Tariffs will hurt South Carolina manufacturing

[Brian4Liberty]

Tariffs will hurt South Carolina manufacturing (https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/commentary/tariffs-will-hurt-south-carolina-manufacturing/article_473a61bc-27c7-11e8-98e6-8bf1abb907c4.html)
BY MARK SANFORD


The Civil War began inconspicuously. Among its participants in that first day were a couple of students from the local military college, and as they helped fire upon Fort Sumter, it goes without saying that they never could have imagined the conflict would grow and morph into America’s deadliest war.

This is true in a lot more than just military matters. As we all know, it’s easier at times to start something than to end it. Conflicts often start small and grow. Which brings us to the administration’s now official move on aluminum and steel tariffs.

This is a mistake because it won’t end here. These things never do.

If unchanged, this will prove to be a Waterloo moment in this administration’s attempts to put America first on the jobs front. But on this, we should all take solace in the Bush administration’s steel tariffs. They didn’t stay. After our allies begin to reciprocate in kind, Bush wisely put the steel tariff sword back in the scabbard. So too should this administration. If not, we have trouble coming our way.

Here are a few things to ponder as the administration charts its next step on tariffs.

Collective wisdom matters. This is why the Founding Fathers instituted checks and balances and a system of forced recognition to differing viewpoints. Indeed, if ever there were a time to consider the view of allies, this is it. They have said that they will be forced to retaliate, and doing so fits completely with the historical pattern of escalation in similar matters.

Were it not for this, then I guess Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 and the Tariffs of 1828 would have had great effect. But other countries reacted, and we weren’t living in a vacuum — just as we aren’t today. If anything, the world has become more connected, and this means the consequences of trade battles of the past may pale if the administration doesn’t decelerate and find an offramp to an increasingly long list of tariffs, ranging from solar panels and washing machines to steel and aluminum.

Doing unto others as you would have them do to you matters … particularly with allies. Moving forward with these tariffs means shooting friends because our allies list is not limited to Canada and Mexico. It’s therefore important we not treat vital trading partners as enemies.

The present course is fraught with peril. Canada, for instance, imports half of all the steel America exports. Why they would be incentivized to do so with the specter of tariffs hanging before them doesn’t seem logical to me.

Likewise, the current proposal ignores the realities of the global supply chain. BMW, Daimler, Boeing, and soon-to-be Volvo all have major manufacturing plants in South Carolina, and the components parts are shipped from around the world. For instance, BMW has a separate plant in Germany that builds its engines, which are then sent to Spartanburg for assembly in X5s.

The list goes on, but tariffs and trade impediments make America a less likely place for future investment if there is uncertainty on pieces of the manufacturing puzzle that these companies rely on a just-in-time and daily basis.

Destruction comes much faster than construction. A match and minutes can undo what it took years to build. The administration has been off to a good start in improving the playing field for jobs in America through tax and regulatory reform.

Why erase these efforts now with protectionism? This concept also applies to our trading system, and accordingly, we should all be on guard. It’s not perfect, but engaging and trading with the rest of the world has brought immeasurable good to each of us as Americans.

We have constructed this system of global commerce over the 70 years since World War II, and now some suggest simple remedies to parts that could be improved or changed. Much of what they propose in protectionism would represent a quickly thrown match in a long-built process and, in this regard, a mistake.

If protectionism worked, then why didn’t it succeed in the 1820s and 1930s? If it worked, why then would the stock market be reacting as it has to the idea of steel and aluminum tariffs?

Why would David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage (where one country can produce wheat at a lower cost than another and should therefore trade goods to come out ahead as opposed to everyone trying to grow it on their own) have stood the test of time since 1817?

The list goes on, but the point is a simple one — let’s improve trade agreements but not discard them. And let’s recognize that a tariff is a tax, and raising the administration’s increasingly long list of taxes in this instance is hardly the road to prosperity.

Mark Sanford, a Republican, is South Carolina’s First District representative in the U.S. House.
...
https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/commentary/tariffs-will-hurt-south-carolina-manufacturing/article_473a61bc-27c7-11e8-98e6-8bf1abb907c4.html

[Brian4Liberty]

Here are a few things to ponder as the administration charts its next step on tariffs.

