Why I'm not against tariffs.

[Just Joe]

Uber/Lyft: Yeah but who wants to pay $40 for a ride to the grocery store? These ride services may make sense in HCOL urban areas but anywhere else the trip to the grocery store will cost a few dollars in gas and wear/tear in a car a person already owns.

There are many moustachian ways to decrease the cost of transportation if gas prices were to spike in the USA. Choosing to live near your work place though that may be unobtainable due to property values. Meanwhile owning moustachian used vehicles where the purchase price was tiny, cost of fuel is what it is but a person isn't paying $500 a month payments. Even at $10 per gallon that's 50 gallons of fuel and 1500 miles of driving. Then there is carpooling - go shopping with a friend and share the cost of fuel. EBikes. Walking. Maybe we'd step away from the near-lux SUV and return to plain jane economy cars as seen in the rest of the world. The kind of cars that cost $8K new.

[gentmach]

Uber/Lyft: Yeah but who wants to pay $40 for a ride to the grocery store? These ride services may make sense in HCOL urban areas but anywhere else the trip to the grocery store will cost a few dollars in gas and wear/tear in a car a person already owns.

There are many moustachian ways to decrease the cost of transportation if gas prices were to spike in the USA. Choosing to live near your work place though that may be unobtainable due to property values. Meanwhile owning moustachian used vehicles where the purchase price was tiny, cost of fuel is what it is but a person isn't paying $500 a month payments. Even at $10 per gallon that's 50 gallons of fuel and 1500 miles of driving. Then there is carpooling - go shopping with a friend and share the cost of fuel. EBikes. Walking. Maybe we'd step away from the near-lux SUV and return to plain jane economy cars as seen in the rest of the world. The kind of cars that cost $8K new.

I thought I covered that with "New Urbanism." You reinforced my point though that the Auto industry will shrink though. Thank you for that.

[radram]

Here's my take. I run the accounting department for a factory in a Trump state. 30% of our costs are steel that comes from Europe. The steel costs have increased 20-30% since election day. There is not enough domestic capacity to by US steel instead. Many of our other components come from China. We are seeing those costs go up too. On top of that local unemployment rate is very low. Lots of illegal immigrants are leaving my state since we have a pretty hostile attitude to them. We don't knowingly hire undocumented workers, but it makes it harder and more expensive to hire and retain factory workers. So all across the board the cost of running our factory in the US is going up significantly. Over half of our sales are exported out of the US. Why would we keep losing money making parts in the US when we could just move the factory out of the country? Our finished parts could then be imported without tariff. The rich business owners would make a lot more money doing this and there would be a few hundred unemployed blue collar Trump voters. I would guess our Board of Directors will seriously consider doing this if these tarrif or worse are still in place in 12 months. If we don't do this then there will be no way for us to compete with foreign competitors that don't have tarrifs on sales outside of the US. Somehow this strategy will Make America great again and help our factories, but I cannot see how yet.

Looks like we can rule out Harley Davidson as your employer, as they didn't even wait 12 months:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/trump-backs-boycott-of-harley-davidson-in-steel-tariff-dispute/ar-BBLPiSW?li=BBnbfcN

[Cache_Stash]

Here's my take. I run the accounting department for a factory in a Trump state. 30% of our costs are steel that comes from Europe. The steel costs have increased 20-30% since election day. There is not enough domestic capacity to by US steel instead. Many of our other components come from China. We are seeing those costs go up too. On top of that local unemployment rate is very low. Lots of illegal immigrants are leaving my state since we have a pretty hostile attitude to them. We don't knowingly hire undocumented workers, but it makes it harder and more expensive to hire and retain factory workers. So all across the board the cost of running our factory in the US is going up significantly. Over half of our sales are exported out of the US. Why would we keep losing money making parts in the US when we could just move the factory out of the country? Our finished parts could then be imported without tariff. The rich business owners would make a lot more money doing this and there would be a few hundred unemployed blue collar Trump voters. I would guess our Board of Directors will seriously consider doing this if these tarrif or worse are still in place in 12 months. If we don't do this then there will be no way for us to compete with foreign competitors that don't have tarrifs on sales outside of the US. Somehow this strategy will Make America great again and help our factories, but I cannot see how yet.

