121–130 of 704 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consumers will pay more regardless in this type of circumstance. But they will pay less if businesses don’t suddenly start going out of business, eliminating competition and jobs
Doesn't insurance normally work by protecting rare instances whose cost is amortized over the base? This would be a claim by a large amount of insurance clients at once
I’d like to lay out an argument about why tariffs are good. The only businesses that are derailing with tariffs issues are those that import goods to sell. The argument against tariffs is that they make goods more expensive. Of course, this argument is true. But that’s not the end of the story. Because prices are higher for imported goods, demand for domestically produced goods increases. This increase in demand lead…
Because of this, Boeing gets to make thousands of jetliners and sell them all across the world and America gets to be one of very few places that can do this.
I think you'll find that steel and aluminum are a lot more fungible than jetliner factories. Why are we kneecapping what we're good at for the sake of things that China will ALWAYS be better than us at?
> Finally, I think it’s ridiculous to expect that this nation can maintain its wealth without producing anything.
The total value of US exports has only ever gone up (see above).
I do get the argument for moving manufacturing expertise back onshore, I really do. But tariffs are not gonna lower the minimum wage and if manufacturing is gonna come back to the US, it'll come back in a highly automated form with a boatload of government support.
Trump is even using Tariff threats to strong-arm other countries to retreat on their climate goals [1]. If the Supreme Court agrees that the Trump can do this then that means we have a dictator — one that will do way more harm than the one in North Korea. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/climate/trump-internation...
This is how you know most economic theory is a total lie, if it wasn't they would just "price what people are willing to pay" and be forced to eat the loss. Is that cause copper bathtubs are a special item or are you just making up more rules after the fact to patch holes in your leaky theory.
It's because basic economic theory makes some really bad assumptions. It assumes everyone has the information they need, and sellers can instantaneously change prices in response to changes in demand or cost of production. Neither of which is true in the real world.
This is incorrect. Lack of information is priced in as "risk".
In the end it's the biggest leopard ate my face moment ever: China has very high growth momentum that surpasses American living standards soon, and not long before it will surpass American security standards too. China's purchasing power is probably more comfortable than most western countries, with extensive housing and high speed rail and electric cars etc. When a country becomes rich, inevitably other countries as…
Before everyone jumps in with GDP per capital with PPP, what quality at that low price means is tofu dreg buildings, cancerous food items, waist high flooding every summer in cities, ghost buildings, and unsafe water (recently one of the most prosperous city, Hangzhou, had sewage seeped into the water for weeks, which the local government denied responsibility).
This is how you know most economic theory is a total lie, if it wasn't they would just "price what people are willing to pay" and be forced to eat the loss. Is that cause copper bathtubs are a special item or are you just making up more rules after the fact to patch holes in your leaky theory.
Economic theory makes some unsubstantiated assumptions, like consumers have information needed to make decisions, and those decisions are rational. In the real world the market is determined by external events that consumers have no way to know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incentives work better than tariffs. Tariffs are less effective due to their uncertainty (why would I build a factory if the next admin removes the tariffs?)
The fact that X is more effective than Y is not an argument against Y if X and Y are not mutually exclusive.
In the end it's the biggest leopard ate my face moment ever: China has very high growth momentum that surpasses American living standards soon, and not long before it will surpass American security standards too. China's purchasing power is probably more comfortable than most western countries, with extensive housing and high speed rail and electric cars etc. When a country becomes rich, inevitably other countries as…
See this is what I don't understand. Everything you just said about China is a positive. Everything you said about China is achievable in the USA, and we at least HAD a head start on soft-power influence. Instead we should just have tariffs instead of actually making the lives of Americans better while FIGHTING affordable housing, high speed rail, and EVs. We've got an entire team of goons who would rather rack up pe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This dismissal of a massive drop in hiring (literally 1.5% of the previous half year’s reported hiring) is wishful thinking. “Ignore this data point, NYC is special.” Color me skeptical.
I'm not ignoring it, but I’m not falling into a post hoc fallacy, either. I'll put it this way: if I were ignoring it, I'd be ignoring one more data point than you are in cherry-picking a single example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is Ccjaas2004. I'm not 100% sure on the letters, but the year is easy to see. Hopefully, they've changed their password sometime in the past 21 years.
That's true. Now it is most likely Ccjaas2025.