Collective wisdom matters. This is why the Founding Fathers instituted checks and balances and a system of forced recognition to differing viewpoints.
...
Moving forward with these tariffs means shooting friends because our allies list is not limited to Canada and Mexico. It’s therefore important we not treat vital trading partners as enemies.


Is there an invisible elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring? Is it not a responsibility and power of Congress to determine tariffs? Why is the President making these decisions by himself? Is the President using the "national security" loophole to implement tariffs on his own? Any exception or loophole is still an example of Congress delegating it's power to the Executive.

Of course, this isn't terribly relevant when the Constitution and rule of law is ignored, so perhaps that is why there is not a lot of discussion of this.

[timosman]

Sanford is back in congress? Mark Sanford's disappearance and extramarital affair - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford_disappearance_and_extramarital_affair

[Anti Federalist]

BMW, Daimler, Boeing, and soon-to-be Volvo all have major manufacturing plants in South Carolina

Which would not be, had it not been for tariffs making it the economically smart move to manufacturing here.


And let’s recognize that a tariff is a tax, and raising the administration’s increasingly long list of taxes in this instance is hardly the road to prosperity.

No, it's not.

I'd be really in favor of this if, for every dollar collected in new tariffs, a dollar was eliminated from corporate or personal income taxes.

[Brian4Liberty]

Is Trump’s Tariff Plan Constitutional? (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/opinion/is-trumps-tariff-plan-constitutional.html)
By Rebecca M. Kysar - Jan. 3, 2017


Among the first steps being floated by the incoming Trump administration is a 5 to 10 percent tariff on imports, implemented through an executive order. It’s the sort of shoot-first, ask-questions-later action that President-elect Donald J. Trump promised during the campaign. It’s also unconstitutional.

That’s because the path to imposing tariffs — along with taxes and other revenue-generating measures — clearly begins with Congress, and in particular the House, through the Origination Clause. When presidents have raised (or lowered) tariffs in the past, they have tended to do so using explicit, if sometimes wide-ranging, authority from Congress.

The founders thought about this issue a lot: After all, taxes, as every grade schooler knows, fueled the colonies’ push for independence. So they wrote the Constitution, and its Origination Clause, to give the taxing power to the part of government that is closest to the people, thereby protecting against arbitrary and onerous taxation.

Tariffs were a big deal in the early days of the Republic. The framers believed that a tax on imports would be the country’s main source of revenue, and for a while, they were right: For much of the 19th century, tariffs dwarfed other revenue measures in contributing to the federal coffers, with income taxes not rising in importance until the 20th century. Throughout this period and even today, the House has closely guarded its turf over tariffs, and the Senate has uniformly acquiesced in this arrangement.

So strong is the connection between tariffs and the Origination Clause that early treaties involving tariffs were implemented with legislation that began in the House — even though Article II of the Constitution gives the president the power to make treaties (with advice and consent of the Senate).
...
While there isn’t an enormous body of Supreme Court case law on the Origination Clause, what little there is supports the understanding that the clause would cover tariffs. The court’s test seems to set a pretty low bar: While paying lip service to an inquiry of the law’s purpose, the court has instead looked at whether a measure funds the general treasury rather than a specific program — a hurdle that tariffs, the money from which almost always goes into the general coffers, would easily clear. Whether the tariff exists to raise money or punish bad trade practices is likely irrelevant.

Indeed, in cases where the court has analyzed the Senate’s power to amend tariff legislation originating in the House, the court has never questioned that the bills at issue fell within the scope of the clause, thereby implicitly accepting tariffs as “bills for raising revenue.”

Executive orders imposing tariffs would also disrupt the framers’ careful constitutional structure.
...
Mr. Trump would not be the first president to suggest raising revenue by executive action. Last year, President Obama, long criticized for his expansive use of executive authority, eyed unilateral actions on tax matters, with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voicing support.
...
Of course, Mr. Trump doesn’t have to act unilaterally; he has Republican majorities in both chambers that are eager to work with him.
...
More: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/opinion/is-trumps-tariff-plan-constitutional.html

[Anti Federalist]

Tariffs were a big deal in the early days of the Republic. The framers believed that a tax on imports would be the country’s main source of revenue, and for a while, they were right: For much of the 19th century, tariffs dwarfed other revenue measures in contributing to the federal coffers, with income taxes not rising in importance until the 20th century.

