It will take years to build the factories and supporting industry, coupled with many of these production lines will not come back staffed as they are overseas. It will be significant automation for non high ticket items that can absorb high production.    I think you could encourage manufacturing here by having an escalating tariff system. Similar to how the EV Credit works. Start at 5-10% and each year it increases a nominal percentage.    it wouldn’t be perfect but I think it would work better over the long term to have solid plans and expectations. 

Ford has a Towing guide available for all their trucks. You can find the difference between Gas and diesel engines and different gear ratios. I have a 2022 F350 6.7 diesel, SRW, 8 ft bed. I pull a 5th wheel that ways 12,000 lbs empty. In my opinion, 6.7 diesel is the only way to go.  

I see the core problem differently.  Just ask yourself why so much manufacturing shifted overseas during our lifetime in the first place?     For what it’s worth, if tariffs escalate back and forth as we are doing so far, it might as well be an embargo.  We are looking at China potentially being at 100% in a few days.  Somebody needs to find an off-ramp quickly that allows both sides to claim victory while saving face.

At one point today the estimate was a loss of $11 trillion, which is huge, but doesn’t reflect the big picture IMO.  Fortunately much of it reversed.  One expert suggested we could face an economic nuclear winter if cooler heads do not prevail prior to reaching a tipping point.  If that happens, $11 trillion could be insignificant.  My fear is getting to a point where neither side can back down, then what?   Agree completely that we need greater domestic manufacturing, but will companies be able to build new plants before politics change again?  Everything is so chaotic and there’s no assurance policies won’t change drastically.  Some speculate that he’s moving very fast so congress or the legal system do not have time to get involved.  However, opposition is inevitable and will likely come before new domestic plants are operational.  It will be a risk for manufacturers either way.  Will they build new plants like for BEVs to find the investment underutilized because new policies revert to greater global trade?  The problem with chaos is that it’s unpredictable and therefore impossible to plan for without incurring high or unnecessary costs.  As you know markets like stability and predictability.   Also agree that incentives for longer-term investment in new plants would have been far better.  However, I expect he probably doesn’t think he has the time to take that approach.  Policies could change drastically in less than 2 years, and major investment won’t be operational by then.  Granted, many Democrats want greater domestic manufacturing also.

So we pay higher prices until the tariff is lifted or we get an American manufacturer.   It’s a tariff not an embargo.

Yeah, last year was a good one but as a consequence of 2 new products.  The past years were pretty bad. Also, the sales in China last year were bad

I was referring to CNBC report that Musk took a public stand against Navarro’s tariffs ideology.  Report suggested that Navarro has had Trump’s ear on everything tariff related, but Musk openly questioned tariffs as they are being applied.  Navarro clearly does not understand that it takes a lot of time and capital to build new plants, something he downplayed during interview, or else he knows but is misleading intentionally for political reasons.  Either way countries like China know the US can’t stop importing necessary goods overnight.  I like Tesla technology though not a Musk fan, but on this I trust Musk knows far more.  He knows first hand how much time and money it takes to build new manufacturing plants.  Point is that if we can’t get by without other countries, and they know it, we have much less leverage than some people think.

The problem is Farley does not do adequate risk assessment (or ignores it) when evaluating major changes such as Oakville.  They misread the market, government regulations and by all accounts totally whiffed on design.  I’m sure there was a big upside had they been right on all 3.  But I don’t think they adequately considered the downside if they were wrong or the likelihood of that happening in full or in part.   Ive done these types of assessments.  You have the high risk high reward scenario.  The do nothing scenario.  And the in between scenario (in this case updating Oakville to C2 edge and Nautilus hybrids and less/lower volume EVs).  Then you assign probabilities to each one.     I think a good manager would have said doing nothing is not an option and high risk high reward is simply too risky because it burns too many bridges and wastes too many resources if you’re wrong.  Ford has never had a problem being second to a party.  Let others be the pioneers and if it pans out then commit the resources.   The in between has no downside to speak of other than missing out on some revenue if EVs ramped up exponentially.  Hybrid edge and nautilus would bring in good revenue and still turn a profit and you could potentially add other c2 products.  The plant would not be out of commission for over a year and you can still build the EVs somewhere else.   I wonder if Farley just said screw it Im swinging for the fences anyway or if his direct reports lied to him like they used to do before Mulally.

Go figure, when it had one of the best years in awhile....

Tariffs are used to rectify an inequity of some sort and to protect or encourage domestic manufacturing.  Trump sees them as a means to an end - to get concessions from other countries  and to encourage more domestic manufacturing which is already happening.     I would prefer to see incentives for manufacturers to build here but I don’t think these tariffs will last long.