381–390 of 814 posts
"Tariff" is indeed a beautiful word; one that led the most virulent anti-taxation crowd to passionately support new taxes. It's a fantastic example of how much the choice of words matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you stretch your imagination to a scenario in which a hostile administration, eager to shut down critical reporting, might declare that various outlets are engaging in fake news and must thus be shut down? Let's be glad a precedent wasn't set.
I can, and I've specifically said "guilty/liable", meaning that people will go to the highest court available to them to defend their rights. If in the last instance they are still found guilty/liable, they should suffer the consequences I've mentioned. These legal decisions, by multiple courts/juries, if you can't trust them anymore you have already lost in terms of democracy/republic. I still believe the SCOTUS is…
I will contribute $$$.
First of all, the summary of the article (I did not read the article) clearly states that foreign exporters did not eat the tariffs, instead they held their prices, American consumers paid for the tariffs, and that trade volumes collapsed.
"trade volumes collapsed" - so, Americans did not buy foreign goods that they did not need/want at those prices, or found an alternative (presumably American) product to substitute. American consumer spending increased in 2025 and inflation settled down to a reasonable level. It seems that consumption shifted to domestic products.
That does not appear to be a good outcome, economically. . Second, tariff's are a tax. No sh-t. But so are VAT taxes, which are very high throughout many countries, and no one seems to believe they are the downfall of these countries. You can argue which is "better" or "fairer", but from the consumer point of view, VAT makes everything more expensive and tariffs make only foreign goods more expensive. You can say that VAT forces everyone, foreign and domestic to compete and be more efficient, while tariffs penalize foreign production and rewards domestic production, even if some domestic production is less efficient. But both are taxes, and at least the American consumer can choose whether or not to pay that tax.
While I disagree with tariffs, and especially disagree with how they are being wielded, the economic effect that they have had on Americans in 2025 is to shift away from foreign imports, buy more domestic products, and they have not increased inflation. Neither did the tariffs on Tr-mps first term on China.
If a 20% VAT was instituted, I would think that that would have had a much larger "tax" effect, and would have taken away peoples choice on whether or not to pay that tax. Yet, the VAT would be considered "good".
I think the biggest issue here is the serious negative impact on our relationships with our allies.
Ladies & Gentlemen, the President of the United States of Amerca: “Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and w…
Talking about Kiel, the non existent document was signed there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Kiel
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I also can't fathom why the crowd (not just a HN subset) that was clamoring for tariffs thought it'd be anyone other than them shouldering the increase. Perhaps their influencers didn't spell it out for them? Now I'm neither in the US, American nor Democrat/Republican, but as far as I understand their argument, is that they know it means higher costs for those products for them, and it'll eventually lead to compani…
Thank you for offering an additional perspective. The article reads like the tariffs were a complete and total failure. You are saying it is too soon to tell, correct?
I don't believe it for a second.
Here's something that has happened before though. During the American War of Treasonous Aggression, the southern states decided to impose tariffs on the export of cotton to the UK. That caused massive hardship in the UK in the short term as it made the goods that the cotton was a raw material for impossible to sell. UK jobs were lost, UK workers starved etc.
So the local UK manufacturing companies found markets to supply them elsewhere in the world. They set up the supply lines, they reached agreements, and life went on. UK jobs were gained again, UK workers stopped starving. Life was good.
When the American War of Treasonous Aggression was over, the southern states wanted to drop their tariffs and start supplying the UK again. It didn't happen - there was no need to return to an unreliable partner when everything was set up just fine and dandy as it was, and the US cotton was essentially unsellable. US jobs were lost, US workers starved etc. The cotton industry never recovered from that.
Tariffs are a "fuck you, make me" slap in the face. Do it to people you don't like, but if you do it to people who are supposed to be "allies" (obviously not allies in the above case, but the consequences here were just as real), the consequences can be ... quite concerning for the tariffers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of. Econ 101 normally covers tax incidence (which side bears the burden of a tax). It has a lot to do with elasticity of both demand and supply. If foreign exporters can easily shift to other markets or adjust production (elastic supply), they'll pass most of the tariff cost to consumers through higher prices. If American consumers have few substitute products (inelastic demand), they'll end up absorbing most of…
> pass most of the tariff cost to consumers What do you mean by "pass the cost"? Exporters do not pay tariffs, importers do. The exporter doesn't give a shit because it doesn't affect them at all. This is one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of how tariffs work in the first place. The entity that's picking up the cargo at the port is who literally has to pay CBP for them to release the goods. The middleman (…
Well that’s not true. Otherwise you are going to have to explain why so many outside the USA were upset with tariffs, and why there were retaliatory ones applied on the inverse.
I make no other claim that your quoted assertion is wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't buy this - Harris had a big bump in the polls as soon as she entered the race and I think she could have won if she had offered voters anything . This bullshit that American's won't vote for a woman is just an excuse not to run women and to deflect blame towards a culture war issue and away from the fact that the democrats don't actually have popular policies. I voted for Harris, I even canvased for her, but…
You know what’s interesting though is I think that a Republican woman would be unbeatable. Many Democrats would be salivating at the historical opportunity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a friend who works with american tourists visiting europe, mostly older folks, mostly to religious sights. They are, for the vast majority, indoctrinated beyond any chance of reasonable change of opinion. Talking with him makes _me_ worry about my own beliefs, because if these people can be so blind, maybe I am too.
The Americans visiting Europe are a sample very skewed towards sanity due to their socioeconomic situation and interest in history/culture. So this is either not true or highly troubling.