I have seen a lot of know-it-all democrat voters posting in the last few days about how Trump's economic strategy is bound to fail and those who voted for him for economic reasons are fools. Obviously I am extremely sceptical of these people, as economic literacy has never been a strong point of progressives (not to mention how they are all suddenly experts, like how they were for virus propagation, climate change, etc.).
Nonetheless, I myself am no economist. Can somebody with a better understanding explain the strategy to me, and also any potential ways in which it COULD backfire in the way progressives are suggesting?
In many other countries, yes easily, America though, not really for a simple reason:
You have so much land that is BOUNTIFUL in resources that is grossly mismanaged. California should be a food production powerhouse and there's so much gas reserves and oil available still. So setting up production in the US wouldn't be hard it's the red tape that hampers it so removing that and introducing tarrifs is a good carrot and stick approach.
This is the answer OP.
The United States is easily capable of meeting our own production needs and then some.
But we'd actually have to try to do it. We'd have to throw out a lot of bullshit regulations, we'd have to seal our borders and prevent the entry of low skilled foreign workers. And we'd have to disincentivize foreign goods that could have been made here.
And we'd probably have to abolish women's rights but like the rest of that stuff that needs to happen anyway. But you don't need to say that part when you're talking to normies.
Yeah I definitely understand that America is capable of being self-sufficient. I long for the pre-WW1 isolationist policies if only because of their knock-on social effects. It would probably be better for the rest of the world as well if America turned its focus inwards.
Never forget that the US lost some billion dollars in food industry thanks to British Petroleum causing a spill in our waters causing tens of thousands of jobs to be lost instantly and a huge source of food gone for decades. And they got off with a fine that was 'promised' to go to those effected, but ended up being given to "Clean Water" programs and the Federal Government instead.
Which is why a huge amount of certain seafoods now are imported from farms in China to meet quotas, instead of bought directly from American families who are all still out of work.
Point is, its not just the low skill foreigners destroying American production.
I found it suspicious that BP immediately went on a public relations/damage control blitz all over cable TV, instead of using that money to just clean the spill up.
They claim to have spent almost 20 billion with a b dollars after it was all done in damages. I know hundreds of guys who lost their jobs, generation spanning career and eventually everything that depended on that income who never saw a dime.
They literally paid the Feds apology money, paid for a bunch of photo ops of ducks getting cleaned off, and then just went about their business.
Don't forget Alaska. There's a HUGE swath of Alaska we can basically colonize and utilize for the resources we need.. I think it was something like a century's worth of resources are available over there.
I don't know about colonise as there's places there with an entire month of darkness and there's that one place where the entire town is basically in on large complex that's it.
But resources yeah there's a ton, I think in terms of colonisation, it'd be better to bring that South African farmer magic to 'the great plains' areas you can no longer call any part of that a dustbowl again.