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

81–90 of 272 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#81

Post by xutopia »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #34

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 sla…

Your framing is ridiculous. Canada sends raw materials to the USA and purchases it back once transformed. If anyone has been bleeding it is Canada.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#82

Post by upboundspiral »

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-day_workweek

"As of July 2022, more than 80 UK companies and organisations are recognised as having permanently implemented a four-day working week"

"As 50% of workers claim improved productivity during the period, the Manufacturing Technology Centre (MTC) announced it will permanently provide a four-day workweek to its 820 employees"

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#84

Post by CamperBob2 »

nickpeterson wrote: post #22
budman1 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think we’re on course to be in really rough shape by 2028.

Exactly: just in time for somebody else to take the blame.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#85

Post by CamperBob2 »

kennywinker wrote: post #83
aliasxneo wrote: post #18

[flagged]

Tariffs are bad unless you’re a domestic producer of a good that has just been tariffed, and now you have less competition and can raise your prices.

Or, rather, you must raise your prices because Orange Foolius has tariffed your manufacturing inputs.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#86

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

throw0101d wrote: post #51
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?

Softwood dumping by Canada has been a huge issue for over 40 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_s...

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#87

Post by tzs »

saghm wrote: post #75
tzs wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So we've gone from "completely" to "partially", and the source is still just handwaved?

Here's the 1000+ comment discussion of this from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49419237

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#88

Post by phaedryx »

MattCruikshank wrote: post #31
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.

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,…

I wish we would call them "taxes on imports" instead to reflect what is actually happening.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#89

Post by upboundspiral »

hartator wrote: post #44
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #41

I totally agree trade should feel fair. If the US sends jobs, money, food or goods to other countries, then we shouldn't get garbage back. Tariffs are a way of warning other countries "don’t take us for a ride." They help American workers, factories and towns that were hurt when jobs went overseas. Tariffs shouldn't feel like hurting yourself for no reason. They are an important tool for standing up for yourself when…

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.

The idea that trade decreases the risk of war is old. It dates back to pre-WW1.

Think tanks around Europe were celebrating an "end to hostilities". And then WW1 happened. Trade does not prevent war. War is not always a rational consequence or act.

What does prevent war is a good standard of living. Eliminate resentment, and one of the great causes of war is lost.

Whether you need tariffs or not to ensure good standard of living I don't know. But the goal should always be to increase standard of living and uphold justice, tariffs or not.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#90

Post by dregitsky »

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.

I mean that's the point, no? Swing the hammer carefully at a nail or with maximum force at your own leg?

Or to drop the metaphor - much of the difference between good and bad policy is a difference in degree. So your counterargument here is valid against "all tariffs are bad" but I believe the point most are making is "the current admin's use of tariffs is bad" which makes your counter appear as a bad-faith mischaracterization.

Post reply on HN