A cogent, long range tariff and industrial policy might accomplish something like this over a period of years. Does that describe the last 6 months?
back
2 comments
If you're interested in a detailed discussion of what a "cogent, long range tariff and industrial policy" might actually look like, you could do worse than my new book on this subject. The website is at IndustrialPolicy.US.
Sure, a cogent policy would be ideal. But you can’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. America was getting their lunch eaten well before Trump. At least the tariff policy is an attempt at rectifying the situation.
> you can’t let perfect be the enemy of the good
You can let bad be the enemy of both good and perfect.
Investment in manufacturing structures is down in ‘25 [1]. Manufacturing activity in the northeast is down, with “the new orders index dip[ping] into negative territory” [2].
Tariffs can reduce trade imbalances and incentivize domestic production. We’re not doing that. Our tariffs are too volatile. They tax manufacturing inputs. Tweets grasping for the straws of a Nobel prize cede prized export markets like India to China [3]. Cancelled licenses for nearly-complete projects add risk [4].
The policies of a degrowth leftist who wanted to reduce our industrial output and pivot to manufacturing would be virtually identical.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/C307RX1Q020SBEA
[2] https://www.philadelphiafed.org/surveys-and-data/regional-ec...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/30/us/politics/trump-modi-in...
[4] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-orders-orsted-ha...
From your first link, investment in manufacturing is lower than in 2024 (by like 3%), but both 2024 and 2025 (Trump’s presidency) are the highest datapoints in that dataset.
Also, your second link generally paints a mixed picture, not an outright negative one:
> On balance, the firms indicated an increase in employment, and the price indexes rose further above their long-run averages. The survey’s broad indicators for future activity suggest that firms continue to expect growth over the next six months.
I think it’s misguided to interpret current data as evidence either for or against the current policies. This is something that’s going to take a decade plus to play out. Trying to use data to call winners 6 months in isn’t really possible.
> investment in manufacturing is lower than in 2024 (by like 3%), but both 2024 and 2025 (Trump’s presidency) are the highest datapoints in that dataset
Sure, it’s down in ‘25 and has stalled a multi-year trend. The most-recent data show that trend spreading.
> something that’s going to take a decade plus to play out
Won’t get there. One, the policy is changing on a week-to-week basis. And two, there is no bipartisan buy-in to this policy.
The tariffs could have worked were they sensibly implemented. They weren’t. As structured, they are politically and economically infeasible for their aims. (Great if you’re an intermediary, though.)
Your argument ignores that Trump is using tariffs for non-economic reasons. You are arguing a weird straw man that isn't reality.
Trump has used tariffs as leverage against India for buying Russian oil, as leverage against Brazil for domestic politics he dislikes, against Mexico to pressure actions against drug cartels, and against Canada and others for recognizing a Palestinian state.
There is no sound economic logic to these schemes. The rates change as Trump likes or dislikes the praise he hears; deals are announced without signed agreements or details; rates, justified by "returning manufacturing" are changed faster than you could dig a foundation for a new factory, let alone actually make anything; industries are targeted for political reasons (like climate change denialism) and not economic reasons; deals are reached to exchange dollars for US-based manufacturing (like the china chip buying kickbacks).
The only logical consistent aspect of the tariff scheme is as unrestrained (and likely illegal) power play for Trump to get what Trump wants.
Lunch eaten by whom? Who was eating the world's richest country's lunch? The only lunch eating going on is the American rich eating the poors', something that's only accelerated under Trump. The tariffs are a tax that is most disproportionate on the poor. And they are in no way, shape or form actually intelligently designed to help them. It's just stupid madness.
It's actually pretty amazing that the current regime has managed to get people to believe that the current world order, where the US has been sitting on top for decades and managed to extract the largest piece of the growing world trade cake, somehow means that the US is being taken advantage of.
There's more than one commenter in this post that talks about "other countries walking all over the US", or claiming that capitalist free trade allowing American consumers to purchase ridiculous amounts of stuff is somehow a scam?
It's as infuriating as it is mindboggling how people can fall for it. It's completely baseless.
Their whole platform is grievance. It’s the only thing he’s good at.
The American worker has had their lunch eaten by the American capitalist class in conjunction with countries providing cheaper labor. By allowing unfettered labor arbitrage (i.e. tariff-free trade) the US has allowed their working class to be completely gutted. Combined with with unfettered illegal immigration (another Democratic Party position), the assault on the American worker is immense.
Unfettered illegal immigration is not a Democratic Party position.
Both Obama & Biden deported more illegal immigrants than Trump.
Due Process is a Democratic Party position that Republicans don't value.
Actually, considering the lack of real penalties for employers of illegal aliens, I'd say that the acceptance by both parties of white-collar crime is the real problem.
Properly prosecute rich criminals & illegal immigration will dry up real fast.
I agree more could be done in prosecuting employers. But supporting illegal immigrants absolutely was a part of the democrat platform. Sanctuary cities are not about supporting “due process.”
Also, the number of deportations does not tell the whole story. The number of illegal crossings under Biden was astronomical compared to both Obama and Trump.
> Sanctuary cities are not about supporting “due process.”
I thought it was about keeping local law enforcement out of immigration matters. Because otherwise undocumented people would be afraid to report crimes or be witnesses, and that's worse for local crime. Which is what city governments care about.