To make the analogy even more perfect, the character should be holding a saw rather than a hammer.
Or a gun, because America is famous for its gun culture, and it would be more clearly "shooting yourself in the foot".
Trade (and Tariffs)
61–70 of 273 posts
Re: Trade (and Tariffs)
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Eh, I think every industrial society has independently arrived at something like 36-44 hours of factory time per week (plus overtime up to a max of something like 55 hours) , simply because that's the actual optimum[1]. While tariffs might work for other stuff [2], I think you're right that they can be a narrowly applicable scalpel, but plausibly you accidentally picked a bad example.
[1] Caveats apply. For example more advanced machinery with higher stress may necessitate shorter shifts; while highly motivated creative work might permit longer shifts at times.
[2] Adam Smith -for instance- was mostly against tariffs, though he identified certain exceptions such as national defense reasons.
Re: Trade (and Tariffs)
#63A 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 sla…
Put differently, Trump is explicitly attempting to destroy the reason the American stock market generally goes up.
Yes, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't know that and thinks flapping between protectionism and TACO is a brilliant strategy for achieving the best of both worlds rather than an idiotic strategy guaranteed to result in the worst of both worlds.
"Destroy American affluence so that we can't pay with assets instead of exports" is probably the worst conceivable way to unwind the exorbitant privilege of the American Economy. We could have spent that money helping people, instead we spent it on wars and tax breaks for billionaires. We could have spent that money on targeted industrial policy (the IRA and CHIPS acts under Biden were examples of this done right, just not at the scale we needed) but instead we are doing it the hard way. Sigh.
Re: Trade (and Tariffs)
#64A 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 sla…
Put differently, Trump is explicitly attempting to destroy the reason the American stock market generally goes up.
That is not what the user above you said.
They're explicitly pointing out that the US (and most of the western world) has abandoned the manufacturing sector of their economy, outsourcing work that used to employ millions of people to the developing world.
This is a trade-off that can benefit both countries, but, it is wise to consider both WHO benefits from this, and what the LONG-TERM implications of this entails. It's great for an investor class in America that has the capital to create factories in China, and it's great for China to take USD and start to employ their workforce. But, the question is whether or not this is actually a good thing for the American worker.
The rust-belt would certainly have an opinion on this. My father was a factory worker that was able to support a family on a single income, and when that manufacturing plant closed, it absolutely destroyed the finances of my family.
Re: Trade (and Tariffs)
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah, I think you've got it. Agreeing with you and continuing my thought:
If I had to guess at the comic author's intention...
It's commentary that the logic is flawed. If this is why you're doing tariffs, you're not using them correctly.
Not that tariffs should never be used.
Re: Trade (and Tariffs)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Booking.com literally is classified as a VLOP (very large online platform) under DSA: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/list-desig...
It's also not the only European company to be designated as VLOP, as you'll find some EU-based adult content sites on that page as well, but if you really want a European company that is inexplicably missing from this list, I'd go with Spotify.
Re: Trade (and Tariffs)
#67People 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…
I don't really have any idea if tariffs are good or bad. What I do know is that just announcing that they will go into effect with very little notice and then they won't go into effect and then they do but then they are decalared illegal because they weren't passed through the official methods isn't good.
Re: Trade (and Tariffs)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tarrifs are the worst decision a politician can make. The main reason we have open-ish border for people and goods is to reduce the risk of war. You are not going to wage war with a country that do business with. This undermines this idea.
Maybe letting other countries rob us blind is worse. The US has hardly any factories left. Is that "peace" or is that just losing, slowly? Open borders can be GREAT, but they can also be a point of vulnerability if we lose control of them
They're not robbing us blind. They're taking care of our manufacturing so that we can invest in things like the financial industry, fossil fuels, and AI.
Re: Trade (and Tariffs)
#69The 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?
It’s a silly question, since (short of a major life change or economic system change) you need the grocery store and the job to have decent quality of life.
You need to trade your labor for money, and you need to trade your money for food. I would argue that there isn’t a huge difference in the fundamental nature of those two trades. Framing them in terms of “trade deficits” is pointing out which direction money is moving in each instance, but fundamentally they’re both just trades.
Re: Trade (and Tariffs)
#70People 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…
I don't really have any idea if tariffs are good or bad. What I do know is that just announcing that they will go into effect with very little notice and then they won't go into effect and then they do but then they are decalared illegal because they weren't passed through the official methods isn't good.
It was _great_ for the companies that collected billions in tariffs and got refunds when the obviously illegal tariffs were declared illegal while training their customers to accept higher prices... that certainly won't go back to pre-tariff levels.