Why not tell the truth there, NY Times?

Income taxes were declared unconstitutional three times before the 16th Amendment.

That's why they did not "rise in importance".

[Anti Federalist]

Is there an invisible elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring? Is it not a responsibility and power of Congress to determine tariffs? Why is the President making these decisions by himself? Is the President using the "national security" loophole to implement tariffs on his own? Any exception or loophole is still an example of Congress delegating it's power to the Executive.

Of course, this isn't terribly relevant when the Constitution and rule of law is ignored, so perhaps that is why there is not a lot of discussion of this.

Good point, that's unfortunately moot, as you noted in your send sentence.

Nobody gives a fuck about constitutional restraints on the king/president.

Once again, the Anti Federalists were right, IIRC they specifically mentioned that the president's power under the CONstitution would grow to the point where he could unilaterally raise tariffs and excises without consulting congress.

[CCTelander]

Good point, that's unfortunately moot, as you noted in your send sentence.

Nobody gives a fuck about constitutional restraints on the king/president.

Once again, the Anti Federalists were right, IIRC they specifically mentioned that the president's power under the CONstitution would grow to the point where he could unilaterally raise tariffs and excises without consulting congress.


The Anti Federalists were right again? Imagine that.

[axiomata]

Is there an invisible elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring? Is it not a responsibility and power of Congress to determine tariffs? Why is the President making these decisions by himself? Is the President using the "national security" loophole to implement tariffs on his own? Any exception or loophole is still an example of Congress delegating it's power to the Executive.

Of course, this isn't terribly relevant when the Constitution and rule of law is ignored, so perhaps that is why there is not a lot of discussion of this.

It hasn't been ignored. When I brought it up a defender of Trumps tariffs claimed the executive tariff action was justified as a matter of national security. Even after I pointed out that the DoD said it only needs access to 3% of the domestically produced steel supply.

[fcreature]

It hasn't been ignored. When I brought it up a defender of Trumps tariffs claimed the executive tariff action was justified as a matter of national security. Even after I pointed out that the DoD said it only needs access to 3% of the domestically produced steel supply.

It doesn't matter that military consumption is only 3% of domestic steel production. The pro-tariff protectionists here will deny that we even produce steel anymore. So 3% of zero production is zero. Which means that our military has 100% less steel than it needs!

:confused:

Because... well any data that doesn't confirm their preconceived notions is fake.

[kahless]

The leftist media pushed the false narrative of 3% of domestic steel production for military consumption as the only issue. However the far greater issue the Pentagon indicated was the loss of national infrastructure such as bridges and the power grid affected by some sort of event that would limit our domestic steel capacity and ability to obtain foreign imports of steel.

In a time of war or an embargo we would be screwed. But of course a contingent of RPF always relies on facts from the lying leftist media while defending reliance on exports from Communist adversaries.

[Danke]

The leftist media pushed the false narrative of 3% of domestic steel production for military consumption as the only issue. However the far greater issue the Pentagon indicated was the loss of national infrastructure such as bridges and the power grid affected by some sort of event that would limit our domestic steel capacity and ability to obtain foreign imports of steel.

In a time of war or an embargo we would be screwed. But of course a contingent of RPF always relies on facts from the lying leftist media while defending reliance on exports from Communist adversaries.

They are still butthurt.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=77&v=UR_WopJ53Go

..

[Swordsmyth]

The leftist media pushed the false narrative of 3% of domestic steel production for military consumption as the only issue. However the far greater issue the Pentagon indicated was the loss of national infrastructure such as bridges and the power grid affected by some sort of event that would limit our domestic steel capacity and ability to obtain foreign imports of steel.

In a time of war or an embargo we would be screwed. But of course a contingent of RPF always relies on facts from the lying leftist media while defending reliance on exports from Communist adversaries.

China doesn't intend to stop until we have no steel industry and peacetime steel requirements for the military are much lower than wartime needs.

[Brian4Liberty]

It hasn't been ignored. When I brought it up a defender of Trumps tariffs claimed the executive tariff action was justified as a matter of national security. Even after I pointed out that the DoD said it only needs access to 3% of the domestically produced steel supply.

