U.S. Auto Union speaks out on tariffs

[Valletta]

“We applaud the Trump administration for stepping up to end the free trade disaster that has devastated working class communities for decades. Ending the race to the bottom in the auto industry starts with fixing our broken trade deals, and the Trump administration has made history with today’s actions,” said UAW President Shawn Fain. “But ending the race to the bottom also means securing union rights for autoworkers everywhere with a strong National Labor Relations Board, a decent retirement with Social Security benefits protected, healthcare for all workers including through Medicare and Medicaid, and dignity on and off the job. The UAW and the working class in general couldn’t care less about party politics; working people expect leaders to work together to deliver results. The UAW has been clear: we will work with any politician, regardless of party, who is willing to reverse decades of working-class people going backwards in the most profitable times in our nation’s history.

In a Victory for Autoworkers, Auto Tariffs Mark the Beginning of the End of NAFTA and the “Free Trade” Disaster - UAW | United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America

Days after Volkswagen, the #2 automaker in the world, announced making $20.6 billion in profit in 2024, a new UAW survey of VW workers in Chattanooga reveals the devastating financial toll of VW’s substandard U.S. health care offerings.

uaw.org

 

[Fantine]

No one is protecting them against robotics. AI. 3-D printer parts.
Those jobs will never come back.

 

[eclipsenow]

(Sorry all - I decided to edit my post.)​

First - Ronald Reagan hated the idea! In a 1988 speech, President Ronald Reagan strongly opposed tariffs against Canada and Mexico, calling them anti-American. He emphasized the importance of free trade, stating:

"Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies. We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends, weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.​

The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion; it is an American triumph—one we worked hard to achieve and something central to our vision of a peaceful and prosperous world of freedom. After World War II, America led the way in dismantling trade barriers and creating a global trading system that paved the way for decades of unprecedented economic growth.​

Yes, back in 1776, our Founding Fathers believed that free trade was worth fighting for. And we can celebrate their victory because today, trade is at the core of the alliance that secures peace and guarantees our freedom. It is the source of our prosperity and the path to an even brighter future for America."​

EG: Australia had tariffs for decades. It delayed us all being able to afford colour TV's for about a decade after everyone else got them.

Second - tariffs limits the economies of scale your producers can achieve to just your country. China doesn’t have Henry Ford’s production line - they’ve shot way past that! China has production line cities! Where they build another CITY depends on what the ‘production line’ in that area needs! 2 or 3 million people will suddenly live in the next ‘node’ of whatever that industrial region of China is building!

Third - there’s no way the western world can compete with that - but do we want to be dependent on China when they’re eyeing off Taiwan? Do we want to buy EVERYTHING from China when we could end up like Germany asking Putin to “Please sir - stop invading Ukraine. Also - here’s our gas bill - please don’t cut off our gas!” The only answer? Friend-shore! That is - have completely free trade amongst a club of democracies. It will still not be as cheap as Chinese stuff - but it’s at least better than trying to go it alone! Trade means I sell you the cheapest stuff I can make - and you do the same for me - and we both get richer by having more money in our pockets by sharing our cheapest stuff. But instead, Trump has this false belief that tariffs will fix everything - and has in effect hurt the entire western world in our competition with China. He has betrayed the western democratic world in our security, economies, and in principle. The west is over!

Fourth - some sectors require vastly more 'economics of scale' or concentration into one specialised company than others. Of course - I'm thinking of PC chips. The whole PLANET has decided to outsource production of super-high-tech, super-small nano-chips to Taiwan. Just one fabricator of an ordinary chip is maybe a third to half a billion dollars. When you get down to the bleeding edge - the cost gets crazy expensive! Estimated Total Cost of a 3nm Chip Fab: $15–$20 Billion - so the only way it can be profitable is to run all day and all night - trying to meet the global needs for the most advanced chips at a high price per unit. America only has 5% of the world's population (yet for decades has burned through 25% of the world's oil!). Americans have felt entitled to the latest and greatest tech whenever they want at affordable prices. Tariffs will undermine this. Critically! And if someone just waves the magic words around "Oh - we'll have to SUBSIDISE IT!" - I thought the whole point of this exercise was to MAGA - to help the American economy to recover and pay off debt - not increase government spending!

 

[Valletta]

(Sorry all - I decided to edit my post.)​

First - Ronald Reagan hated the idea! In a 1988 speech, President Ronald Reagan strongly opposed tariffs against Canada and Mexico, calling them anti-American. He emphasized the importance of free trade, stating:

"Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies. We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends, weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.​

​

“Let’s work through the economics of this. First of all, we are gonna raise about 100 billion dollars with the auto tariffs alone,” Navarro said. “We are gonna provide tax benefits, tax credits to people who buy American cars,” Navarro said. “In addition, the other tariffs are gonna raise about 600 billion dollars a year, about 6 trillion over a 10-year period, and we are gonna have tax cuts. The biggest tax cut in American history for the middle class,” Navarro continued.

