571–580 of 704 posts
Think about the fact that inflation was effectively killed and rates were set to come down by 2%. Then this clown comes in and does this. Inexcusable. Biggest economic policy blunder in history. Don’t let sky high stock market fool you.
> Don’t let sky high stock market fool you The simplest explanation for higher stock prices is that the dollar has lost ~9% of its value this year (see: DXY)
I don't understand why there isn't a market or company that develop already to move all items to low tariff area before sending to US. I know that manufacturing things here in Europe, there already used to be round trip by airplane and co to try to lower VAT paid on purchases to the maximum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even assuming that there were no other federal, state or local YoY differences [1] that could explain this change (and that the numbers are right as presented in the first place), New York City private sector employment is nothing like most other parts of the US: it's the largest city in the US by a large margin, it has a concentration of employment in a few major industries (finance, fashion, publishing, software) t…
Yes, a tariff can be a good measure. But for that the tariffed goods need to be selected carefully and rationally und not whatever the heck the Trump administration is doing. For example you can tariff bananas all you like, that won't spark widespread banana production in a climate that can't grow them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure plenty of Americans would love to work a factory job if it meant they could provide a comfortable life for their family. Unfortunately, due to decades of anti-labor practices, that isn’t possible anymore. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to rectify the situation.
Its not “due to decades of abti-labor practices" but “due to a century of economic progress driving higher expectations”. Now, its true that there have , within that, been a few decades of regression in tax and other policy effecting a worsening of the distributional situation, such that labor gets a smaller share of the returns that are returned. But even with that, basically every segment of society is better off i…
Imagine you invest $1000 in the stock market and the market is growing at 10%. But when you open your brokerage account, you see only 5% growth, and it turns out someone has been pocketing the difference. When you confront this person, they say: don’t be angry, you’re still better off than you were before. You would be right to be angry and you would be right to demand policies that force this person to give you your fair share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So NK workers own or control the means of production?
That's not communism. They are all oppressed, impoverished and dehumanised by the mechanism of the state. Like China and the Soviet union.
Communism has a real definition. NK is not communist. China is not communist either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically China is a dictatorship. The constitution of the People's Republic of China and the CCP constitution state that its form of government is "people's democratic dictatorship". The current president has done much to make his appointment for life, so it is a dictatorship that is on the road towards having a dictator. Cue comparisons to what is currently happening in the US.
Yes, 人民民主专政. A socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. I think you're ignoring some of the poetic intention of those words, the idea is that the Marxist collective is the dictator. It's turning the concept on its head to put the people at the forefront. In other contexts such as casual conversation here in the West the term…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully understand your disbelief but that is actually what is going on. Thousands of children abused by gangs.
If you fully understand the disbelief, you'd understand why you, being the one advancing the claim, should provide the source(s) you are using for your Bayesian priors so that, assuming those information sources are of sufficient quality, we can also have the benefit of your knowledge. Until then, it is only rational that people reject your claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not communism. They are all oppressed, impoverished and dehumanised by the mechanism of the state. Like China and the Soviet union.
You can't just redefine communism to mean "bad thing" and then say "see? Communism bad!" Communism has a real definition. NK is not communist. China is not communist either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just redefine communism to mean "bad thing" and then say "see? Communism bad!" Communism has a real definition. NK is not communist. China is not communist either.
At this stage communism has been tried and failed so many times that it's silly to conclude that it isn't inherently evil. It's just hubris to think you could do it better yourself.
You can believe communism is evil. You can't believe communism is evil because you just attribute everything evil to communism.
That's just bad reasoning. Like, really really bad reasoning. Like, I think most small children have higher reasoning capabilities than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tariffs are protectionist, does not boost competitiveness. Tends to be the wrong tool, there are better. Tax breaks, grants, physical infrastructure, creation of entire markets - those are better tools. The issue with tariffs is non-competetive companies aren't required to become more competitive. I mean consider it, a tariff is a tax on those buying a specific competitors goods. Even if tariffs were done surgically,…
>The issue with tariffs is non-competetive companies aren't required to become more competitive. Yes they are. They are required to compete on a level playing field domestically and they still have to compete with marked up foreign goods.
This means domestic cars and many other goods will get a tariff markup on a large proportion of their parts anyway. In many cases it will be cheaper or roughly equivalent to pay a single tariff on a finished product from abroad.
In theory it should be possible to bring in staged tarrifs, and use tax breaks and subsidies on on-shore necessary domestic production over time to transition the industry, but that’s not happening and there’s no sign it will happen. The administration doesn’t seem to be aware this is even an option.