Looks like we can rule out Harley Davidson as your employer, as they didn't even wait 12 months:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/trump-backs-boycott-of-harley-davidson-in-steel-tariff-dispute/ar-BBLPiSW?li=BBnbfcN

They were acting on plans way before tariffs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/business/harley-davidson-thailand-factory-manufacturing.html

[radram]

Here's my take. I run the accounting department for a factory in a Trump state. 30% of our costs are steel that comes from Europe. The steel costs have increased 20-30% since election day. There is not enough domestic capacity to by US steel instead. Many of our other components come from China. We are seeing those costs go up too. On top of that local unemployment rate is very low. Lots of illegal immigrants are leaving my state since we have a pretty hostile attitude to them. We don't knowingly hire undocumented workers, but it makes it harder and more expensive to hire and retain factory workers. So all across the board the cost of running our factory in the US is going up significantly. Over half of our sales are exported out of the US. Why would we keep losing money making parts in the US when we could just move the factory out of the country? Our finished parts could then be imported without tariff. The rich business owners would make a lot more money doing this and there would be a few hundred unemployed blue collar Trump voters. I would guess our Board of Directors will seriously consider doing this if these tarrif or worse are still in place in 12 months. If we don't do this then there will be no way for us to compete with foreign competitors that don't have tarrifs on sales outside of the US. Somehow this strategy will Make America great again and help our factories, but I cannot see how yet.

Looks like we can rule out Harley Davidson as your employer, as they didn't even wait 12 months:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/trump-backs-boycott-of-harley-davidson-in-steel-tariff-dispute/ar-BBLPiSW?li=BBnbfcN

They were acting on plans way before tariffs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/business/harley-davidson-thailand-factory-manufacturing.html

This story leads to a great example of the complexities of tariffs. Thank you for adding to the conversation.

Your article is only addressing motorcycle sales in Asia, not the European Union. Oddly enough, the article states that if the US had remained in the TPP, some of the tariffs for american made Harley motorcycles would have gone to 0%( from as much as 100% as it remains now). Since Harley was already planning an Asian plant, that might not have made a big difference to them. Had that agreement been struck 10 years ago, maybe the Asian plant would never been planned at all? Maybe it would have happened sooner? Who knows.

The newest development is that Harley stands to save up to 145 million in new steel tariffs through the 2019 calendar year by building bikes in Europe for sale in Europe instead of building them in the US and shipping them to Europe. The new steel Tariffs in the US do not effect sales to Asia very much, since those bikes currently come from mainly from India.

These are completely different topics, and I see no evidence that this new move is anything other than a cost saving measure of the new tariffs imposed by Trump. 

[ChpBstrd]

Here's my take. I run the accounting department for a factory in a Trump state. 30% of our costs are steel that comes from Europe. The steel costs have increased 20-30% since election day. There is not enough domestic capacity to by US steel instead. Many of our other components come from China. We are seeing those costs go up too. On top of that local unemployment rate is very low. Lots of illegal immigrants are leaving my state since we have a pretty hostile attitude to them. We don't knowingly hire undocumented workers, but it makes it harder and more expensive to hire and retain factory workers. So all across the board the cost of running our factory in the US is going up significantly. Over half of our sales are exported out of the US. Why would we keep losing money making parts in the US when we could just move the factory out of the country? Our finished parts could then be imported without tariff. The rich business owners would make a lot more money doing this and there would be a few hundred unemployed blue collar Trump voters. I would guess our Board of Directors will seriously consider doing this if these tarrif or worse are still in place in 12 months. If we don't do this then there will be no way for us to compete with foreign competitors that don't have tarrifs on sales outside of the US. Somehow this strategy will Make America great again and help our factories, but I cannot see how yet.

Looks like we can rule out Harley Davidson as your employer, as they didn't even wait 12 months:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/trump-backs-boycott-of-harley-davidson-in-steel-tariff-dispute/ar-BBLPiSW?li=BBnbfcN

They were acting on plans way before tariffs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/business/harley-davidson-thailand-factory-manufacturing.html

This story leads to a great example of the complexities of tariffs. Thank you for adding to the conversation.

Your article is only addressing motorcycle sales in Asia, not the European Union. Oddly enough, the article states that if the US had remained in the TPP, some of the tariffs for american made Harley motorcycles would have gone to 0%( from as much as 100% as it remains now). Since Harley was already planning an Asian plant, that might not have made a big difference to them. Had that agreement been struck 10 years ago, maybe the Asian plant would never been planned at all? Maybe it would have happened sooner? Who knows.