Peter Navarro Discusses President Trump's Tariffs with Shannon Bream - "Tariffs are Tax Cuts" (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by David Greyson

In a revealing interview, Peter Navarro articulates his controversial stance that "tariffs are tax cuts," shedding light on the Trump administration's impending tariff policies. Insights await in this engaging discussion.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[FireDragon76]

“Let’s work through the economics of this. First of all, we are gonna raise about 100 billion dollars with the auto tariffs alone,” Navarro said. “We are gonna provide tax benefits, tax credits to people who buy American cars,” Navarro said. “In addition, the other tariffs are gonna raise about 600 billion dollars a year, about 6 trillion over a 10-year period, and we are gonna have tax cuts. The biggest tax cut in American history for the middle class,” Navarro continued.

Peter Navarro Discusses President Trump's Tariffs with Shannon Bream - "Tariffs are Tax Cuts" (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by David Greyson

In a revealing interview, Peter Navarro articulates his controversial stance that "tariffs are tax cuts," shedding light on the Trump administration's impending tariff policies. Insights await in this engaging discussion.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

I can't even use the appropriate language to describe that here on CF. It's just nonsense, that's the best I can do. Justifying income tax cuts with tariffs won't work. That's not me being a partisan hack, that's what most of the leading economists have said about Trump's policy of funding government off tariffs. It's a disaster in a modern economy.

 

[Fantine]

I guess that means that the prices we pay for our average 'market basket' of food and all other consumer goods will go up 6 trllion dollars in the next ten years. That's a whole lotta inflation.

And since we will be manufacturing, selling, and exporting a lot less consumer goods to other countries, that means that the Americans who currently manufacture, transport, and export all those goods to other countries could very well be unemployed

Sounds like a raw deal to me.

 

[FireDragon76]

I guess that means that the prices we pay for our average 'market basket' of food and all other consumer goods will go up 6 trllion dollars in the next ten years. That's a whole lotta inflation.

And since we will be manufacturing, selling, and exporting a lot less consumer goods to other countries, that means that the Americans who currently manufacture, transport, and export all those goods to other countries could very well be unemployed

Sounds like a raw deal to me.

Inflation will go up, since alot of food (especially healthy food) comes from Mexico and Canada. The US produces alot of cash crops, like corn, wheat, and soybeans, that go into junk foods or animal feed. Canada and Mexico are the source for alot of fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes, so these tariffs will be especially bad for lower income people, since it will make junk food disproportionately cheaper than healthier foods.

 

[eclipsenow]

“Let’s work through the economics of this. First of all, we are gonna raise about 100 billion dollars with the auto tariffs alone,” Navarro said. “We are gonna provide tax benefits, tax credits to people who buy American cars,” Navarro said. “In addition, the other tariffs are gonna raise about 600 billion dollars a year, about 6 trillion over a 10-year period, and we are gonna have tax cuts. The biggest tax cut in American history for the middle class,” Navarro continued.

Peter Navarro Discusses President Trump's Tariffs with Shannon Bream - "Tariffs are Tax Cuts" (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by David Greyson

In a revealing interview, Peter Navarro articulates his controversial stance that "tariffs are tax cuts," shedding light on the Trump administration's impending tariff policies. Insights await in this engaging discussion.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

I think you need to read other authors - read outside your echo-chamber.

Two answers:
1. Tariffs do not help
2. Tariffs will not raise enough!

1. Tariffs do not help​

First - the money the Federal government raises in tariffs are just taxes moved to another area of the economy - and that is imports.

Second - as others have already noted - this is one of the most DESTRUCTIVE ways to get tax because it means retribution from the countries you put tariffs on - and it slows down something the American fiscal right USED to care about before Trumpism. That is - the free market!

Third - the money raised will probably not begin to offset the money lost in retributive tariffs from other countries. That is - they'll tax your goods going to them - and therefore your goods will not be as competitive - therefore your goods will not be sold and guess what happens then? Bankruptcies back home! Job layoffs! So what was the point of this whole exercise again? Oh yeah - to make everything Americans buy suffer from lost economies of scale available on the globalized marketplace - and therefore more expensive - AND to hurt relationships with America's once allies! Because Trump's open narcissism means he feels picked on the whole time - and therefore his country is also picked on - always getting the worst deals. Except when you're the President insulting and harming every other ally - it sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy!

