As for the carve-outs, there isn't a single US industry that doesn't rely on imports from lower down the supply chain.
Higher real wages?
Do gains from trade not exist?
Comparative advantage: Country A has an easier time making X than Y, and country B has an easier time making Y than X, so country A should trade some of their Xs for Ys, and both countries end up richer.
I think there's some reasons to dial back interdependence a little, but I don't think it's a path likely to lead to greater wealth or real wages.
(And certainly no reason to make erratic changes at large scale, focusing on allies and neighbors first).
> And certainly no reason to make erratic changes at large scale, focusing on allies and neighbors first
Those people who benefited from globalization, and who didn't care about the working class, are exactly who brought us to this moment. And I have a huge shrug to those who are loath to accept that. If only it was attended to sooner by a more sensible administration.
This is an oversimplification, they can change incentives, and sometimes increase investment.
> lead to less activity
I do agree money will be divested from the US as they become more and more expensive to deal with (leading to "less activity"), and like I said this will rechannel the economy between the rest of the world. The trade-off is that the US becomes a manufacturer and exporter again (leading to "replaced activity"), some manufacturing capability is duplicated (leading to "more activity" though redundant/less productive), and the currency devalues.
But I'll admit I'm well out of my depth here, and I'm being booed off the stage. All the same, I don't think I'm wrong here. Protectionism isn't new, and lots of countries do it, it's just novel that the world's largest economy and bastion of free trade is doing it to such an extreme.
