Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bikes in the age of tariffs

renehersecycles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: Bikes in the age of tariffs

#111

Post by davidw »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #101
davidw wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe everyone will start buying from https://argonautcycles.com/ - right?

Considering their bikes start at $15K, "everyone" is unlikely to be able to afford it. I love to buy local, and I love to cycle, but what I can afford is $2K. Which is why I'm still riding the same Kestrel (full carbon w/ SRAM Force drivetrain) I got on Craigslist 8 years ago for $700, and on which I've since replaced a number of components, but have still spent < $2K overall. A comparable bike new these days would b…

Yeah I was being a bit sarcastic.

Those are cool bikes for sure - I used to work right next door - but I can't afford that.

Re: Bikes in the age of tariffs

#112

Post by davidw »

eesmith wrote: post #98
davidw wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, it's for campaign donations so it doesn't do those other things. Perhaps others can recommend groups that do a good job of those. Their algorithm is basically just targeting close state races, if I recall correctly. So like a state Senator from Arizona or something. Those are races where small donations go further than whatever big ticket Senate race gets a lot of press.

My problem with the campaign donations approach is it seems like a money pit. Campaign organizers in both major parties benefit by pointing out how the other party keeps spending more money, as a way to encourage even more donations. It also seems like a negative incentive to pass certain laws. "We need money for the next campaign so we can work on $TOPIC" might be a good fundraiser, so if those laws are passed then…

These are generally state races with less money involved in them. I agree about systemic reform, but until that happens, you deal with the system as it is.

Re: Bikes in the age of tariffs

#113

Post by eesmith »

davidw wrote: post #112
eesmith wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with the campaign donations approach is it seems like a money pit. Campaign organizers in both major parties benefit by pointing out how the other party keeps spending more money, as a way to encourage even more donations. It also seems like a negative incentive to pass certain laws. "We need money for the next campaign so we can work on $TOPIC" might be a good fundraiser, so if those laws are passed then…

These are generally state races with less money involved in them. I agree about systemic reform, but until that happens, you deal with the system as it is.

I've been dealing with the system as it is for 20 years. The main difference is it now sucks in a lot more money, for little result.

Re: Bikes in the age of tariffs

#114

Post by osigurdson »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #101
davidw wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe everyone will start buying from https://argonautcycles.com/ - right?

Considering their bikes start at $15K, "everyone" is unlikely to be able to afford it. I love to buy local, and I love to cycle, but what I can afford is $2K. Which is why I'm still riding the same Kestrel (full carbon w/ SRAM Force drivetrain) I got on Craigslist 8 years ago for $700, and on which I've since replaced a number of components, but have still spent < $2K overall. A comparable bike new these days would b…

It is fine to ride a cheaper / older bike but if you are really into it, you will tend to spend more (just like other sports / hobbies). Mountain bikes have come a very long way in the past 5-10 years.

Re: Bikes in the age of tariffs

#115

Post by mmooss »

metalman wrote: post #107
mmooss wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that there are products for which there is not enough of domestic market for domestic small manufacturers. There is enough market worldwide for those manufacturers. > Globalisation, only works for the biggest players and sharpers That's just not true. Many small businesses sell their products worldwide via online marketplaces. Have you downloaded software from another country? Bought something on Alibaba…

Missreading my emphasis.....Globisation ....I thought....refered to the creaping take over of "multinational" corporations consolodating whole industrys under one companys rule....locking out small businesses...like mine so ending the competion that realy boils down to makeing it easyer for BTB to buy from the giant multi national, but use my(and other) small businesses just to get that 3'rd quote, with no intent to…

Maybe you're miscommunicating your emphasis. Look at you're stream of consciousness style - that's not a way to make sure you're clear. Instead of pointing the finger for the misunderstanding, just clarify it.

> Globisation ....I thought....refered to the creaping take over of "multinational" corporations consolodating whole industrys under one companys rule....locking out small businesses

That's not what it means. It means the significant, widespread reduction or elimination of national borders. As a result, a business or consumer can buy something from a supplier in Vietnam as well as from Italy or Kansas. And businesses can use multiple sources to build international supply chains.

In businesses where scale matters, it makes multinationals bigger. For example, where economies of scale exist (e.g., cars) or where network effects exist (e.g., social media).

But in other things, it empowers small businesses. A small business also can have something made by a manufacturer in Shenzen and also can sell it all over the world. If yours is the best or fills a niche, the Internet will connect you to customers.

> the possitive effects there, could be quick and profound

I don't see why that would be true. It will drive up everyone's prices, and undermine the supply chains that all businesses rely on. Fruit at the local supermarket uses international supply chains.