The newest development is that Harley stands to save up to 145 million in new steel tariffs through the 2019 calendar year by building bikes in Europe for sale in Europe instead of building them in the US and shipping them to Europe. The new steel Tariffs in the US do not effect sales to Asia very much, since those bikes currently come from mainly from India.

These are completely different topics, and I see no evidence that this new move is anything other than a cost saving measure of the new tariffs imposed by Trump.

Look at it this way - if the rest of the world continues to reduce trade barriers between themselves, and the U.S. continues down the path of being a market where it costs extra to ship anything in or out, where should I build my next factory integrated supply chain? Should I build in a location where I can sell to the world (e.g. Mexico, China, E.U, Thailand) or in the U.S. where I will *guaranteed* never produce a competitive export because of the combination of high costs and high tariffs?

The answer is, I build the factory outside the U.S. because all other producers are facing the same dilemma. American consumers will just have to pay the tariff. They'll be a shrinking market anyway.

[radram]

Look at it this way - if the rest of the world continues to reduce trade barriers between themselves, and the U.S. continues down the path of being a market where it costs extra to ship anything in or out, where should I build my next factory integrated supply chain? Should I build in a location where I can sell to the world (e.g. Mexico, China, E.U, Thailand) or in the U.S. where I will *guaranteed* never produce a competitive export because of the combination of high costs and high tariffs?

The answer is, I build the factory outside the U.S. because all other producers are facing the same dilemma. American consumers will just have to pay the tariff. They'll be a shrinking market anyway.

My comment was simply that not all companies will wait to move manufacture outside of the US to avoid the new steel tariff's as long as the one bognish works for, as referenced by my article regarding Harley Davidson. Cashe_stache referenced an article that he/she believed provided evidence Harley was just going to do that anyway, and it was in fact their long range plan. I disagree with that assessment based on his/her article because it was referencing a separate part of the world and separate tariffs entirely.

I believe tariffs imposed on our goods by foreign countries, like the Harley in Asia situation cause manufacture to leave the US.

I also believe tariffs imposed by the US on foreign raw materials used my US manufacturers also causes manufacture to leave the US, like the Harley situation in the EU. I, like bognish, can not yet see how this will ever benefit the US worker.

I also do not see how imposing one tariff can possibly help to eliminate the other, especially while at the same time you threaten to tear up other agreements your nation has done in the past. It looks to me that Trump is well within his right to do so as president. I just do not agree with the decision to do so. In the long term, I believe it destroys goodwill build up for decades, across multiple administrations, Republican and Democrat alike.

It seems like the only point is to "shake things up". If we really are the greatest nation to ever live, then why on earth do we want to shake things up? Do we want things to be better-ER? I still do not see how all this helps.

[accolay]

Amusing and relevant:

I think John Oliver should be required watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etkd57lPfPU

[bognish]

Trumps Nafta comment today about putting a tariff on Canada's cars "we take in a lot of money the next day" drives me crazy. Where does he think he is making this profit from? Its a tax Americans are paying and getting nothing in return but higher prices. He is then talking about taking this extra money and giving it to soybean farmers who have been hurt by counter tariffs from China. Subsidize South Dakota farmers with higher prices on every American consumer. Sounds like a logical plan to me...

[Fireball]

Amusing and relevant:

I think John Oliver should be required watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etkd57lPfPU

"That's not how trade negotiations work ya dumb #$&@+)&(+@."

LOL. Love his monologues.

[gentmach]

Look at it this way - if the rest of the world continues to reduce trade barriers between themselves, and the U.S. continues down the path of being a market where it costs extra to ship anything in or out, where should I build my next factory integrated supply chain? Should I build in a location where I can sell to the world (e.g. Mexico, China, E.U, Thailand) or in the U.S. where I will *guaranteed* never produce a competitive export because of the combination of high costs and high tariffs?

The answer is, I build the factory outside the U.S. because all other producers are facing the same dilemma. American consumers will just have to pay the tariff. They'll be a shrinking market anyway.

It seems like the only point is to "shake things up". If we really are the greatest nation to ever live, then why on earth do we want to shake things up? Do we want things to be better-ER? I still do not see how all this helps.