As Fortune Magazine said:

President Trump often trumpets that “tariffs are going to be the greatest thing we’ve ever done for our country.”​

But the experience from his first term doesn’t confirm this confidence, according to “The Return of Protectionism,” as updated in January 2020. The paper details that tariff increases do indeed create winners and losers, but on balance, they hurt the economy more than they help. Trump claims tariffs will make the U.S. 'rich again.' But 5 undisputed facts about how they work throw cold water on that notion​

​

Everything DOGE has cut so far is probably maybe 1 or 2 degrees on this circle - a tiny red line compared to the smallest wedge here which is Veteran's benefits.​

2. Tariffs will not raise enough!​

First - Navarro? Really? This is what I mean about reading outside your comfort zone. The Economist magazine wrote that Navarro "is a prolific writer, but has no publications in top-tier academic journals" and "his research interests are broader than the average economist's." Basically he uses economics to dress up his anti-China rhetoric - but everyone already knew everything he's ever pointed out about China's government sponsored unfair manufacturing advantages. Honestly - if there were no geopolitical risks with China being communist and authoritarian and posturing to take Taiwan - I'd be grateful! So what if their government has sponsored stacks of their businesses and indeed built production-line-cities to create massive economies of scale! How much money does America pour into DARPA each year? How many civilian spin-offs have made America rich from DARPA? How was that internet built again?

I would say "Buy Chinese and be happy about it." But given there ARE geopolitical risks - we should friend-shore. Australia is good at digging stuff out of the ground. You can have all the rare earths you need from us guys. (Ukraine doesn't really have any good concentrations - nothing worth setting up an industry over! May as well dig up dirt in your own backyard - there are rare earths there!) But Trumpism punishes allies rather than friends in a time of heightened geopolitical tension with real potential enemies! Go figure!

Second - it's just not enough! Even IF we go with $600 billion a year - that's under 10% of the Federal budget. Even IF we ignore that everything Americans buy will go up, and this will decrease economic activity, and cause recessions, and other big businesses will just go belly-up, and just ASSUME tariffs are GREAT and do NOT have any side effects (sarcasm cough cough sarcasm) - even IF we assume we're back in the middle ages and this is the way to do business - let me be clear.

It's not enough money!​

Again - to get the true scale of this - watch Matt Bevan's water jug experiment.

 

[eclipsenow]

Inflation will go up, since alot of food (especially healthy food) comes from Mexico and Canada. The US produces alot of cash crops, like corn, wheat, and soybeans, that go into junk foods or animal feed. Canada and Mexico are the source for alot of fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes, so these tariffs will be especially bad for lower income people, since it will make junk food disproportionately cheaper than healthier foods.

Yes! I've read town planning work from Ecocity types - and they talk about the 'food deserts' in America where normal healthy groceries like affordable protein (chicken breast and eggs etc) and healthy vegetables are SO expensive or even not supplied in that market - that pretty much the only food available is fatty, sugary, highly processed take away with little fibre and micronutrient value.

Food deserts.
In the world's only superpower.
Whodathunk it?

Oh yeah - they're MAGA - or something...

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes! I've read town planning work from Ecocity types - and they talk about the 'food deserts' in America where normal healthy groceries like affordable protein (chicken breast and eggs etc) and healthy vegetables are SO expensive or even not supplied in that market - that pretty much the only food available is fatty, sugary, highly processed take away with little fibre and micronutrient value.

Food deserts.
In the world's only superpower.
Whodathunk it?

Oh yeah - they're MAGA - or something...

Junk food in the US is already heavily subsidized owing to our crops use as industrial inputs and not as a whole foods. So the problem of food deserts are made even worse. Even if poor people have access to a supermarket or grocery, raising the prices of fruits and vegetables further incentivizes poor food choices.

 

[jacks]

I guess anyone can just say anything. However, the idea that the U.S. only produces crops that are used for "junk food", is completely erroneous. Take a moment to look at world production of meat, fruit and vegetables and you will see that the US is always one of the top producers. (Second for vegetables and meat, fourth for fruit, this will vary somewhat by source.) By the way usually the top producer is China.

 

[eclipsenow]

Junk food in the US is already heavily subsidized owing to our crops use as industrial inputs and not as a whole foods. So the problem of food deserts are made even worse. Even if poor people have access to a supermarket or grocery, raising the prices of fruits and vegetables further incentivizes poor food choices.

Yes - what was the doco I watched years ago - Food Inc? Something like that. But it's been addressed in so many different reports. It's like a corn cabal. Even Jed Bartlett from West Wing said corn-ethanol was a stupid idea as it took as much oil to create the fertilizers (Haber-Bosch) and industrially grow the corn that the ethanol you got back was only marginally more energy out than in! The EROI is so poor you may as well just burn the oil and leave all that farmland to recuperate. But - annoy the cabal / vested interests and you will not get elected!

