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

American Disruption

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 210 posts

Re: American Disruption

#71

Post by throw4847285 »

morsecodist wrote: post #13

Talking about the merits of these tariffs kind of misses the point. The person who wrote this article is very smart. I am sure they are smarter than I am. He has produced a pretty solid analysis of trade policy. But in articles like this people ascribe their own motivations and goals to the tariffs that aren't actually there. Buried in this article is the assumption that the motivation of tariffs and trade policy is…

It is considered socially unacceptable to armchair psychoanalyze other people, but I think we can waive that when it comes to the most powerful politician on the planet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/opinion/trump-tariffs-rat...

In some cases, Occam's Razor says, "this person is not acting rationally" and you have to weigh that possibility even if it is uncomfortable. Desire for dominance is common, and is not rational. Why should it surprise us to see it in Trump?

Re: American Disruption

#72

Post by goatlover »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #12
JSR_FDED wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think this playbook works for complex products. Before every component needed for an iPhone is locally manufactured, the overseas competitor manufacturers of those components would be many generations further. You’d be competing with the whole world.

The designers of the chips in the iPhone are basically US entities. (And more generally, Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Qualcomm, etc. are US companies.) They can gradually limit foreign production and re-shore with subsidies. Sure, foreign chip manufacturers might gain a leg up, but it might not be totally ruinous. There's a way to do it that's smooth, gradual, and mostly painless.

But it will a lot more expensive.

Re: American Disruption

#73

Post by tyoma »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #55
samtp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in Seattle, it's actually about 50% cheaper to get a taxi from SeaTac to the city than to take a Lyft or Uber.

I'm curious as to why that is. A few months ago I took a taxi from the airport in Austin (because I had neglected to book my Uber/Lyft before I got to the rideshare area and there was a significant wait) and I vowed "never again". It was about 50% more than Uber/Lyft, and everything about the experience was worse in the ways taxis have always been worse - payment is much more of a pain in the ass, you don't know how…

I think its less amnesia and more that many commenters were too young to have experienced pre-Uber taxis: the call for a pickup thats routinely ignored, flailing arms in the cold hoping someone stops, the smelly car, refusal to pick you up because your ride is too short or too long, getting taken for an extended ride to your destination, the credit card machine thats always broken. Oh, and if you want to complain I hope you can make an 8am hearing at the taxi commission in 6 weeks.

Re: American Disruption

#74

Post by piva00 »

renewiltord wrote: post #28
Jochim wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Uber example is also an outright lie. They acquired those customers by burning billions of dollars to deliver rides below the cost of providing them. Then they raised prices beyond their competition to account for their ridiculous overheads.

Taxis still exist and are still more expensive. You pay for them to use bus lanes in SF and so on. Uber prices are not beyond the competition.

Where I live taxis are on par with Uber, sometimes cheaper when Uber has surge prices. We also have Bolt, an European competitor, which is usually 10-40% cheaper than Uber or taxis.

Every Uber or Bolt can also operate as a taxi since the regulations stipulate that any private passenger transport service is the same as a taxi, and has to follow the same regulations.

Re: American Disruption

#75

Post by kjksf »

cowpig wrote: post #31
morsecodist wrote: post #13

Talking about the merits of these tariffs kind of misses the point. The person who wrote this article is very smart. I am sure they are smarter than I am. He has produced a pretty solid analysis of trade policy. But in articles like this people ascribe their own motivations and goals to the tariffs that aren't actually there. Buried in this article is the assumption that the motivation of tariffs and trade policy is…

Agree, and I find this totally bizarre. The Trump administration's power is based in the Russian propaganda machine and xenophobia. Blanket tariffs (except towards Russia and Belarus, not mentioned in Ben Thompson's article of course) are in service of those two power bases.

US is still sanctioning Russia, meaning there's zero trade between US and Russia. It's illegal for US people and companies to buy from Russia.

That's why there are no tariffs on Russia: there's no trade, there's nothing to tariff.

I don't see how you concluded that US is currently "in service of Russia".

Re: American Disruption

#76

Post by goatlover »

clodushid wrote: post #17
morsecodist wrote: post #13

Talking about the merits of these tariffs kind of misses the point. The person who wrote this article is very smart. I am sure they are smarter than I am. He has produced a pretty solid analysis of trade policy. But in articles like this people ascribe their own motivations and goals to the tariffs that aren't actually there. Buried in this article is the assumption that the motivation of tariffs and trade policy is…

The primary architect of trumps tariff strategy in his first and second term is Peter Navarro. If you want to understand the tariffs today, just go read one of his many books. His goals are pretty simple: reindustriaize America No more free trade China is evil and the worlds enemy It should be no surprise to anyone observing trump since he took office that the end goal was always to decouple from China.