Just because we are king of the hill now doesn't mean we always will be. We also have to be willing to adapt to changing circumstances.

I took a renewable energy course in college where my teacher claimed that we would be out of oil by 2030. I have also heard that we have hundreds of years worth of oil left.

Either way we will run out of oil at some point. Without oil we no longer have cheap energy to sustain our lifestyle. So our quality of life is going to be lowered accordingly.

Since ecological arguments hit a wall with people, you simulate the effects through tariffs. You start forcing companies to rebuild America's manufacturing base to cut shipping costs. Then when the real crisis is upon us everyone is ready.

This is just a perspective. It is some lateral thinking on the subject.

[toganet]

Look at it this way - if the rest of the world continues to reduce trade barriers between themselves, and the U.S. continues down the path of being a market where it costs extra to ship anything in or out, where should I build my next factory integrated supply chain? Should I build in a location where I can sell to the world (e.g. Mexico, China, E.U, Thailand) or in the U.S. where I will *guaranteed* never produce a competitive export because of the combination of high costs and high tariffs?

The answer is, I build the factory outside the U.S. because all other producers are facing the same dilemma. American consumers will just have to pay the tariff. They'll be a shrinking market anyway.

It seems like the only point is to "shake things up". If we really are the greatest nation to ever live, then why on earth do we want to shake things up? Do we want things to be better-ER? I still do not see how all this helps.

Just because we are king of the hill now doesn't mean we always will be. We also have to be willing to adapt to changing circumstances.

I took a renewable energy course in college where my teacher claimed that we would be out of oil by 2030. I have also heard that we have hundreds of years worth of oil left.

Either way we will run out of oil at some point. Without oil we no longer have cheap energy to sustain our lifestyle. So our quality of life is going to be lowered accordingly.

Since ecological arguments hit a wall with people, you simulate the effects through tariffs. You start forcing companies to rebuild America's manufacturing base to cut shipping costs. Then when the real crisis is upon us everyone is ready.

This is just a perspective. It is some lateral thinking on the subject.

I've been thinking about this as well, as in how there is a triangulated solution to the problem of reduced manufacturing employment combined with the impact of fossil fuel consumption and eventual depletion.  This solution sits in a blindspot of sorts, due to the coalition that would need to form to achieve it.

In short, picture a world in which shipping anything long distance is simply too expensive (whether in direct cost* or calculated environmental impact) and so anything produced within ~500 miles is significantly cheaper, and distance directly impacts the cost of finished goods, especially. 

If this were the case, manufacturing jobs could return to where the consumers are.  This would reinforce urbanization in some ways, but perhaps in a more distributed manner than today (as in, more larger cities in the interior of the country).

Globalization of tangible goods is really only possible in a high-energy economy, which is currently only feasible with fossil fuels.  Whether it's lack of supply or realization of environmental impact that forces the change only matters in how the transition is handled.

*This cost could be artificially applied by a form of tariff, but probably more effectively as a sort of VAT based on transportation cost.

[Prairie Stash]

I'm not entirely sure that the US would make much money selling dairy to Canada even without the tariffs to be honest.

It was mentioned earlier, but in Canada you're not allowed to sell dairy products pumped full of growth hormones as is typical of US dairy.  There are different standards in different provinces, but antibiotic usage in Canada is much more strictly measured and tested than in the US.  Because of this, most of the milk currently made in the US wouldn't be eligible for sale across the border anyway . . . so I don't believe that there would be significant benefit to Canadian consumers.

Which is all the more reason to remove the tariffs! Very few mass producers in the USA are interested in producing to those standards, but some do already. Why not let them in? The Canadian consumer would benefit through lower prices and greater selection.

The way that the tariffs on dairy in Canada is implemented, it is just a government enforced wealth transfer from the consumer to the producer.

My dad's a farmer, and I've had a long time to think about Canada's rather odd milk quota system.  It has quite a history, starting back in the 50s I believe as a supply management idea.  There are arguments for and against it, but generally the one given for it is thus:

If the US was given full, unfettered access to Canadian dairy markets, there would no longer be any Canadian dairy farmers.  I bet that within a year they would entirely be wiped out.  This becomes a pretty serious problem if several years down the road there's a shortage in milk products in the US.  You can't just create a new dairy farm in a couple months to meet that demand.  That's why we have supply management on several food items (dairy, eggs, chicken).

