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

261–270 of 275 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#261

Post by otterley »

edgyquant wrote: post #260
otterley wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Appealing to credentials is irrelevant and bad faith, the fact is your ability to make a good living purely in services is irrelevant to the fact that nations have real national defense to consider and the last 80 years of global trade has been upheld by American military might. Your credentials mean nothing if you can’t appreciate how spoiled we have all been by this very unique system, and your arguments should sta…

The thing is, you're not really making a clear and persuasive case as to your position, which sounds like you're arguing against interdependency. Perhaps you mean something else, so if I'm mistaken, some clarity would be appreciated. As far as I can tell, you're only contending, without much support, that alternatives are worse.

> the last 80 years of global trade has been upheld by American military might

Have you considered whether these might be coincidental, not causative, and that the Bretton Woods system is largely responsible for this? Leading by example and through persuasion and making friends tends to be much more effective than building armies and making implied threats, dangling a Sword of Damocles over the world. (Case in point: the U.S. has never been able to bring Afghanistan, North Korea, or Iran into the fold, and keeps holding to the same failing strategies regarding these nations despite their persistent ineffectiveness.)

> I don’t have an attitude

I'm telling you how it's coming across. Calling someone "out of touch" is demeaning.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#262

Post by inigyou »

tzs wrote: post #87
saghm wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And the evidence is where. Again, when I look out the window, the bodega is still there.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#263

Post by inigyou »

0xy wrote: post #54
inigyou wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> completely destroys small business Citation needed, I'm in the EU and there is small business

https://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/eu-ppwr-pause-request-us... This regulation forces very small businesses to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to comply and register in EACH EU country (what the hell's the point of the union, exactly?). Even if they sell only 10 widgets to Belgian buyers, they need to register in Belgium and pay the fee. Insane. So a small business selling 5-10k of widgets in EU now has to pa…

Separately, Germany hates limited liability in general and wants you to be a sole proprietor instead.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#264

Post by mindslight »

arwhatever wrote: post #250
mindslight wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were seriously on the table, we could have just used the proceeds from having the world reserve currency to do that. Instead, their open plan for that national asset is to squander it. In general, stop trying to steelman the looters. Sometimes a con artist is really just a con artist.

| In general, stop trying to steelman the looters. Sometimes a con artist is really just a con artist. Re-read my comment in the context of the message to which it replied.

I don't think that really changes my interpretation? There is an all-too-common dynamic of people working overtime to connect actions the administration is doing with what could be a sensible plan.

If that was not your intent, then please don't take it personally.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#265

Post by malshe »

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…

An even better analogy for the US using trade deficit as an excuse for tariffs would be a billionaire hedge fund manager complaining about payments made to his janitor. Essentially the janitor just takes money from the hedge fund manager without ever buying any financial services in return. The solution, of course, is to fire the janitor and start cleaning toilets himself.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#266

Post by nkmnz »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #201
tim333 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know it makes much difference. People could walk from country to country in Europe back then and still can, likewise you could move money and equipment and still can.

The limiting factor on deploying capital abroad was never the ability to move gold or even equipment, it was the ability to have faith that over many years the remote authorities would continue to enforce your remotely held claims on the operation.

But that's been true for your locally held claims as well, and even more so in modern times with tax rates hovering around 50% in many European countries. It's just that they take their cut every single month, instead of doing so at will.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#267

Post by dredmorbius »

ot wrote: post #2

Reference to Aesop's fable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Belly_and_the_Members

Exactly what I was going to post.

Here's a direct link to ... several versions of ... the fable:

https://fablesofaesop.com/the-belly-and-the-members.html>

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#268

Post by preg_match »

polotics wrote: post #255
preg_match wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

obesity and food-supply are not in a linear relationship, pumping out some high sucrose corn syrup is one thing, having all the nutrients the population needs to stay healthy is another

We most definitely have all the nutrients the population needs to stay healthy. We have basically every vegetable ever, available all year. Ditto for fruits. Meat is in abundance, same with dairy and eggs. I don’t think it’s an issue.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#269

Post by valleyer »

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?

If punching random people on the street is so obviously bad, then why do people fight back when I do it?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#270

Post by valleyer »

catigula wrote: post #144
Hammershaft wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economists universally think tariffs are dumb policy. https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tarif... Literally 100% of the 50 expert economists polled by the Kent Clark Center think tariffs overall make Americans worse off. Nobody in politics can say this simple truth because the rust belt states are critical swing states.

The Biden administration kept the Trump tariffs. His own policy-makers, technocrats, said that they were a necessary geopolitical tool, cited China's extensive use of tariffs (amongst other states), and noted that they must be used to protect manufacturing and in tandem with allied states. https://www.commerce.gov/news/fact-sheets/2024/05/fact-sheet... https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251096758/biden-china-tariff... h…

It is possible for both Trump and Biden to be wrong about something.
Post reply on HN