. This creates an opportunity for a competitor that could manufacture at higher cost to sell goods at prices that still cover its cost, because otherwise -- you already guessed it -- the competitor could have competed before tariffs. Again, basic economics. Whatever, consumers pay more -- and have less choice. Yay for tariffs!
So what about "yeah, think long term", what does that mean? Let's say long term means 5-10 years or more, because that's about the time you need to launch manufacturing again. OK, there comes a new manufacturer along, or an ailing one recovers because higher prices cover higher manufacturing costs. In beautiful tariff world nations effectively closed their borders for trade, so markets have become much smaller. Even ignoring the initial higher costs, smaller markets mean smaller scale. The new small market will be unable to match the scaling effects of the old large market, there are just not enough consumers. Thus manufacturing will stay more expensive. This in turn will make goods more expensive for consumers. That's not quite as basic but still.
Of course we could veer off into some kind of post-capitalistic market system, and depending on what exactly that means I would probably be fine with it. However, I don't think that's what is going to happen.
If the EU instituted tariffs on let's say, software and certain kinds of services, then we would reduce our unemployment, develop those sectors etc.
Whereas the large-scale oil trade and how its conducted in practice mean that non-Americans will be holding dollars and that the US will be able to have lower interest rates than its competitors, this money, which the US thus can sort of print cheaply can then be used to buy goods from abroad, to get high-quality products in a way that is effectively cheap.
So tariffs for the US were always something that would shake things up. I don't think they're necessarily terrible in the very long run, but this system is something like 50 years old and the US won't be able to switch to a sensible system where it itself actually builds real things and gets what it needs that way quickly. So switching to a sounder approach to production should probably have been allowed to take more time if disruption was to be avoided, but it wouldn't have been possible for political reasons, and now the US politicians are sort of flip-flopping because they see that this transition will not be smooth at all.
If it were almost any country other than the US it would have been a different matter. If the EU wanted to reduce import of finished goods from low-wage countries, that would probably be fine and would probably benefit ordinary people without a long transition, but the US is a different matter. Wages in the US are as high as they are in large part because of these weird trade and investment flows.
So, being charitable with the OP, I can see how you might say that conservatives in the US believe that the US's declining status in manufacturing created a world in which "a hard working guy can't get ahead any more because everything is made in China", and thus a perception that in order to create equity and dignity we have to return to internal self reliance, ala juche or autarky.
Now that Trump is president, looks like it's starting to decline again.
That's not even considering the issues of planning, permits, installing machines, training workers, etc, in a more down to earth facility like a generic food plant, or heck forbid something seriously regulated (I hope) like making prescription drugs.
That real impact from investment may be 5-10+ years from the initial funding allocation.
Your billion dollar factory can start returning the investment years earlier when you manufacture elsewhere.
It's those last two, impact on the commons and unfair worker treatment, that are examples of where I _would_ support reasonable tariffs. Particularly if funds from those tariffs went to remediating the impact and were agreed to (also observed) by a majority of other leading countries / economic blocks.
It is about manufacturing jobs as identity and social status. Biden would create manufacturing as a "modern factories that create things". These do not employ all that many people and wont revert the world back to idealized past.
Production of critical parts within allied or the same nation is a reasonable goal.
It's probably also more energy efficient to manufacture things closer and ship less.
"a hard working guy can't get ahead any more because xyz"
It is ironic there are many very hard working guys in China, Philipines, Vietnam ...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-vs-manufacturing-empl...
MAID: Medical assistance in dying?
https://www.takimag.com/article/deaths-of-despair/
>"But the more I study the White Death of the past two decades, the more I am instead reminded of the tragic trajectory of a now much less publicized American race, Native Americans. Like American Indians, working-class white Americans seem to be living, and dying, like a defeated people, quietly offing themselves with so little to-do that nobody even noticed what was happening to working-class white lifespans for the first fifteen years of this century."
Speaking more concretely: Canadians are willing to suffer more pain today (vis-à-vis America) than before because of the trade war.
[1] https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...
Trump and his base are very focused on “respect”; remember all the lies about Obama’s “apology tour” (or was that Biden? Or both?)
All the bluster, all the talk of “America being respected again”, which anyone who travels internationally knows is 100% the opposite of reality, all the classic strongman politics. The creepy looming over Hilary in the debate.
All of it is a wildly misplaced sense of machismo, like being a dangerous asshole someone commands respect.
Which is ultimately what that crowd wants; they want to behave badly and still be respected.
My take, anyway.
My intuition is that this type of thinking is becoming more and more entrenched in American culture. I think by the time the culture as a whole wakes up, things will be significantly worse and many of the people who tried to prevent it will have been pushed out or willfully left.
The parent was claiming that say 10 is closed to 2 than any of the 100s are. It is also true that 10 is closer to 9 than 2.
That said, given how much Trump has increased not only government spending but also the deficit he's pretty far _politically_ from Clinton. However, IIRC, the two of them were _physically_ closer on Epstein's island than any current democratic leader.
Consistently, for longer than I've been alive.
I don't like hypocrites.
Somehow most people seem to assume that they'll be significant beneficiaries of a tax cut, but don't assume the same about a tax increase.