It's also important to note that the US has always had tariffs on dairy going into the country from Canada (in the range of 17 - 20% if I remember correctly).  It's weird that Trump is demanding an end to Canadian tariffs but staying quiet about the US ones.

My Dad was a dairy farmer, we lost the farm when I was 12. At the time there was consolidation in the industry, you had to buy quota to expand or you left. Few people remember the losers of the quota system, 90% of dairy farms have closed over the last 30 years. Not everyone in the industry enjoys the quota system, just the 10% that remain. The farmer who bought our quota closed 6 years later.

The argument for Quota is interesting when you compare it to pork and beef which are integrated with the USA. Eggs and chicken are quota, but pork isn't; no one is able to explain that logic. Tell me why porkchops are exempt but nuggets are sacred; my answer is the chicken council is hiding behind the dairy council because they know they don't have a drumstick to stand on. Pig production takes longer to ramp up then chicken, as witnessed in the swine fu and avian flu epidemics, both of which are recent events.

I gurantee dairy would remain in Canada, but not every dairy would survive. The cost to ship 2% milk from wisconsin to my house prevents whole milk making it to my local grocery store, theres a natural protection. Cheese on the other hand is dense, that's the market Americans are after.

When dealing with low value products that are heavy such as milk, logistics is a big cost. Sourcing them near the end user makes sense, just to save on shipping costs. Evrey province in Canada has Chicken, Dairy and eggs, because of shipping costs between provinces. Wisonsin and California have massive Dairies, but I bet every state has some dairy production for the same reason that every province does.

[gentmach]

Look at it this way - if the rest of the world continues to reduce trade barriers between themselves, and the U.S. continues down the path of being a market where it costs extra to ship anything in or out, where should I build my next factory integrated supply chain? Should I build in a location where I can sell to the world (e.g. Mexico, China, E.U, Thailand) or in the U.S. where I will *guaranteed* never produce a competitive export because of the combination of high costs and high tariffs?

The answer is, I build the factory outside the U.S. because all other producers are facing the same dilemma. American consumers will just have to pay the tariff. They'll be a shrinking market anyway.

It seems like the only point is to "shake things up". If we really are the greatest nation to ever live, then why on earth do we want to shake things up? Do we want things to be better-ER? I still do not see how all this helps.

Just because we are king of the hill now doesn't mean we always will be. We also have to be willing to adapt to changing circumstances.

I took a renewable energy course in college where my teacher claimed that we would be out of oil by 2030. I have also heard that we have hundreds of years worth of oil left.

Either way we will run out of oil at some point. Without oil we no longer have cheap energy to sustain our lifestyle. So our quality of life is going to be lowered accordingly.

Since ecological arguments hit a wall with people, you simulate the effects through tariffs. You start forcing companies to rebuild America's manufacturing base to cut shipping costs. Then when the real crisis is upon us everyone is ready.

This is just a perspective. It is some lateral thinking on the subject.

I've been thinking about this as well, as in how there is a triangulated solution to the problem of reduced manufacturing employment combined with the impact of fossil fuel consumption and eventual depletion.  This solution sits in a blindspot of sorts, due to the coalition that would need to form to achieve it.

In short, picture a world in which shipping anything long distance is simply too expensive (whether in direct cost* or calculated environmental impact) and so anything produced within ~500 miles is significantly cheaper, and distance directly impacts the cost of finished goods, especially. 

If this were the case, manufacturing jobs could return to where the consumers are.  This would reinforce urbanization in some ways, but perhaps in a more distributed manner than today (as in, more larger cities in the interior of the country).

Globalization of tangible goods is really only possible in a high-energy economy, which is currently only feasible with fossil fuels.  Whether it's lack of supply or realization of environmental impact that forces the change only matters in how the transition is handled.

*This cost could be artificially applied by a form of tariff, but probably more effectively as a sort of VAT based on transportation cost.

It will take experimentation with bottom-up solutions. There will be successes. There will be failures. But unique solutions will have to be found for every town.

Coalitions will form as practicality demands. It is easy to be a hardliner on a single issue when all your other needs are met. But as things shift people will have to compromise or be left behind.

