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

31–40 of 272 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#31

Post by MattCruikshank »

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.

It would certainly help if people wouldn't believe flat-out lies.

Like, "other countries pay the tariffs."

No. They don't.

How can we have nuanced conversation about the trade-offs, if the leader of one political party blatantly lies about a fundamental detail of how tariffs work?

600% reduction in the price of drugs?

We can't even start a discussion with people who believe this. At all. They reject any information, even their own knowledge of how numbers work.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#32

Post by MattCruikshank »

apexalpha wrote: post #26
edgyquant wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How many 100% tariffs do you have on every good from an entire country?

A scalpel is one thing.

Dynamite is something else.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#33

Post by 0xy »

People are very quick to make kneejerk reactions to tariffs while assuming the other guys have different opinions.

The Biden admin went after Canada repeatedly for unfair trade practices, and issued a blanket 10% tariff on Chinese goods.

The only difference is to what degree they wield the tariff hammer, and in which direction it is swung.

The one thing the current admin does have a point on is non-tariff meddling. Numerous countries make it almost impossible to sell goods in their countries while the same is not true in reverse, or they levy a high price in garbage regulatory fees (see the EU's new packaging identification directive that completely destroys small business), or in completely made-up fines for vague behaviors not even they can define (see the EU's DSA which is exclusively used against monopolizing American companies while completely ignoring monopolist and predatory EU ones like Booking.com).

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#34

Post by smallmancontrov »

A current account deficit is a capital account surplus. Persistent deficits shift the balance between Asset vs Export sectors, dumping the export sector and pumping the asset sector. Put differently, we can pay for imports with shit that we make or shit that we own -- and this has implications for people in our country who make shit vs own shit.

A better analogy for the trade deficit would be sitting on the couch slamming potato chips and observing the shift in our body away from muscles and towards fatty tissue. Should we be excited to see this example of specialization in action? Is it wrong to want to fix our diet and push our body composition in the opposite direction?

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300261448/trade-wars-are...

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#35

Post by kemayo »

poncho_romero wrote: post #28
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.

Look, my trade deficit with my barber is a real problem in our relationship. I need them to give me $20 for something, damnit.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#36

Post by piskov »

aliasxneo wrote: post #18

[flagged]

1985

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord

The United States proposed a deal to France, Germany, Japan, and Britain (the G5): you buy up your own currencies, the dollar falls, and in return we reduce our budget deficit, meaning you no longer have to effectively finance U.S. development.

The United States agreed to reduce its budget deficit and lower interest rates. The other parties to the agreement committed to raising theirs. In addition, West Germany agreed to cut taxes, while Japan agreed to allow the yen to appreciate. As a result, over the following two years the U.S. dollar fell by 46% against the German mark and by 50% against the yen. However, the U.S. government ultimately failed to reduce its budget deficit. Meanwhile, the sharp appreciation of the yen made Japanese exporters less competitive in foreign markets. In the United States, by contrast, the period following the agreement saw substantial economic growth and low inflation.

A classic American move: promise the world — we’re all in this together, we’re marching toward a brighter future — and then screw everyone over.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#37

Post by apexalpha »

MattCruikshank wrote: post #32
apexalpha wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How many 100% tariffs do you have on every good from an entire country? A scalpel is one thing. Dynamite is something else.

I was not aware this comic was a reation to new developments for US-CAN. I thought it was just a generic take on tarrifs and responded accordingly.

I agree the current US strategy behind tariffs is pretty retarded. Good example of fools trying to use a powerful tool.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#39

Post by cdrnsf »

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.

My dad worked 12 hour shifts for decades (4 days on, 4 days off). Anyone working 72 hours a week isn't going to last long.
Post reply on HN