That "justification" would not be valid if Congress had not provided the loophole, thus giving away their power and responsibility.

[kahless]

China doesn't intend to stop until we have no steel industry and peacetime steel requirements for the military are much lower than wartime needs.

Exactly, but lets not let the truth get in the away of all the shilling for China, globalism and Trump bashing.

[Brian4Liberty]

The leftist media pushed the false narrative of 3% of domestic steel production for military consumption as the only issue. However the far greater issue the Pentagon indicated was the loss of national infrastructure such as bridges and the power grid affected by some sort of event that would limit our domestic steel capacity and ability to obtain foreign imports of steel.

In a time of war or an embargo we would be screwed. But of course a contingent of RPF always relies on facts from the lying leftist media while defending reliance on exports from Communist adversaries.


China doesn't intend to stop until we have no steel industry and peacetime steel requirements for the military are much lower than wartime needs.

While I share you concerns, we would be screwed no matter what if a traditional war occurred where an enemy could bomb (or missile) our infrastructure. Hard to see that happening without going to the nuclear option.

What is far more likely is a trade war which is already occurring, where an enemy works to eliminate our manufacturing base, and eventually put us at their mercy from a production/cost perspective. Then they can use all of that Fed Reserve paper that they so "foolishly" took from us and we got a great deal, and they will then purchase everything of value back from us using that same paper.

Who sells their real state to a Chinese immigrant or investor and says "hold on, I'm no sucker, I'm not taking those Fed Reserve notes as payment!"

[Swordsmyth]

While I share you concerns, we would be screwed no matter what if a traditional war occurred where an enemy could bomb (or missile) our infrastructure. Hard to see that happening without going to the nuclear option.

What is far more likely is a trade war which is already occurring, where an enemy works to eliminate our manufacturing base, and eventually put us at their mercy from a production/cost perspective. Then they can use all of that Fed Reserve paper that they so "foolishly" took from us and we got a great deal, and they will then purchase everything of value back from us using that same paper.

Who sells their real state to a Chinese immigrant or investor and says "hold on, I'm no sucker, I'm not taking those Fed Reserve notes as payment!"

And some here say we should let them take over America as a "free market" outcome.

All hail emperor XI!

[kahless]

While I share you concerns, we would be screwed no matter what if a traditional war occurred where an enemy could bomb (or missile) our infrastructure. Hard to see that happening without going to the nuclear option.

What is far more likely is a trade war which is already occurring, where an enemy works to eliminate our manufacturing base, and eventually put us at their mercy from a production/cost perspective. Then they can use all of that Fed Reserve paper that they so "foolishly" took from us and we got a great deal, and they will then purchase everything of value back from us using that same paper.

Who sells their real state to a Chinese immigrant or investor and says "hold on, I'm no sucker, I'm not taking those Fed Reserve notes as payment!"

In a time of mutually assured destruction I think traditional wars are less likely. I think the risk is higher of a third party using conventional weapons and not knowing who to blame after the fact.

[fcreature]

annnnnnnd... Right on cue!


Even after I pointed out that the DoD said it only needs access to 3% of the domestically produced steel supply.


Because... well any data that doesn't confirm their preconceived notions is fake.


The leftist media pushed the false narrative of 3% of domestic steel production for military consumption as the only issue.


They are still butthurt.

Must be easy to defend your position when all you have to do is claim all facts and data sources to be "leftist lies" (those "leftist" sources include Mises, btw) and to not offer any data or sources that support your own statement.

So I ask anyone who disagrees with that statistic:

If not 3%, what percentage of domestic steel production does our military consume?

And I'm still waiting on answers to:

Roughly what percentage of jobs lost in domestic manufacturing are related to automation vs trade policy?
What is the real output in United States manufacturing today compared to the past?

I would appreciate sources on any answers to the above questions. Unlike yourselves, if you actually present some credible data (hell, any data) I would be more than willing to reexamine tariff impact.

[dannno]

But of course a contingent of RPF always relies on facts from the lying leftist media

http://68.media.tumblr.com/338914e4736d1041dc64f93bc1200655/tumblr_orttucRhYW1u1ljrzo1_540.gif

[dannno]

So I ask anyone who disagrees with that statistic:

If not 3%, what percentage of domestic steel production does our military consume?