[ChpBstrd]

Look at it this way - if the rest of the world continues to reduce trade barriers between themselves, and the U.S. continues down the path of being a market where it costs extra to ship anything in or out, where should I build my next factory integrated supply chain? Should I build in a location where I can sell to the world (e.g. Mexico, China, E.U, Thailand) or in the U.S. where I will *guaranteed* never produce a competitive export because of the combination of high costs and high tariffs?

The answer is, I build the factory outside the U.S. because all other producers are facing the same dilemma. American consumers will just have to pay the tariff. They'll be a shrinking market anyway.

It seems like the only point is to "shake things up". If we really are the greatest nation to ever live, then why on earth do we want to shake things up? Do we want things to be better-ER? I still do not see how all this helps.

Just because we are king of the hill now doesn't mean we always will be. We also have to be willing to adapt to changing circumstances.

I took a renewable energy course in college where my teacher claimed that we would be out of oil by 2030. I have also heard that we have hundreds of years worth of oil left.

Either way we will run out of oil at some point. Without oil we no longer have cheap energy to sustain our lifestyle. So our quality of life is going to be lowered accordingly.

Since ecological arguments hit a wall with people, you simulate the effects through tariffs. You start forcing companies to rebuild America's manufacturing base to cut shipping costs. Then when the real crisis is upon us everyone is ready.

This is just a perspective. It is some lateral thinking on the subject.

I've been thinking about this as well, as in how there is a triangulated solution to the problem of reduced manufacturing employment combined with the impact of fossil fuel consumption and eventual depletion.  This solution sits in a blindspot of sorts, due to the coalition that would need to form to achieve it.

In short, picture a world in which shipping anything long distance is simply too expensive (whether in direct cost* or calculated environmental impact) and so anything produced within ~500 miles is significantly cheaper, and distance directly impacts the cost of finished goods, especially. 

If this were the case, manufacturing jobs could return to where the consumers are.  This would reinforce urbanization in some ways, but perhaps in a more distributed manner than today (as in, more larger cities in the interior of the country).

Globalization of tangible goods is really only possible in a high-energy economy, which is currently only feasible with fossil fuels.  Whether it's lack of supply or realization of environmental impact that forces the change only matters in how the transition is handled.

*This cost could be artificially applied by a form of tariff, but probably more effectively as a sort of VAT based on transportation cost.

It will take experimentation with bottom-up solutions. There will be successes. There will be failures. But unique solutions will have to be found for every town.

Coalitions will form as practicality demands. It is easy to be a hardliner on a single issue when all your other needs are met. But as things shift people will have to compromise or be left behind.

If energy became expensive, I would expect producers to utilize more barge and rail traffic, and arrange fewer miles via diesel trucks and especially air freight. This would be a good fallback for the rail and barge industries, which are currently very dependent on moving fossil fuels around. It would be bad news for producers and consumers though, because these less-energy-intensive modes generally take longer to deliver to their endpoints, this requiring more inventory to be held in transit, which consumes more working capital, which means higher prices in addition to the effect of higher fuel costs!

Or maybe electric trucks, solar roofs, alge-based oils, work-from-home software, and dynalift aircraft will enable us to continue using energy at increasing levels even as the costs of fossil fuels increase.

[pecunia]

ChpBstrd:

"If energy became expensive, I would expect producers to utilize more barge and rail traffic, and arrange fewer miles via diesel trucks and especially air freight. This would be a good fallback for the rail and barge industries, which are currently very dependent on moving fossil fuels around. It would be bad news for producers and consumers though, because these less-energy-intensive modes generally take longer to deliver to their endpoints, this requiring more inventory to be held in transit, which consumes more working capital, which means higher prices in addition to the effect of higher fuel costs!

Or maybe electric trucks, solar roofs, alge-based oils, work-from-home software, and dynalift aircraft will enable us to continue using energy at increasing levels even as the costs of fossil fuels increase."

There are thousands of years left of emission free Thorium and Uranium to be used as fuel for future nuclear power.  You needn't worry about Peak Oil.  Many good jobs would be created enhancing the electric infrastructure to provide emissions free shipping and transportation.

Getting back to the subject at hand, this would be domestic energy.  The fuel is here.  The jobs would be here.  The money would stay here.  No need for extra military adventures to protect oil trade routes.  No worries about tariffs.  The windmills could be kept as monuments.  I like windmills.