201–210 of 704 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you possibly do more harm than the one in NK, literally starving your population?
Nobody outside of SK, NK, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Of The People's Republic of China seriously two figs about anything that happens in NK. The country could get hit by a meteor tomorrow, and nobody else would notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tariffs this time are far in excess of anything he did previously or promised to do while running for office again and took nearly everyone by surprise though.
This pre-election BBC summary - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy343z53l1o - pretty clearly spells out what has eventuated, describing it as a "central campaign pledge": > Trump has made tariffs a central campaign pledge in order to protect US industry. He has proposed new 10-20% tariffs on most imported foreign goods, and much higher ones on those from China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
South America doesn't produce enough soy beans for them to replace America even if China bought every single ounce of soy. When it comes to soy, America has enormous leverage and China already accepted they're negotiating from a position of weakness.
China may elect not to replace the whole shortfall. They may value the message it sends more.
[flagged]
But if they do choose to leave, or at least stop expanding their businesses, you can’t deny the rational self interest
[flagged]
Also, on a purely pragmatic note, capital is mobile. If you penalize the rich, they just move, and then the new system will stop class mobility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A sudden claim against many should be priced into the cost of the insurance, offset by some risk adjustment. The goal is ultimately price stability, if the price is not too high (that’s the unknown)
Insurance tends to do really badly in ‘black swan’ type situations. Which pretty much are what Trump is doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, a cogent policy would be ideal. But you can’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. America was getting their lunch eaten well before Trump. At least the tariff policy is an attempt at rectifying the situation.
> you can’t let perfect be the enemy of the good You can let bad be the enemy of both good and perfect. Investment in manufacturing structures is down in ‘25 [1]. Manufacturing activity in the northeast is down, with “the new orders index dip[ping] into negative territory” [2]. Tariffs can reduce trade imbalances and incentivize domestic production. We’re not doing that. Our tariffs are too volatile. They tax manufac…
Also, your second link generally paints a mixed picture, not an outright negative one:
> On balance, the firms indicated an increase in employment, and the price indexes rose further above their long-run averages. The survey’s broad indicators for future activity suggest that firms continue to expect growth over the next six months.
I think it’s misguided to interpret current data as evidence either for or against the current policies. This is something that’s going to take a decade plus to play out. Trying to use data to call winners 6 months in isn’t really possible.
[flagged]
The system that allows very wealthy to exist is also the reason the US has the highest class mobility among western nations. Also, on a purely pragmatic note, capital is mobile. If you penalize the rich, they just move, and then the new system will stop class mobility.
[flagged]
The system that allows very wealthy to exist is also the reason the US has the highest class mobility among western nations. Also, on a purely pragmatic note, capital is mobile. If you penalize the rich, they just move, and then the new system will stop class mobility.
the US has the highest class mobility among western nations