> China is evil and the worlds enemy

And what is the US under the Trump administration? China didn't start a trade war, accuse every other country of ripping it off, hasn't talked of acquiring Greenland and making Canada it's 51st state, or discuss bombing cartels in Mexico.

Re: American Disruption

#77

Post by sharemywin »

inerte wrote: post #47
mjevans wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're more likely to 'on shore' with 3D printer like automated fabricators (think next baby step between CnC machines and Replicators). As far as any mention of jobs? Those are long gone and never coming back. Trade still makes sense for raw inputs and any outputs though.

And since when the US has a “job availability” problem? Unemployment is low. We have a jobs quality problem. Good pay, good hours, benefits. It doesn’t matter if it’s manufacturing or services. Somehow some people think their parents had it easier working for a factory, but a lot of blood and sweat went to get that. We can shed blood and sweat to get better barista jobs too. It’s not about where jobs are performed.

the things that made a factory job good are long gone too. pensions. stable employment. companies that cared about their employees.

Re: American Disruption

#78

Post by cyberax »

Jochim wrote: post #11
neogodless wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the company spent its early years building its core technology and delivering a high-end experience with significantly higher prices than incumbent taxi companies. Eventually, though, the exact same technology was deployed to deliver a lower-priced experience to a significantly broader customer base; said customer base was brought on board at zero marginal cost Ironically, this was the plan laid out for Tesla early…

The Uber example is also an outright lie. They acquired those customers by burning billions of dollars to deliver rides below the cost of providing them. Then they raised prices beyond their competition to account for their ridiculous overheads.

> They acquired those customers by burning billions of dollars to deliver rides below the cost of providing them.

That is exaggerated. Uber was losing something like $0.50-$1 per ride in 2018.

Uber/Lyft were (and still mostly are) just _better_ than taxis.

Re: American Disruption

#79

Post by throwanem »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #57
throwanem wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which metaphor the thesis would implicitly be that we can't for some reason disassemble the "ratchet" and carefully retract or remove the "pawl," but have to chuck a "lit stick of dynamite" into the "workshop." No, there is still a lot of work to do before we get close to making this make any sense.

I agree, and the reason I don't support the dynamite is precisely because I think there are less destructive ways to reshore manufacturing if we want to. The author seems to be making the opposite point, that the problem is so intractable the US must not "seek to own supply, but rather control it". (Which is clearly true for some things - it's very silly to have nonzero tariffs on coffee and bananas - but he seems to…

It isn't especially culpable of Thompson, I think.

If he's not immediately well suited to think through a kind of political times last seen outside living memory, well, who immediately is? He didn't build his reputation instantaneously the first time either, but over years. I just think it may now be more a hindrance than a help, in having established a higher expectation than circumstances may any longer allow reliably living up to for a while at least.

As I say, I don't really hold it against him, even on a professional level. Someone who's consistently wrong in an interpretable way is not of much less value than someone with a string of good calls - maybe more, if the contrarian is strong on theory and the "superpredictor" shows signs of capitalizing on a run of good luck. Which of those he turns out to be if any I suppose we'll find out, and previously having put everything new behind a paywall is questionable, but at the very least I suspect that to keep up with his doings may remain of some interest.

Re: American Disruption

#80

Post by renewiltord »

acdha wrote: post #61
renewiltord wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxis still exist and are still more expensive. You pay for them to use bus lanes in SF and so on. Uber prices are not beyond the competition.

Where I live, Uber is recognized as the high prices option. Once VCs stopped subsidizing rides prices went up and availability went down - it was a running joke for years that at DCA you’d see people waiting in line for 20 minutes to spend $20 more than hopping in a waiting cab.

That makes sense for me. I would easily pay $20 more to take an Uber over a cab in SF. The prices are the other way around which is convenient for me. The last time I took a cab from the airport the guy asked me which cross streets and how to get there. That's not my Uber experience. I don't want to be telling this guy how to do his job. I want personal transportation and we can chat about something else if he likes but I want him to use the satnav.
Post reply on HN