American Disruption

Uber, Disruption, and Tech vs Reality

• Some see Tesla as a better manufacturing analog to the “high-end first, then mass-market” disruption story; the Uber comparison is viewed as strained, especially for tariffs/manufacturing.
• Uber’s growth is debated: one side stresses heavy subsidy (billions burned, underpaid gig workers, tips, regulatory arbitrage); another notes per-ride losses were under $1 and claims the core service is simply better than taxis.
• Prices and value are reported as highly regional: in some cities taxis are cheaper, in others Uber is; users trade off cost vs time, safety, predictability, and app convenience.
• Several argue Uber’s tech is not that hard and its edge is brand, reach, and “default provider” status rather than deep technical moats.

Reshoring, Tariffs, and Trade Strategy

• A “rational reshoring playbook” is outlined: subsidize domestic industry, protect critical inputs from tariffs, tighten on finished goods later, streamline exports; current policy is seen as doing this backwards.
• Others argue broad reshoring is economically harmful, except for carefully chosen strategic sectors (e.g., chips), ideally across alliances, not just nationally.
• There’s skepticism that complex products like phones can be fully localized before overseas suppliers out-innovate; reshoring is expected to be more expensive and constrained by US full employment.
• Automation and 3D printing are mentioned as partial answers, but not a jobs panacea; the US is seen as having a job-quality problem, not a pure job-quantity problem.

Motivations Behind Tariffs

• Many commenters reject the idea of a coherent economic strategy and see tariffs as driven by ego, dominance, and “make others beg for exemptions,” not manufacturing competitiveness.
• Others point to ideological architects (e.g., anti–free trade, “reindustrialize America,” decouple from China) but note contradictions like tariffs on allies and inputs.
• A strong thread views tariffs as a regressive tax shift: away from income taxes, toward consumption via tariffs, effectively hitting lower and middle classes while cutting rich people’s taxes.
• Some frame this as authoritarian power-building: seizing de facto taxing authority from Congress, rewarding loyalty via exemptions, and undermining the rule of law.

Economic and Geopolitical Fallout

• Commenters worry about investor flight, higher bond yields, and erosion of trust in US institutions; attempts to interpret tariffs as a clever bond-market strategy are mostly shot down as confused.
• Tariffs targeted by bilateral trade imbalance are criticized as “legitimately stupid” metrics; they ignore multilateral trade patterns and supply chains.
• Several see parallels with Brexit: policies sold as striking at elites but likely to hurt the broader population and allies, potentially undermining US–Europe ties and indirectly benefiting Russia.
• From abroad, the move is perceived less as US-vs-China and more as US-vs-everyone, incentivizing other countries to seek alternatives to US-led systems.

Assessment of the Article and the Disruption Analogy

• Multiple commenters think the essay overextends Christensen-style “disruption” to historical manufacturing shifts that look more like standard low-cost competition than true disruptive innovation.
• The “ratchet” idea—that moving up-market makes it hard to go back down—is acknowledged as important, but many reject using it to justify chaotic, blanket tariffs (“dynamite in the workshop”).
• The piece is criticized as verbose, over-quoting, and under-summarizing, with some feeling it tries to retrofit a complex, rational narrative onto what is largely incoherent or purely political policy.