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

191–200 of 275 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#191

Post by epolanski »

triceratops wrote: post #167
epolanski wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. For the n-th time: manufacturing jobs are being lost to automation. Globally, not just in America. This is true in Asia as well. Manufacturing is facing the same fate of agriculture: machines and robots will keep displacing people. Nothing is going to stop it. 2. There is no such world where we'll choose to do things less efficiently to artificially save few jobs. And it's not about your TV being 100$ more expensi…

Everything you said is objectively true, except for one thing. > a company's duty is towards shareholders first, workers second. This is just like, an opinion, man. There's no reason a company has to be like that. It just benefits company management to act like it's an objective truth because their pay is stock-based.

> There's no reason a company has to be like that.

Law. Board and CEO have fiduciary duty towards shareholders.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#192

Post by smallmancontrov »

epolanski wrote: post #147
smallmancontrov wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, bringing the price of 50" 4k TVs down to $300 does not make up for lost jobs. That's an easy choice, which is why it was never presented to the American worker but rather foisted upon us by shareholders in pursuit of profit and a government content to look the other way.

1. For the n-th time: manufacturing jobs are being lost to automation. Globally, not just in America. This is true in Asia as well. Manufacturing is facing the same fate of agriculture: machines and robots will keep displacing people. Nothing is going to stop it. 2. There is no such world where we'll choose to do things less efficiently to artificially save few jobs. And it's not about your TV being 100$ more expensi…

No, Average Joe (Median Joe) is not a shareholder, asset appreciation is not a meaningful fraction of his income so policies which dump labor to pump capital hurt Average Joe on net by a wide margin. Shareholders are 30/30/30 top 0.1%/1%/10%. You and I may be in those categories, but Average Joe is not.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#193

Post by diego_moita »

cma256 wrote: post #165

This is hilarious and I agree. I think an under-appreciated aspect of all this is the complete schadenfreude from everyone. The story goes tariffs only hurt yourself but then we see retaliatory tariffs in response. "Oh yeah I'm going to cut off my leg to show you whose boss!" Very funny. And then you have people predisposed to higher-taxes who are contorting themselves over the economic cost of this tax while support…

> but then we see retaliatory tariffs in response. "Oh yeah I'm going to cut off my leg to show you whose boss!"

Agree. Much better to lower the tariffs on other countries that compete with the US.

If Trump wants to kill Canadian auto industry then we'd better open wide our markets to Chinese or European cars.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#194

Post by epolanski »

edgyquant wrote: post #152
epolanski wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Services can’t fight a war or feed you. A nation that wishes to be a real power must be able to guarantee it can feed and protect its people.

1. What's up with this obsession to be a "real" power? Plenty of countries in the world do just fine actually avoiding confrontation and minding their business. We should get back at competing at sports, culture, scientific achievements. I can understand the vanity of politicians making up enemies for the sake of it, a bit less what should be an educated crowd here to fall for this narrative.

2. We're talking about the US, the last country on the planet to have to worry about wars. First because it's blessed by geography and separated by two oceans from anything relevant. The US has fought many wars. None of them on their soil since the war with Canada 200 years ago. Second because it is always the aggressor, not the victim. Always. Third, it's the last country on the planet that has to worry about feeding its citizens or having the capabilities to fight a war. Be real and serious. Either in conventional or non conventional wars the US can destroy everything on this planet multiple times over. Drop all of that insecurity.

3. Even more the trade surplus of countries like Germany, Italy. China or Japan isn't good. These countries are working their assess to send stuff abroad, and getting pieces of paper in exchange. Those pieces of paper won't magically materialize tanks, trucks, drones, ships and food in case of a sudden need.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#195

Post by phaedryx »

MattCruikshank wrote: post #94
phaedryx wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Merriam-Webster: "The meaning of TARIFF is a schedule of duties imposed by a government on imported or in some countries exported goods." Apparently the dictionary is "woke." Wikipedia: "A tariff, or import tax, is a duty imposed by a national government, customs territory, or supranational union on imports of goods and is paid by the importer." Oxford Economics: "Tariffs are taxes imposed by a government on goods an…

I know what tariff means, I just think many people don't realize it means "taxing US citizens" and not "sticking it to some country we don't like"

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#196

Post by pjc50 »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #189
pjc50 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The insane thing about this discussion is that America does still manufacture a huge amount of products that are used all over the world, and the people that make them are paid salaries that are the envy of the world! Many of the people working in this industry are posting on this site! It's just that because those products don't come in boxes anymore but are distributed over the Internet people think they don't coun…

The balance of trade accounts for "export of computer services," because of course it does, and the account is in deficit in spite of these, because of course it is. The insane thing is that you tried to offer this "insight" without even bothering to check!

My point is that people are over focusing on manufacturing of physical goods while ignoring all the other aspects of the balance of payments, or indeed the internal US economy.

(Also, if you're trying to reduce imports, that messes up the balance of payments of your trade partners who get mad, and if you do it obnoxiously enough then other countries start substituting away your exports)

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#197

Post by jbstack »

daft_pink wrote: post #175

i'm a little bit confused by the current news. I thought the supreme court said the tariffs are illegal without congressional approval and the government started refunding the money. now the news is full of all these tarriffs about canada? What's the factual non-partisan reasoning by which trump has been found not to have the power to create tarriffs, but is still doing it with canada?

> I thought the supreme court said the tariffs are illegal without congressional approval

The ruling wasn't as generalised as that. What it said was that the president doesn't have the authority to impose tariffs under the provisions of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Trump had cited as the basis for some tariffs. That made those tariffs effectively illegal, but the ruling said nothing about tariffs which had other legislative provisions as their legal basis. The tariffs that you see today cite some other rule as their basis rather than the IEEPA.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#198

Post by Larrikin »

epolanski wrote: post #191
triceratops wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you said is objectively true, except for one thing. > a company's duty is towards shareholders first, workers second. This is just like, an opinion, man. There's no reason a company has to be like that. It just benefits company management to act like it's an objective truth because their pay is stock-based.

> There's no reason a company has to be like that. Law. Board and CEO have fiduciary duty towards shareholders.

If you search fiduciary duty on just this site you'll find hundreds of replies dating back years refuting your point.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#199

Post by mallets »

zahlman wrote: post #149

If tariffs are so obviously and universally bad, then why do tariffed countries respond with retaliatory tariffs instead of letting the first country shoot themselves in the foot and getting on with their own business?

Political pressure works? The immediate pain from tariffs is quite different from the long-term loss.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#200

Post by subarctic »

oceanplexian wrote: post #182

Please explain why tariffs a "good thing" to protect a French winery but a "Bad thing" when it is used to protect an American worker. Everyone loves the EU and Canada and their tariffs. In Canada for example American poultry and dairy have as much as 200-500% tariffs. Usually it is seen as a big win to prevent undercutting the working class with cheap foreign labor. But as soon as it has any association with Trump al…

I'd love it if chicken breast in Canada was cheaper. I think maybe there need to be some controls or regulation so meat coming from the US isn't lower quality than what we currently have but if the price went down i wouldn't complain
Post reply on HN