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

111–120 of 275 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#111

Post by epolanski »

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…

I think the whole trade deficit argument to be beyond stupid.

1. Sending machinery, food, equipment in exchange of pieces of paper with national heroes printed on them should make you think who's benefitting really from the deficit

2. This is the 21st century, you can't ignore services. How many Office and Adobe licenses, credit card transactions, Netflix subscriptions, Hollywood movies and shows, advertisement space online, US companies sells and it doesn't enter the trade argument?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#112

Post by dvh »

Alt text: "You legs may have a comparative advantage at running, but we arms have a competitive advantage at swinging hammers, so unless you accept that we're the dominant limbs and stop hogging the oxygen, that running advantage won't be around for long."

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#113

Post by epolanski »

kennywinker wrote: post #77
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…

It’s reasonable to want to bring back american manufacturing. But the random, temper-tantrum, market-manipulation tariffs are not going to do that. America isn’t going to all of a sudden produce tonnes and tonnes of xmas decorations every year just because of a 50% tariff on all chinese goods that may or may not be around in 6 months. All that’s going to happen is xmas decorations are going to be more expensive. An a…

> It’s reasonable to want to bring back american manufacturing.

Capitalism produces where it is convenient to do so.

And no politician can change it.

You can try to protect very few critical sectors, but not whole "manufacturing" which by the way keeps rising in US since ever.

What politicians want to sell is the "good old times of well paying manufacturing jobs".

Robots have long come for those.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#114

Post by throwaw12 »

kennywinker wrote: post #77
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…

It’s reasonable to want to bring back american manufacturing. But the random, temper-tantrum, market-manipulation tariffs are not going to do that. America isn’t going to all of a sudden produce tonnes and tonnes of xmas decorations every year just because of a 50% tariff on all chinese goods that may or may not be around in 6 months. All that’s going to happen is xmas decorations are going to be more expensive. An a…

I don't think proposed plan with tariffs will be effective, because once scaled up and generating enough revenue, MBA will come and outsource everything, to make more money

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#115

Post by DoctorOetker »

this ignores evolution theory: the cells in the leg, arm, brain, etc. share the exact same genome variation, so selection pressure rewards coherent action in the interest of the individual organism.

thats not true for different players in some level-or-not playing field

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#116

Post by epolanski »

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…

Also, Trumps argument always ignores the bulk of US economy and exports: services.

Somehow we count shoes and timber but not gazzilions in financial and cloud services.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#117

Post by giantrobot »

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.

> which in most cases favours the US

Used to favor the US. Trump's policies and behaviors are ruining the US' reputation as a stable trading partner by demonstrating what damage can be done by an idiot with unchecked power. The rest of the world is going to permanently veer away from US services because it's not impossible (and sadly likely) another feckless imbecile will get put in charge.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#118

Post by slg »

catigula wrote: post #103

Expert economists working in both the Biden and Trump administration support tariffs. The difference is the dumb way Trump is doing them and a smarter way of doing them. Obviously, this comic completely misses that nuance and promotes a pseudoscientific idea that tariffs are somehow bad.

The doctor hits my leg with a hammer to test my reflexes. The comic isn't saying hitting legs with hammers is always bad.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#119

Post by bluecheese452 »

adverbly wrote: post #93
jccalhoun wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't really have any idea if tariffs are good or bad. tariffs are objectively* bad from a "big picture" perspective. There are some situations where they create winners and losers so that some people in some countries will win, but they always do more damage than good "overall"(or in aggregate across all parties). A link to the math behind it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss *in almost all cases...…

The “big picture” perspective is missing a bunch of reasons beyond just lowering consumption in the short term. For example even if you can buy cheaper food elsewhere it is still important to have a domestic food production industry.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#120

Post by close04 »

epolanski wrote: post #113
kennywinker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s reasonable to want to bring back american manufacturing. But the random, temper-tantrum, market-manipulation tariffs are not going to do that. America isn’t going to all of a sudden produce tonnes and tonnes of xmas decorations every year just because of a 50% tariff on all chinese goods that may or may not be around in 6 months. All that’s going to happen is xmas decorations are going to be more expensive. An a…

> It’s reasonable to want to bring back american manufacturing. Capitalism produces where it is convenient to do so. And no politician can change it. You can try to protect very few critical sectors, but not whole "manufacturing" which by the way keeps rising in US since ever. What politicians want to sell is the "good old times of well paying manufacturing jobs". Robots have long come for those.

Capitalism is great as long as it works just for you. When others learn to play the game and even outrun you, it’s time to put the finger on the scales. Essence of the free market.
Post reply on HN