Why don't you just read the rest of kahless' comment? It was pretty freakin crystal clear.

[fcreature]

Why don't you just read the rest of kahless' comment? It was pretty freakin crystal clear.

I have. Nowhere are any of these very basic questions answered. Why don't you point them out for me?

[specsaregood]

Why don't you just read the rest of kahless' comment? It was pretty freakin crystal clear.

Whenever discussing such topics with anarchists, one must always remember that to the Anarchist the #1 goal is the destruction of the US govt. So arguments in favor of national security actually cause them to oppose it automatically.

[fcreature]

Whenever discussing such topics with anarchists, one must always remember that to the Anarchist the #1 goal is the destruction of the US govt. So arguments in favor of national security actually cause them to oppose it automatically.

First I'm a Chinese Communist sympathizer. Then I'm a leftist. And now I'm an Anarchist. Which is it?

In reality I'm just looking for answers to what should be very basic questions.

I'm told that the 3% consumption number comes from a "false narrative" pushed by the "leftist media". I am told that automation and technology is not a significant factor in job loss within domestic manufacturing. And I am told that US manufacturing is dying and output is low.

You are all happy to toss around ad hominem attacks, but the sad reality is not one person has been able to defend their statements.

So maybe you can answer me:

1) If not 3%, what percentage of domestic steel production does our military consume?
2) Roughly what percentage of jobs lost in domestic manufacturing are related to automation vs trade policy?
3) What is the real output in United States manufacturing today compared to the past?

You are free to make the argument that there are other national security concerns in relation to trade, unrelated to my questions above. But that is an entirely separate issue. If I'm told I'm wrong about a basic economic data point (and personally attacked for it), I sure as hell expect you to be able to tell me what the real numbers are.

[specsaregood]

First I'm a Chinese Communist sympathizer. Then I'm a leftist. And now I'm an Anarchist. Which is it?

I didn't call you either, so there is that.

You want to muddy the waters with arguing about numbers, that is fine, have at it; but I don't give a shit about numbers. I recognize that having a steel industry is vital to national importance and security. Tariffs wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm glad that somebody is trying to do something about it.

[fcreature]

I didn't call you either, so there is that.

You want to muddy the waters with arguing about numbers, that is fine, have at it; but I don't give a $#@! about numbers. I recognize that having a steel industry is vital to national importance and security. Tariffs wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm glad that somebody is trying to do something about it.

So in other words... you can't answer anything.

God forbid I expect an argument to be based on something other than feelings.

And I'm muddying the water!

:rolleyes:

[dannno]

So in other words... you can't answer anything.

God forbid I expect an argument to be based on something other than feelings.

And I'm muddying the water!

:rolleyes:

You seem to be the one putting in the artificial limiting factor, other people are calling you out, and then you are just ignoring them. That's not an argument.

[Origanalist]

annnnnnnd... Right on cue!









Must be easy to defend your position when all you have to do is claim all facts and data sources to be "leftist lies" (those "leftist" sources include Mises, btw) and to not offer any data or sources that support your own statement.

So I ask anyone who disagrees with that statistic:

If not 3%, what percentage of domestic steel production does our military consume?

And I'm still waiting on answers to:

Roughly what percentage of jobs lost in domestic manufacturing are related to automation vs trade policy?
What is the real output in United States manufacturing today compared to the past?

I would appreciate sources on any answers to the above questions. Unlike yourselves, if you actually present some credible data (hell, any data) I would be more than willing to reexamine tariff impact.

At this point, that's all they have left.

[specsaregood]

So in other words... you can't answer anything.
God forbid I expect an argument to be based on something other than feelings.
And I'm muddying the water!
:rolleyes:

Never claimed I could either.

[kahless]

In reality I'm just looking for answers to what should be very basic questions.

I'm told that the 3% consumption number comes from a "false narrative" pushed by the "leftist media".

This is what you chose to ignore even when others pointed it out to you.


The leftist media pushed the false narrative of 3% of domestic steel production for military consumption as the only issue. However the far greater issue the Pentagon indicated was the loss of national infrastructure such as bridges and the power grid affected by some sort of event that would limit our domestic steel capacity and ability to obtain foreign imports of steel.

