To be clear, the current tariff execution is reckless and poorly planned. But I hear a lot of total tariff opposition from the same people who demand we continue to escalate with China over control of Taiwan, up to a potential hot war.

So what’s the plan? Western economies were brought to their knees during just a momentary interruption in shipping during the pandemic. How do you wage a war with a country that does all of your manufacturing? China could defeat most western countries without firing a single shot, just by cutting off their access to Chinese exports.

If you don’t support tariffs to bring back manufacturing jobs domestically, how do you think we could make it through a war with our manufacturing partners? I can’t reconcile the two ideas, and I don’t understand how some of y’all are.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    I didn’t miss anything. I just don’t think any domestic industry required for economic & national security should hinge on something as precarious as incentivizing. If they’re that critical, it needs to be nationalized, with strict import bans. Fuck the profitability or buttering up capitalists in hopes they’ll do the right thing for us.

    • SouthFresh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 hours ago

      What are the industries you’re concerned about? I’m unclear on how a country would actually accomplish your goals without becoming imperialist. No country has every resource it needs in the abundance it needs.

      • surph_ninja@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        If it’s an industry the nation needs to survive, economically or otherwise, that’s an industry that needs to be nationalized.

        And this is the opposite of imperialism. Imperialism is what we have now.

        • SouthFresh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I asked for specifics because I am unaware of any country that can satisfy all of its security and/or survival needs from only domestic sources. If the necessary resource is not found in enough abundance domestically, what choice is left under your proposal, other than to nationalize another country’s resources through imperialism?

          • surph_ninja@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            We’re not talking about zero trade. We’re talking about nationalizing industries that are critical for economic or national security. There are plenty of countries who have done that, and the neoliberal west tends to retaliate against them for it.

            • SouthFresh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              I feel like the details are important. What a country considered necessary for national security is a moving target that changes with technology.

              Just as an example, 1930’s U.S. didn’t have any need for national security regarding the transistor or integrated circuit fab materials and manufacturing. That certainly is on the list now. While the U.S. has resources domestically and manufacturing facilities for this, the resources are finite.

              The U.S. still has the Guano Islands Act available to “enforce” in the case that a suitable island supply was found AND desired. This was considered such a point of national security that the government legalized imperialism for bird shit.

              If a specific resource becomes nationalized in the way you are suggesting, it seems to me that similar acts for rare earth metals might appear and still lead to imperialism.