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

231–240 of 275 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#231

Post by preg_match »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #84
nickpeterson wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That depends, Trump certainly wants a fourth term (yes, fourth, he's counting the one that was "stolen").

I think, realistically, the limiting factor won't be the politics, it will be his health. He's 80 years old.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#232

Post by otterley »

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.

Services feed me every day, yet I don’t grow my own food. I trade for it, using currency as an intermediary.

What I can do for myself, nations do every single day.

I don’t know what this “real power” language is about, but it sounds like claptrap to me.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#233

Post by otterley »

edgyquant wrote: post #219
epolanski wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

1. This mindset is a result of American hegemony. Before WW2, before the 90s really, no one thought this was a possibility. 2. Right but if it is dependent on a foreign nation for something vital that means it no longer can confidently assert its independence 3. Don’t disagree at all

The world has had interdependencies since trade began centuries ago. If a nation was independent, it usually meant that they had nothing anyone else wanted, and they were almost always poorer for it. And interdependency is good for peace: you don’t generally get into wars with your trading partners.

Independence is a stupid goal that’s promoted by selfish small-minded people who don’t understand how the world is better off when people trade.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#234

Post by edgyquant »

preg_match wrote: post #226
edgyquant wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure food is a concern at all in the US. We have a shit ton of agriculture, and we have some of the highest obesity rates on the planet due to our immense surplus of food. We also have the biggest military by far, and it's not even close. So that covers your two bases.

Our military is dependent on a manufacturing base that is dependent on China currently

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#235

Post by edgyquant »

otterley wrote: post #232
edgyquant wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Services feed me every day, yet I don’t grow my own food. I trade for it, using currency as an intermediary. What I can do for myself, nations do every single day. I don’t know what this “real power” language is about, but it sounds like claptrap to me.

It actually sounds like you live in an era where these things are guaranteed by a hyper power and are frankly out of touch with how international relations really work

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#236

Post by jamwil »

villish wrote: post #215
mallets wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's breaking EXISTING free trade deals that's angering people. And also using them as geopolitical cudgels against allies. Every country has protectionist measures in various sectors, trade deals are decades-long work to chip away at them in a way that's agreeable to everyone involved. Liberals and progressives don't agree on most things related to (free) trade, but agree on not "bullying" allies for no reason and l…

> but agree on not "bullying" allies for no reason and little profit. This is what confuses me most about Trumps tactics. These are longtime friends and allies who would’ve gladly worked together to try to improve any perceived imbalances. I cannot fathom treating a friend this way. It makes no sense to me and is destructive.

It’s not logical. He is a malignant narcissist and a sociopath. A very sick man.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#237

Post by otterley »

edgyquant wrote: post #235
otterley wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Services feed me every day, yet I don’t grow my own food. I trade for it, using currency as an intermediary. What I can do for myself, nations do every single day. I don’t know what this “real power” language is about, but it sounds like claptrap to me.

It actually sounds like you live in an era where these things are guaranteed by a hyper power and are frankly out of touch with how international relations really work

Please, professor, teach us how international relations really work. Just let me grab my popcorn first.

(Seriously, knock it off with the attitude. You have no idea who you’re talking to. People with highly varied educational and career backgrounds are represented here.)

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#238

Post by greycol »

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?

The broader tariffs are the worse they are. Targeted tariffs can have a function but if targeted at a country that function isn't an economic good for either country it's only good as a political tool. You could argue that industries that you are the second cheapest in compared to that country could reap some benefits from supplying local markets (but not if there are other countries cheaper than your own that aren't also tariffed that can supply more of the demand) and then a targeted tariff may make some (long term) economic sense.

Targeted tariffs can have more nuanced effects. You'll notice that Canadian politicians are talking about targeting red states with their tariffs. These tariffs will also economically hurt Canada, but you won't see a retaliatory tariff on things that hurt Canada disproportionately which would be the case with universal tariffs. You can expect them to pick luxury industries (like they did with bourbon) where preferences can be changed or industrial/commercial ones where (preferably) local or other suppliers are near parity with the US rather than say gasoline.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#239

Post by 0xy »

input_sh wrote: post #66
0xy wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cool! Link me to their fine under DSA.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#240

Post by triceratops »

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.

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Management has to act in shareholders' best interests especially when those conflict with their own.

That's not the same thing as shareholders above workers (or anyone else for that matter).

Post reply on HN