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

51–60 of 272 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#51

Post by throw0101d »

0xy wrote: post #33

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. N…

> The Biden admin went after Canada repeatedly for unfair trade practices […]

What were these practices?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#52

Post by throw0101d »

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.

> This is a pretty reductive take.

Yes, because it's a one-panel comic.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#53

Post by sunshowers »

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…

Are you aware of comparative advantage? What matters is opportunity cost, not raw output. (Also, unit labor cost is wage per hour divided by output per hour, so the number of hours worked is not really relevant. In other words, longer hours make workers richer and not their output cheaper.)

This was worked out by David Ricardo 200 years ago. You still benefit from trade even if (granting the argument) you are worse at producing everything.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#54

Post by 0xy »

inigyou wrote: post #49
0xy wrote: post #33

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. N…

> completely destroys small business Citation needed, I'm in the EU and there is small business

https://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/eu-ppwr-pause-request-us...

This regulation forces very small businesses to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to comply and register in EACH EU country (what the hell's the point of the union, exactly?). Even if they sell only 10 widgets to Belgian buyers, they need to register in Belgium and pay the fee. Insane.

So a small business selling 5-10k of widgets in EU now has to pay 2-5k in business destroying regulatory compliance fees, putting them out of business. Incredible incompetence from the people who brought you ineffective cookie nag screens.

It's not possible to exist as a small business in the EU because they create regulations to destroy you.

Try creating a business in Germany. You need 25,000 euros to create a GmbH! In the US you can walk into the office in New York City and have an LLC for $9 per 2 years.

The EU is a nightmare hellscape of over-regulation. This is why there are essentially zero EU unicorns. EU bureaucrats support ONLY large and entrenched businesses.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#55

Post by tzs »

0xy wrote: post #33

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. N…

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

You are ignoring a massive difference. Trump wants balanced trade with each individual country. Pretty much everyone else who wants the US to reduce or eliminate its trade deficit just wants that to apply to total trade, not to each individual country.

The main reason money was invented was so you don't have to have balanced trade with each individual trading partner.

What is booking.com doing that violates DSA?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#56

Post by tzs »

inigyou wrote: post #49
0xy wrote: post #33

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. N…

> completely destroys small business Citation needed, I'm in the EU and there is small business

There was a big discussion of this recently here, which will give you more information, but yes, it is in fact destroying a large number of EU small businesses.

The EU has recognized this and they are scrambling to fix it in legislation due later this year.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#57

Post by kemayo »

inigyou wrote: post #42
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…

Actually you, like most of us, have a trade deficit with the grocery store and the movie theater, and a trade surplus with your employer. Which one is more enjoyable to have?

The experience of the trade deficit with the grocery store and the movie theater is more enjoyable, overall. I get films and ice cream and a good time out of it. From my employer I get a lot of sitting in meetings -- they have to pay me to make me put up with that!

My point is that reducing it entirely to "did I gain or receive cash-money from this?" isn't a particularly useful framing.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#58

Post by 0xy »

tzs wrote: post #55
0xy wrote: post #33

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. N…

> The only difference is to what degree they wield the tariff hammer, and in which direction it is swung. You are ignoring a massive difference. Trump wants balanced trade with each individual country. Pretty much everyone else who wants the US to reduce or eliminate its trade deficit just wants that to apply to total trade, not to each individual country. The main reason money was invented was so you don't have to h…

It operates as a monopoly and 10,000 hotels have sued it for anti-trust in Europe.

Despite qualifying for DSA thresholds, the EU pretends it doesn't exist and is not a monopoly. Because it's not American.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#59

Post by jimkleiber »

kemayo wrote: post #57
inigyou wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually you, like most of us, have a trade deficit with the grocery store and the movie theater, and a trade surplus with your employer. Which one is more enjoyable to have?

The experience of the trade deficit with the grocery store and the movie theater is more enjoyable, overall. I get films and ice cream and a good time out of it. From my employer I get a lot of sitting in meetings -- they have to pay me to make me put up with that! My point is that reducing it entirely to "did I gain or receive cash-money from this?" isn't a particularly useful framing.

I think it's what can happen when we shift more towards an exchange orientation and away from a communal orientation. Or in other words, as we see the world more win-lose and less win-win.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#60

Post by cryzinger »

ot wrote: post #2

Reference to Aesop's fable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Belly_and_the_Members

> The present understanding is that the tale's moral supports team effort and recognition of the vital part that all members play in it. In more authoritarian times, however, the fable was taken to affirm direction from the centre.

Oof.

Post reply on HN