> My friends in the midwest say that there's actually exemptions on tariffs when it comes to buying the manufacturing equipment itself, to avoid the issues you're talking about.
This is a massive hand-wave and only applies to companies that have an in with the administration. If you're a small/medium-size business that doesn't have a budget for "government relations," or you're in a field like renewable energy or EVs where the admin doesn't like the vibes? Too bad for you.
> Those same friends expect purchase amounts to increase once America starts producing more on its own.
Yes they will, and aggregate output will decrease because producers are now spending more money on worse domestic substitutes for foreign products. Also, you're now shoveling corporate welfare to those new domestic producers, so they have no incentive to step up their game and innovate. (If you want an example of this look at the consistent failure of US automakers to compete globally, because tariffs incentivize them to optimize for building pickup trucks domestically.)
Import substitution has been tried many times before, it doesn't work.
The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!
Customs has detailed processes that track cars etc that travel back and forth a few times as parts are added that tracks the value add/country made in this production process - it adds cost and often the new tariffs are quite large and must be paid on the spot and brokerage process is far more detailed = adds fees$$
Can you help me understand your last point? As far as I'm aware the end goal is Americans producing for Americans. To reference your point, smaller European cars aren't built for the unique, rugged American terrain, as well as the massive distances that Americans drive every day. I'm not sure where innovation could come from by building towards a European market.
> smaller European cars aren't built for the unique, rugged American terrain
I’m not sure if you’ve driven in the US, but we have paved roads here, too! And an excellent interstate highway system! Driving around the unique, rugged American terrain is left for car commercials and a very small percentage of Americans.
"smaller European cars aren't built for the unique, rugged American terrain, as well as the massive distances that Americans drive every day. "
They're not all hicks waving submachine guns with a beer in the other hand standing on the back of a Ranchero driving over sand dunes after fleeing mexican families.
And, the typical stereotype of "European cars are all small."
Oh, boy.
What unique, rugged terrain? The vast, vast majority of drivers are driving 100% on paved roads. Under which circumstances are the rare exceptions not properly served by existing off-road products?
This is a massive hand-wave and only applies to companies that have an in with the administration. If you're a small/medium-size business that doesn't have a budget for "government relations," or you're in a field like renewable energy or EVs where the admin doesn't like the vibes? Too bad for you.
> Those same friends expect purchase amounts to increase once America starts producing more on its own.
Yes they will, and aggregate output will decrease because producers are now spending more money on worse domestic substitutes for foreign products. Also, you're now shoveling corporate welfare to those new domestic producers, so they have no incentive to step up their game and innovate. (If you want an example of this look at the consistent failure of US automakers to compete globally, because tariffs incentivize them to optimize for building pickup trucks domestically.)
Import substitution has been tried many times before, it doesn't work.