this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
24 points (70.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

39717 readers
1234 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SouthFresh@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t disagree with that, but it assumes the incentives are intended to expire. If the aim is to bring manufacturing back to the U.S., then one has to ensure manufacturing in the U.S. is profitable.

Tariffs do nothing for that.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world -2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That’s not correct. Almost every single manufacturing industry that was outsourced was plenty profitable here in the states. They were outsourced because it was more profitable to do it overseas. It’s a race to the bottom.

I agree tariffs aren’t the right move. Personally, I would support nationalization and import bans on certain industries.

[–] SouthFresh@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I think you missed where we’re in agreement about it being more profitable outside of the country. I was only suggesting that a better way to combat that would be incentives that are designed to maintain a status where the process of manufacturing remains profitable within the U.S.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world -2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

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 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.world -2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.world -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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 2 points 3 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.