251–260 of 275 posts
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?
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
Selection pressure rewards successful genetic reproduction.
What actually happens at the scale of the organism is mostly irrelevant except how it affects reproduction.
A genetic predisposition towards chopping legs off would be selected for, if chopping legs off resulted in more children than otherwise.
Chopping legs off after having no more children (e.g. after menopause or vasectomy) has no direct genetic outcome (instead indirectly via improved/worstened reproduction of children or relatives).
To be clearer: reproduction is the key (survival matters for reproduction and upbringing).
That's a good summary, although the details are sublimely trickier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ricardo's comparative advantage result is contingent on the assumption that capital is not mobile across borders. This was a good assumption in 1817. Is it a good assumption today? Furthermore, he's very up front about this in On the Principles , and from this information you can calculate the exact number of people who read the damn thing between the person repeating the talking point and the person originating the…
It doesn’t really matter what Ricardo said in 1817: every US academic economist surveyed in 2018 by the Kent Clark Center disagreed that US aluminum and steel tariffs would increase the welfare of the American people ([0]), and this is with the benefit of >200 years in advances in economic scholarship and analysis since Ricardo. [0] https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tarif...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ricardo's comparative advantage result is contingent on the assumption that capital is not mobile across borders. This was a good assumption in 1817. Is it a good assumption today? Furthermore, he's very up front about this in On the Principles , and from this information you can calculate the exact number of people who read the damn thing between the person repeating the talking point and the person originating the…
In 1817, capital did not cross borders. Borders crossed capital.
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.
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?
2) retaliatory tariffs are targeting the hostile actor, not widely against all (other) trading partners, thus redirecting trade towards less hostile country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t really matter what Ricardo said in 1817: every US academic economist surveyed in 2018 by the Kent Clark Center disagreed that US aluminum and steel tariffs would increase the welfare of the American people ([0]), and this is with the benefit of >200 years in advances in economic scholarship and analysis since Ricardo. [0] https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tarif...
The fact that the dumbest president in American history is bad at industrial policy does not mean that industrial policy cannot or should not be done.
Tariffs can be a good way to pay for this but they are always negative for consumers, and most of the time also net negative for domestic industry. Hard quotas and trade bans put up a wall that completely removes buyer choice and turns everything into a corrupt seller's market.
The American tradition is using negative tools because of their anti competitive effects. Car makers really don't want people buying cheaper cars from overseas so they lobbied for the chicken tax. In a country where funding from corporate super PACs is the most reliable way to win elections no president will change policy if it means losing a big sponsor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"
I meant, "Yes, you're so damned right! It's even in the dictionary! I wish people would educate themselves and not believe lies!"
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
I don’t have an attitude, it’s just annoying hearing people still pretend history is over and great power conflict is no longer a concern because we’ve reached utopia, and thinking that because they have a certain job that means real, cold and calculating, geopolitics is no longer a requirement.