[_fs]

  New trade routes and spinning up local production will take time (likely longer five years) so the consumer will pay a price.

The main issue I see is that in 3.5 or possible 1.5 years, a new president ( or laws passed through congress ) will just vacate all Trump executive orders, tariffs in included. So that $100 million you invested in a new factory that is 3/4 built? Sorry, tariffs are gona and now you are out $100 mil. Why would any corp assume that risk?

[ty6853]

Trade deficit is effectively a migration of capital inflow, so tariffs should reduce not increase investments.

[leereeves]

> Trade deficit is effectively a migration of capital inflow, so tariffs should reduce not increase investments.

That seems backwards. A trade deficit (more goods coming into the country) should be balanced by a capital outflow (money leaving the country). We've sustained that for decades by printing more money and sending it around the world.

Some people think that's a good deal, because we get real stuff in exchange for money we create for nothing. But what will have left when other countries no longer want our money?

Edit: As the comment below points out, I should technically ask what happens when they no longer want U.S. government debt?

[datadrivenangel]

If an investment is profitable with 30% tariffs, but not at 10% tariffs, the risk of changing policy means your profitable investment has a risk of being unprofitable, and thus you are less likely to invest in it.

[techpineapple]

> The main issue I see is that in 3.5 or possible 1.5 years, a new president ( or laws passed through congress ) will just vacate all Trump executive orders, tariffs in included. So that $100 million you invested in a new factory that is 3/4 built? Sorry, tariffs are gone and now you are out $100 mil. Why would any corp assume that risk?

If I were to be as generous as possible, I might say that's why Trump is being so chaotic with the tariffs? If you turn everyone against us and no one is willing to trade with us, it may force people's hand to build locally and then 4 years from now, there's still no appetite to resume our normal trade patterns.

[ahartmetz]

Trump is ha-ha-only-serious joking about a third term and has said that, if people voted for him, they'd never have to vote again. So... in case of Emperor Trump, the tariffs wouldn't go away. I wonder if somebody is already working out how to tell "the economy" about that without being too obvious about the seriousness of his third term plan.

[h2zizzle]

If Biden is anything to go by, it's not really a given that a Dem president will necessarily undo Trump's international policy. He didn't get back in the negotiation room with Iran, he didn't back out of the Afghanistan pull-out, he made zero progress on climate change, he didn't undo much of the immigration policy changes that occurred... One of the few things that he DID pull back on were Trump's first-term tariffs (EDIT: Wait, he did pull back, didn't in he? I thought he did, I might be wrong.), and come 2028, if there's been substantial domestic change taken with the assumption of their longevity, I personally don't trust Democrats to back off on them.

[djkivi]

Biden kept Trump’s first term tariffs, so there is no guarantee they will go away.

And many other countries, e.g. Canada, won’t just make up with the US after Trump is gone.