[I'm attempting to ask this question in an apolitical way].
The consensus amongst economists appears to be that tariffs will have net negative impacts on our economy. Can someone explain the support amongst financially sophisticated people (e.g. Marc Andreessen) for a candidate whose economic policies rely heavily on tariffs? Is it just that they believe the benefits of Trump's other policies (e.g. deregulation of crypto) will outweigh the negative impacts of tariffs?
I think the only people who can explain their rationale would be those people you’re talking about. We can wildly speculate (low regulation, pro business, etc), but domain experts broadly agree the tariffs in question would be detrimental to the US economy. I suppose we’ll have data from a natural experiment shortly. Will the data matter? Probably not.
We reversed on Smoot-Hawley in a few years. I expect the same this time. If you have capital, there will be a lot of agricultural and manufacturing assets in distress. If you don’t, I guess get some? (I’m putting aside cash to buy farmland.)
One of the common meme answers is that a destroyed economy is easier and cheaper for an international megacapitalist to pick apart and buy up. The long-term profits and power from those acquisitions outweigh a decade or two of inconvenience and bad charts.
It can make more sense to buy pieces of a company during a bankruptcy firesale, instead of buying out that company as a bailout. In this case, the company is the USA.
EDIT:
Realistically, there's more blood to squeeze from the consumer stone - you can raise prices with the increased costs, and compensate by 'allowing' people to go far further into debt for longer.
Feels a bit like the rise of the kleptocrats after the fall of the USSR. This is more a plutocracy, where the already very wealthy get to be the last man standing.
It stresses the bounds of my ability to take the question at good faith or seriously, if Marc Andreessen is the example of "financially sophisticated." His technolibertarian California-ideology unchecked-rule-by-the-rich fervor doesn't feel well considered, it feels emotional. (If there is an ideology, it's "America's greatness is purely a function of my personal greatness", from what I can see.)
As another poster pointed out, Harley Davidson had a painful time, and ended up having to make more motorcylces outside the US.
Similarly, Soy Bean farmers needed a large bailout.
Both of those sound pretty bad to me, and they were somewhat targetted - he has suggested blanket tariffs, which you only need to look back to Smoot-Hawley, which is generally accepted to have worsened the great depression.
The tariffs let Trump push tax cuts. People want the tax cuts. The tariffs are just a way to say they’ll be paid for. (Dems do that same with deficit financing and ‘tax the rich’ schemes.)
There are also communities who don’t think tariffs will be reciprocated. If we truly engage in a trade war, American farming and car manufacturing will be in crisis—they’re overbuilt for a domestic-only market.
In 2017 Harley-Davidson was devastated by a European counter-tariff. I'm confident that in 2025 Twitter and Tesla amongst other signature American brands will be hit by some massive counter-tariffs.
Andreessen holds major investments in many of the companies that will benefit. The paper says that tariffs make the US economy less efficient. Inefficiency == profit. An efficient market is one where prices are close to costs. Inefficient markets provide more profit to capitalists.
Because of Trump's planned tax cut renewal the profits of US companies should not only keep at current levels (whereas they were going to drop when tax cuts expired under Kamala) and even rise a little bit.
Making stocks rise is pretty much the purpose of the whole sector. Hence ...
Readit News
The consensus amongst economists appears to be that tariffs will have net negative impacts on our economy. Can someone explain the support amongst financially sophisticated people (e.g. Marc Andreessen) for a candidate whose economic policies rely heavily on tariffs? Is it just that they believe the benefits of Trump's other policies (e.g. deregulation of crypto) will outweigh the negative impacts of tariffs?
Pragmatic reason: I'd like to see American workers get American wages.
Long Term reason: We need the ability to manufacture critical things at all times.
We reversed on Smoot-Hawley in a few years. I expect the same this time. If you have capital, there will be a lot of agricultural and manufacturing assets in distress. If you don’t, I guess get some? (I’m putting aside cash to buy farmland.)
It can make more sense to buy pieces of a company during a bankruptcy firesale, instead of buying out that company as a bailout. In this case, the company is the USA.
EDIT:
Realistically, there's more blood to squeeze from the consumer stone - you can raise prices with the increased costs, and compensate by 'allowing' people to go far further into debt for longer.
It stresses the bounds of my ability to take the question at good faith or seriously, if Marc Andreessen is the example of "financially sophisticated." His technolibertarian California-ideology unchecked-rule-by-the-rich fervor doesn't feel well considered, it feels emotional. (If there is an ideology, it's "America's greatness is purely a function of my personal greatness", from what I can see.)
Deleted Comment
Regarding tariffs, they also predicted calamity from his first round, and that didn't happen in the US.
Similarly, Soy Bean farmers needed a large bailout.
Both of those sound pretty bad to me, and they were somewhat targetted - he has suggested blanket tariffs, which you only need to look back to Smoot-Hawley, which is generally accepted to have worsened the great depression.
There are also communities who don’t think tariffs will be reciprocated. If we truly engage in a trade war, American farming and car manufacturing will be in crisis—they’re overbuilt for a domestic-only market.
For billionaires like Andreessen, it will be worth the very limited pain in order to see the destruction of the administrative and regulatory state.
Making stocks rise is pretty much the purpose of the whole sector. Hence ...
Deleted Comment