Re: Bikes in the age of tariffs

#116

Post by teddyh »

mmooss wrote: post #38
teddyh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your country outlaws slavery and child labor, but imports freely (i.e. without tariffs) from countries which allows it, why does your country even have those laws? It’s certainly not to protect children or people from slavery; they’ve just exported the negative effects to other countries.

Could you apply your hypothetical? What countries are you talking about? How do you balance the benefits and the costs? If you wanted to improve human rights, what would be the best strategy? Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?

> What countries are you talking about?

I did not have any specific countries in mind; I’m just pretty sure that there are such countries. I’d have to look it up to get any references.

> Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?

Nobody knows why they are doing it, since nobody can read their minds. But I was not talking about them, I was addressing your implied argument that all tariffs are bad and abolishing them will lead to global prosperity. I would think that abolishing tariffs would at least give other countries huge incentives to exploit their own populations (including children) in order to get money from countries where such exploitation is illegal.

Re: Bikes in the age of tariffs

#117

Post by mmooss »

logicalmind wrote: post #83
mmooss wrote: post #28

An essential question is, what is the political angle for Trump and the right wing? They know what they are doing. They know it will cause economic calamity. They often seek to create calamity and crisis - with Covid; spreading fear (of immigrants, etc.), hatred and violence; disrupting health, education, and housing; international peace and security (NATO, Ukraine, etc.). You never see them spreading calm and peace…

I've been thinking about this same thing. Trying to figure out what the endgame is with all of this. I can only come to one meaningful conclusion. Preparing for a future war with China. In that context, everything starts to make sense. The whole point of these tariffs is two pronged. One, make the rest of the world pick a side. And two, attempt to disconnect global dependence on China. Making America "stand on its ow…

> Making America "stand on its own two feet" would give it a lot of freedom in making choices that are at odds with future super powerful China that is no longer benevolent.

The idea that relationships reduce your independence is almost childish, like a 18 year old who things they tie you down and they'll go it alone in life. It's through relationships that people - and nations - have power. The US by itself can't afford to do much. Now the, again, vast network of US allies - including in that theater Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, to an extent India - share the burden.

> freedom in making choices that are at odds with future super powerful China that is no longer benevolent.

The US has disconnected itself from China for years now. China has little influence politically in the US.

What happened was China became extremely nationalistic, threatened and abused everyone, and the US moved in and allied with all its new enemies.

However, as the US becomes extremely nationalistic, threatening and abusing everyone, China is now moving in and building relationships. It's their own back yard, so it is hard to compete if you act like just another nationalistic dicatatorship.

Re: Bikes in the age of tariffs

#118

Post by mmooss »

bobchadwick wrote: post #86
giraffe_lady wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech-right of musk, thiel, vance, andreessen etc are enacting the "reboot" envisioned by curtis yarvin, he wrote about it calling it "the butterfly revolution" iirc. The rest are just trying to roll back 80 years of social change along with reestablishing segregation but as national policy this time. And yeah I think your read on how they'll manage the fallout of this is correct.

I think you’re right, and they’ve found their useful idiot in Trump. As for Trump himself, I think he truly believes the rest of the world is taking advantage of the US and tariffs are a way of setting things right. My guess is that in his view, the country (or at the least the rich people he cares about) will benefit from all this.

> As for Trump himself, I think he truly believes the rest of the world is taking advantage of the US and tariffs are a way of setting things right. My guess is that in his view, the country (or at the least the rich people he cares about) will benefit from all this.

I don't think he has any such belief, and would abandon those 'beliefs' in an instant if it suited the only thing he cares about, himself.

Re: Bikes in the age of tariffs

#119

Post by mmooss »

teddyh wrote: post #116
mmooss wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you apply your hypothetical? What countries are you talking about? How do you balance the benefits and the costs? If you wanted to improve human rights, what would be the best strategy? Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?

> What countries are you talking about? I did not have any specific countries in mind; I’m just pretty sure that there are such countries. I’d have to look it up to get any references. > Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights? Nobody knows why they are doing it, since nobody can read their minds. But I was not talking about them, I was addressing your implied argument that all tariffs are…

> all tariffs are bad and abolishing them will lead to global prosperity

I think when you get into the realm of extremes, you are no longer debating another human but a strawperson in your mind.

Re: Bikes in the age of tariffs

#120

Post by teddyh »

mmooss wrote: post #119
teddyh wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What countries are you talking about? I did not have any specific countries in mind; I’m just pretty sure that there are such countries. I’d have to look it up to get any references. > Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights? Nobody knows why they are doing it, since nobody can read their minds. But I was not talking about them, I was addressing your implied argument that all tariffs are…

> all tariffs are bad and abolishing them will lead to global prosperity I think when you get into the realm of extremes, you are no longer debating another human but a strawperson in your mind.

Then, pray tell, how should your original comment be interpreted?
Post reply on HN