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

What if tariffs?

swatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 286 posts

Re: What if tariffs?

#251

Post by KerrAvon »

marpstar wrote: post #249
M95D wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernie was a 3rd option. Very few voted for him.

The enthusiasm around Bernie in 2016 was palpable. The DNC took it from him.

This is true. Anecdata, but I talked to some of the “Republicans for Bernie” back then, and it was real, not astroturf. We’d be in a different place if Bernie had been the Dem candidate in 2016. I think it’s likely Bernie’s actual presidency would have been a major shitshow that made Jimmy Carter’s look pretty solid, but it would have relegated Trump to what he originally wanted to be, a fringe political figure grifting millions from gullible conservatives.

(I also think Bernie could not have won in 2020.)

Re: What if tariffs?

#252

Post by KerrAvon »

M95D wrote: post #246
Tiktaalik wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what happens in a FPTP two party system. If you don't like one party what other option do you have but to vote for the other party? So as a result it's enormously easy for radicals to take over a big tent party and still achieve remarkable support.

Bernie was a 3rd option. Very few voted for him.

Bernie was never a 3rd option, to be clear. He wasn’t running a Ross Perot-style third party campaign, he was running to be at the top of the Democratic ticket. And when the DNC cleared the way for Hillary, he was out of the game.

Re: What if tariffs?

#253

Post by AnimalMuppet »

KerrAvon wrote: post #251
marpstar wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The enthusiasm around Bernie in 2016 was palpable. The DNC took it from him.

This is true. Anecdata, but I talked to some of the “Republicans for Bernie” back then, and it was real, not astroturf. We’d be in a different place if Bernie had been the Dem candidate in 2016. I think it’s likely Bernie’s actual presidency would have been a major shitshow that made Jimmy Carter’s look pretty solid, but it would have relegated Trump to what he originally wanted to be, a fringe political figure grift…

But in that scenario, the Republicans would not have run Trump a second time (and maybe not even the first, because all the populist action would have gone to Bernie). So Bernie would lose in 2020 to a normal (that is, not populist) Republican.

Re: What if tariffs?

#254

Post by snapcaster »

ponector wrote: post #185
avaika wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their opinion of our politics is generally separate from how they treat me personally, and I do the same for people of other nationalities. That is such a sane thing to do. I was always astonished and sad how often strangers in foreign countries instantly link my origin to the actions of the people in power. As if this is completely under my control and with no doubt I support and approve whatever they do.

[flagged]

Judging from this logic you would have supported the US locking up the japanese people in internment camps right? If not, why not?

Re: What if tariffs?

#255

Post by illiac786 »

corimaith wrote: post #153
RestartKernel wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my Western European perspective: what's specifically striking is how sentiment towards China has improved in turn. Not sure what caused it exactly, but my guess is 1) the U.S. as common rival, and 2) the amalgamation of fears of Chinese manufacturing with newfound fears of U.S. big tech into European nationalism to replace some vague sense of "Western" alliance. The latter may be turning China from the big geopo…

Virtually every single one of Europe's prized industries are in China's crosshairs.

that is true of every country with a significant industry… and if the US had the capability, they would try to do exactly the same.

And that’s also a good illustration of sentiment toward the US today.

Re: What if tariffs?

#256

Post by burnerRhodov2 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #208
burnerRhodov2 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if i charge a 39% tarrif on swiss watches, doesn't that make american watches 39% more competitive? So, people will just buy more american watches in your example, no?

You'd be correct in an economy not tumbling towards recesssion due to said tarrifs being universal, and not just focusing on specific industries to make american ones more competitive. As it is, American spending is way down and hurts everyone. A small stock crash (the thing propping the US up as of now) would truly hit with a 2nd depression at this point.

Everyone keeps screaming recession, i see an extreme bull market across all asset classes...? Am i missing something?

Re: What if tariffs?

#257

Post by delusional »

jibal wrote: post #219
delusional wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"absolute truth" doesn't exist. I understand what you're saying, but the question of when a lie should then disqualify you from office must itself be a political question.

Absolute truth exists, and a claim that it doesn't is self-contradictory. The difficulty is in determining what is or isn't true, especially for empirical matters. (In math and logic the difficulty can vary. And some statements are true by definition, e.g., all unmarried men are bachelors.)

You're confusing logical/mathematic "truth" with philosophical/scientific "truth". While "politics should be based on scientific truth" is an opinion I have some sympathy for, even if it immediately falls apart under any scrutiny. "politics should be based on mathematical axiomatic truth" is a statement so laughable I can only imagine you forgot the context we were talking about.

Re: What if tariffs?

#258

Post by burnerRhodov2 »

20after4 wrote: post #226
burnerRhodov2 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if i charge a 39% tarrif on swiss watches, doesn't that make american watches 39% more competitive? So, people will just buy more american watches in your example, no?

That's way too simplistic. When a tariff raises the price of competition, everyone else raises their prices too. It just increases costs to consumers, and raises government revenues.

Yes, that is way to simplistic.

You have to look at the elasticity of demand across every component to determine the correct ratio.

What i can tell you, as a GSM, from a CapEx perspective, sensors, motors, cables, and batterys made in the US just got significantly more competitive. It was already trending that way due to JIT demands and rapid factory buildouts, but the tarrifs were a huge marketing boon for american supply chains.

And i can tell you for the first time as someone in the supply chain business i can confidently ask the question "Should we be buying this bolt from Insert country here?".

It's almost like i've been given the authority to source products from the United States even if we are paying some percent higher.

Re: What if tariffs?

#259

Post by johnnyanmac »

burnerRhodov2 wrote: post #256
johnnyanmac wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be correct in an economy not tumbling towards recesssion due to said tarrifs being universal, and not just focusing on specific industries to make american ones more competitive. As it is, American spending is way down and hurts everyone. A small stock crash (the thing propping the US up as of now) would truly hit with a 2nd depression at this point.

Everyone keeps screaming recession, i see an extreme bull market across all asset classes...? Am i missing something?

The very short of it is that a lot of bus bull market is propped up by AI. To such an extent that the top 10 companies of the S&P 500 have half the value right now.

Combine this knowledge with some maneuvers as of late that reflect the Dotcom bubble and we're rife for a crash that will take the world economy with it once the bubble pops. Its a bull asset market right now, but its certainly not a healthy one

And that's just the economic side of it.When you consider the history of such extreme wealth inequality, ignoring rising unemployment and disresr among the working class can get ugly quickly. That can also go down an expensive route if taken to the extreme.

Post reply on HN