Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trade (and Tariffs)

xkcd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 274 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#21

Post by edgyquant »

neaden wrote: post #11
apexalpha wrote: post #7

This is a pretty reductive take. If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. Unfortunately fools wielding a tool like this can cause a lot of damage, but that's true for any tool.

"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?

This is an example of “person pretends to not understand a simple thing thus naming conversation impossible”

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#22

Post by nickpeterson »

budman1 wrote: post #12
marcosdumay wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most impressive thing about Trump is that he managed to shorten up the feedback loops on an overwhelming number of his policies. You would expect the US industry to silently absorb his trade policies and only break decades after he leaves. Somehow, they aren't healthy enough for that.

Slack is expensive. At least it has a cost that is not always appreciated. Everyone has been optimizing to increase profits for decades. A 1950's US economy would have taken a lot longer to collapse.

I think we’re on course to be in really rough shape by 2028. I hope it’s rough enough to spark genuine change in our politics.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#23

Post by edgyquant »

apexalpha wrote: post #7

This is a pretty reductive take. If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. Unfortunately fools wielding a tool like this can cause a lot of damage, but that's true for any tool.

Unfortunately in our hyper partisan, sound bite, climate you can’t discuss the trade offs of tax policies anymore you either support the party line or you’re the enemy.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#24

Post by apexalpha »

neaden wrote: post #19
apexalpha wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a factory line where each worker makes 10 items per hour. In, say, China a worker doing 996 will make 720 items. Te average working hours in the Netherlands are 36 hours or so per week. Making 360 items. As long as there is free trade the Chinese factory will simply outproduce the Dutch one since they utilise their capex better. Obviously European workers can't be reasonably asked to compete in an open market…

So this is just not correct. First off a factory can run 24/7 regardless of the shift length, which is what will determine the total productivity. Second off it assumes there are no trade offs in terms of more errors or anything else by having longer shifts. Third off it assumes that factories in different countries are going to be equally effective with each other, instead of different nations/areas within nations s…

It's not a perfect example of course but the gist that tariffs do and should protect workers is true.

Tariffs aren't inherently bad, they're a tool.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#25

Post by kemayo »

The context here is that president Trump has an interesting view of trade deficits / surpluses. Specifically, he frequently cites cases where the US has a trade deficit with another country -- where the US is spending more in that country than that country is in the US -- as if that country is "taking money" from the US.

This is a bit peculiar, because it ignores the whole "the money we are spending is being exchanged for goods that come back to the US" part of the trade. I.e. it's not a problem that I have a "trade deficit" with the grocery store, because I have my groceries.

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/trump-brag...

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#26

Post by apexalpha »

edgyquant wrote: post #23
apexalpha wrote: post #7

This is a pretty reductive take. If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. Unfortunately fools wielding a tool like this can cause a lot of damage, but that's true for any tool.

Unfortunately in our hyper partisan, sound bite, climate you can’t discuss the trade offs of tax policies anymore you either support the party line or you’re the enemy.

I am European... Tariffs are completely normal here we protect our workers all the time.

It seems I've 'stung the wasps nest' on HN by not denouncing them outright it seems.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#27

Post by Kim_Bruning »

apexalpha wrote: post #13
neaden wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?

Imagine a factory line where each worker makes 10 items per hour. In, say, China a worker doing 996 will make 720 items. Te average working hours in the Netherlands are 36 hours or so per week. Making 360 items. As long as there is free trade the Chinese factory will simply outproduce the Dutch one since they utilise their capex better. Obviously European workers can't be reasonably asked to compete in an open market…

Right at first approximation you'd certainly think so!

At second approximation, the factory in that example might net make a larger number of items per hour because the workers are more alert and concentrated and make less mistakes. So the factory and the factory might actually be producing the same number of items.

Of course then there's more steps to this, and you need to start actually looking at systems and what you're optimizing for etc etc.

And, not everything is factories. For instance, if your operator (at eg. Smit or Mammoet) is operating a large crane that's lifting a 100 ton oil platform, maybe you'd prefer them to be wide awake and on the ball, regardless.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#28

Post by poncho_romero »

kemayo wrote: post #25

The context here is that president Trump has an interesting view of trade deficits / surpluses. Specifically, he frequently cites cases where the US has a trade deficit with another country -- where the US is spending more in that country than that country is in the US -- as if that country is "taking money" from the US. This is a bit peculiar, because it ignores the whole "the money we are spending is being exchange…

It also excludes money spent on services, which in most cases favours the US.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#29

Post by MeetingsBrowser »

budman1 wrote: post #14
neaden wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?

Although it is not a law of nature, and it is not linear across the hours.. In general if I work M-F more work will be done that if I just work on Monday morning.

It is clear that more work is done if you go from 1 day to 5 or 1 hour to 8, but that still includes plenty of time for rest.

Does the same hold for going from 5 days to 7 days or 8 hours to 16 hours?

A reasonable person should agree at some point adding more time will make people less productive due to lack of breaks, rest, etc.

Is it obvious where the line is? if so, where?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#30

Post by apexalpha »

eigenspace wrote: post #8
apexalpha wrote: post #7

This is a pretty reductive take. If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. Unfortunately fools wielding a tool like this can cause a lot of damage, but that's true for any tool.

I don't think the comic is claiming that all tariffs in any context are bad, that would indeed be a reductive, bad take. Given the timing and the metaphor of blood being sent to and from a limb, this is almost surely a reference to the tariff threats against Canada.

Oh this is a good point. I was not aware of new developments with US-Canada today, that makes the more-than-normal stingy reactions expected.

Sorry, I'm European and can't keep up with the erratic US Gov. I read a summary at the end of the week.

Post reply on HN