In a time of war or an embargo we would be screwed. But of course a contingent of RPF always relies on facts from the lying leftist media while defending reliance on exports from Communist adversaries.



I am told that automation and technology is not a significant factor in job loss within domestic manufacturing.

My reply to you in other thread when you raised this issue.


I never denied that. If you have any concern like I do about things going to hell here in the US due to automation you would not continue to promote trade policies that further exacerbate driving businesses and jobs offshore.

[dannno]

At this point, that's all they have left.

No, that's just what we are constantly defending against.

[Origanalist]

No, that's just what we are constantly defending against.

Funny, but you have zero problems using the same sources if you think it makes Trump look good. And no, don't ask me to provide examples, I don't have the time to dig them up.

[dannno]

Funny, but you have zero problems using the same sources if you think it makes Trump look good. And no, don't ask me to provide examples, I don't have the time to dig them up.

So what if they report on it if it doesn't become part of their narrative?

There is all kinds of truth buried in the msm that never gets repeated and never becomes part of the narrative.

Didn't you ever watch 9/11 truth documentaries?

[fcreature]

My reply to you in other thread when you raised this issue.


I never denied that. If you have any concern like I do about things going to hell here in the US due to automation you would not continue to promote trade policies that further exacerbate driving businesses and jobs offshore.

You explicitly told me my numbers were wrong and never offered any follow up as to what the true numbers are. The studies I linked to showed trade policy as being the cause of only 13% of job loss in domestic manufacturing. Most of the rest was due to automation / technology.

I don't believe automation is causing things to "go to hell" here in the US (in fact, quite the opposite) but that is a debate for another day.

But if you agree that automation is responsible for a large portion of the job loss we're seeing, I'm curious how tariffs will help with that?

[CCTelander]

Funny, but you have zero problems using the same sources if you think it makes Trump look good. And no, don't ask me to provide examples, I don't have the time to dig them up.


In my own observations, any source that is critical of Trump, no matter how valid the criticism, is immediately labeled "fake news" or "Soros propaganda" by many of the Trump fanbois, and dismissed out of hand. No need to provide data to refute. Facts don't matter. In the rare cases where someone does provide contradictory sources, they are mostly sources that are even more suspect than the ones they're objecting to. (For example, the ONLY contradictory source anyone cited in my drone thread was US military sources, citing the very people whose misbehavior is under examination as a source to disprove that misbehavior. Also, all that was ever contested were the raw numbers. The fact that Trump continues to employ illegal, unconstitutional drone strikes, and that at least some innocent civilians are killed and maimed in the process was just glossed over.)

Any source that supports their position, no matter how suspect otherwise and no matter how much conflicting factual data one provides, is A-OK. No critical analysis necessary.

[kahless]

You explicitly told me my numbers were wrong and never offered any follow up as to what the true numbers are.

Here we go again.


The leftist media pushed the false narrative of 3% of domestic steel production for military consumption as the only issue. However the far greater issue the Pentagon indicated was the loss of national infrastructure such as bridges and the power grid affected by some sort of event that would limit our domestic steel capacity and ability to obtain foreign imports of steel.

In a time of war or an embargo we would be screwed. But of course a contingent of RPF always relies on facts from the lying leftist media while defending reliance on exports from Communist adversaries.


The studies I linked to showed trade policy as being the cause of only 13% of job loss in domestic manufacturing. Most of the rest was due to automation / technology.

I don't believe automation is causing things to "go to hell" here in the US (in fact, quite the opposite) but that is a debate for another day.

But if you agree that automation is responsible for a large portion of the job loss we're seeing, I'm curious how tariffs will help with that?

The studies I posted show otherwise and my point about things going to hell is the future of automation to come. Which again is why I posted this quote below.


If you have any concern like I do about things going to hell here in the US due to automation you would not continue to promote trade policies that further exacerbate driving businesses and jobs offshore.

Like I said in the other thread do you really want a tax increase to fund a UBI and to grow the welfare state due to where we are headed with automation?

[TheCount]

Like I said in the other thread do you really want a tax increase to fund a UBI and to grow the welfare state due to where we are headed with automation?

Why would the drive for greater automation stop due to tariffs?

[kcchiefs6465]

Why would the drive for greater automation stop due to tariffs?
What is ironic is that it will accelerate automation.