There's a similar argument with the dairy industry after WW2 when the need for all that powdered milk as a source of protein and energy on the front lines was no longer required. (American solders were some of the best fed with policies like these!) So the American government got some pressure - and buckled. Ice cream became the nations new health food -because apparently calcium from vegetables never worked before! Now - I love the taste of milk and ice-cream and especially cheese! But that does not mean it is good for me or the environment.

As a passionate environmentalist I want to look at the morality of this stuff through a Christian lens. The morality of eating animals and how we keep them for dairy and eggs is one thing (and I struggle morally with eating higher up the sentience layers - even though the bible says this is OK? Something I've got to figure out.) I eat chicken - because they're really low down there and I'm too busy to do all the vegan cooking my daughter does and it doesn't appeal to me (yet!) Anyway - getting off the subject.

Putting 'animal rights' aside - there's another metric. Love for neighbour. How are we going to do all this as the population peaks around 9 or 10 billion and finally begins to decline due to first world economic pressures spreading? (The "Demographic Transition.")

That is - if I cannot extrapolate my lifestyle to everyone on the planet - and still have God's biosphere thrive - then my lifestyle is immoral.​

So there's another metric to keep in mind as we discus tariffs. But the Trump Regime is so far gone into MAGA - even climate change isn't real to them - let alone the fairness of the USA having 5% of the population yet using 25% of the world's oil - and other metrics like that to do with meat.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes - what was the doco I watched years ago - Food Inc? Something like that. But it's been addressed in so many different reports. It's like a corn cabal. Even Jed Bartlett from West Wing said corn-ethanol was a stupid idea as it took as much oil to create the fertilizers (Haber-Bosch) and industrially grow the corn that the ethanol you got back was only marginally more energy out than in! The EROI is so poor you may as well just burn the oil and leave all that farmland to recuperate. But - annoy the cabal / vested interests and you will not get elected!

There's a similar argument with the dairy industry after WW2 when the need for all that powdered milk as a source of protein and energy on the front lines was no longer required. (American solders were some of the best fed with policies like these!) So the American government got some pressure - and buckled. Ice cream became the nations new health food -because apparently calcium from vegetables never worked before! Now - I love the taste of milk and ice-cream and especially cheese! But that does not mean it is good for me or the environment.

In the 1950's, butter was considered its own food group in the US. The government was afraid of caloric deficiency back then, owing to national defense being prioritized (this was the 50's, after all, the era of the second Red Scare). And they badly misjudged how many calories the typical adult male actually needed.

As a passionate environmentalist I want to look at the morality of this stuff through a Christian lens. The morality of eating animals and how we keep them for dairy and eggs is one thing (and I struggle morally with eating higher up the sentience layers - even though the bible says this is OK? Something I've got to figure out.) I eat chicken - because they're really low down there and I'm too busy to do all the vegan cooking my daughter does and it doesn't appeal to me (yet!) Anyway - getting off the subject.

Putting 'animal rights' aside - there's another metric. Love for neighbour. How are we going to do all this as the population peaks around 9 or 10 billion and finally begins to decline due to first world economic pressures spreading? (The "Demographic Transition.")

​

That is - if I cannot extrapolate my lifestyle to everyone on the planet - and still have God's biosphere thrive - then my lifestyle is immoral.​

So there's another metric to keep in mind as we discus tariffs. But the Trump Regime is so far gone into MAGA - even climate change isn't real to them - let alone the fairness of the USA having 5% of the population yet using 25% of the world's oil - and other metrics like that to do with meat.

Canadian agriculture and food policy are actually science-based. The US's policies aren't. They are heavily shaped by industry.

 

[eclipsenow]

I guess anyone can just say anything. However, the idea that the U.S. only produces crops that are used for "junk food", is completely erroneous. Take a moment to look at world production of meat, fruit and vegetables and you will see that the US is always one of the top producers. (Second for vegetables and meat, fourth for fruit, this will vary somewhat by source.) By the way usually the top producer is China.

Where do they go? Who gets them? I'm not saying you grow NO vegetables - but it's how they're distributed that is the issue.

If you're going to assert 'food deserts' are a myth - then you need to do some research because FireDragon and I know what we're talking about!

 

[jacks]

If you're going to assert 'food deserts' are a myth - then you need to do some research because FireDragon and I know what we're talking about!

Never mentioned food deserts, nor did I imply that they don't exist.

 

[eclipsenow]

Never mentioned food deserts, nor did I imply that they don't exist.

By all means - please define what you object to - and what your sources are. Then we might have to do some research on something! It's one of the only things these days that makes me go hunting for new knowledge. You might even score some points? It might refine both our knowledge. (No claims of being omniscient here - I make plenty of mistakes and admit them online.)