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

American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

kielinstitut.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 814 posts

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#701

Post by belorn »

tzs wrote: post #269
dominicrose wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women have had the right to vote for a long time. Women could not bring themselves to vote for a woman for President. People talk a lot about Trump but I think a lot of people just voted against the other option so it didn't have much to do with Trump to begin with.

Harris beat Trump by 10 percentage points among women voters. Trump beat Harris by 10 percentage points among men voters. Clinton beat Trump by 15 percentage points among women voters. Trump beat Clinton by 11 percentage points among men voters.

Something that may be worth to know, women and men vote different in other countries and especially when it comes to left vs right. Women in Sweden votes with about 10 percentage points more towards left than men, and men vote 11 percentage points more towards right. Looking at the specific parties at far right and far left, around the 2/3 of the far right votes are from men while 2/3 of the far left is women.

A lot of research has been made on this subject and it should be noted that its primarily young voters that create this voting pattern.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#702

Post by LexiMax »

immibis wrote: post #695
LexiMax wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a bot? Is this someone telling an unpopular truth on an alt account? Is this someone telling a fabrication on an alt account? The best part about Hacker News is that you can't really know. It's a problem inherent to the kind of social space HN is trying to be; open registration, and lax control over abuse of user moderation tools.

HN is more tightly controlled than it lets on. User moderation tools are suspended if a user doesn't use them in accordance with a pro-corporate right-wing bias.

Do you have personal experience with this? I was under the impression that abuse of moderation tools was common due to the fact that user moderation tools and open registration do not mix well.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#703

Post by brightball »

immibis wrote: post #693
brightball wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Added a link to the original post for the Q4 GDP forecast quickly. > Why is this positive? And I’m not implying it’s negative either. It’s just a fact sans context on the effect of the market unless you’ve bought the current admins argument that a trade deficit means you’re getting ripped off. When would increased exports not be a good thing for any country? The tariff conversation was interesting for me in particula…

"Trade deficit" is another word for "free stuff" and also another word for "being the world's reserve currency". America receives massive quantities of free stuff from other countries and gets to control the banking system of the entire world as a side effect (this is how it manages to collect taxes from non-resident citizens and how it makes sanctions meaningful). Why doesn't America want that to continue?

Is there any reason America can’t continue that without giving every critical manufacturing industry to China?

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#704

Post by brianwawok »

bee_rider wrote: post #463
cael450 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have spent my whole life intimately involved with southern Republicans. They will never ever not vote Republican, let alone vote Democrat. It is an identity marker. It doesn’t even really matter what the policies are. They’ll complain for a while, but they will always internalize a Republican policy shift no matter what it is. They used to treat “free market economics” as a religion just 10 years ago. Secondarily,…

I don’t really know how we’d get there, but the US would be better structured as an EU of regions, IMO. The states are too small, but we’ve got regions with definite noticeable cultural differences (Northeast vs Southeast, etc etc). These areas have more similar values than the country as a whole, and are big enough to handle 99% of their issues. Like, we should not have done the ACA, just merged all the various alre…

Kind of, but also it’s complicated. For example, Chicago is blue blue blue. 500 miles in every direction outside the city is red. 90% of the area of Illinois is red. But Chicago is so much more massive that Illinois votes blue in the end. So what the heck region is Chicago in, and the red part of IL?

I don’t know CA well but I know it’s blue with very deep red pockets.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#705

Post by nobody9999 »

Jensson wrote: post #636
brightball wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real person. Live in the south. Kamala being a woman had no impact on her election chances. Most people in my circles were big Haley fans. Claiming that half the country wouldn't vote for a woman because Kamala didn't win and couldn't possibly have had any other faults as a candidate is very bot like, however.

The funny part is that most female world leaders are right wing, since right wing voters are more likely to vote for a woman than left wing voters. There are many more left wing female candidates, but those that win elections are mostly right wing.

In the US, the far-right party elects many fewer women than the center-right party[0]

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/21/women-acc...

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#706

Post by bigbadfeline »

BanAntiVaxxers wrote: post #121
PaulRobinson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of Americans believed the guy they wanted to believe in, because they didn't want to believe the people they didn't want to believe in. You're assuming that modern politics across most of the World has something to do with rational, logical thought. Russia, China, Europe, the US, the Middle East - they are all in a quagmire of irrational fractures between the public and the political classes who want power/cont…

[flagged]

> They could not bring themselves to vote for a woman for President.

That's nothing new... Don't blame me for bothsiderism but I and many others knew full well that Harris would lose after the midsummer switcheroo. Sorry, the Dem party knew it too and they wanted to lose, that's not the only evidence for it and there's no other rational conclusion.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#707

Post by hereme888 »

Ignatenko et al., 2025 found the 2025 tariffs could yield modest U.S. welfare gains through improved terms of trade if partners don't retaliate. Concrete data shows $236 billion in revenue, a 25% drop in Chinese imports, and $1.7 trillion in announced manufacturing investments. So the debate isn't who pays (both sides agree Americans do), but whether reshoring and revenue gains justify the cost.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#708

Post by johnnyanmac »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #266
PaulRobinson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of Americans believed the guy they wanted to believe in, because they didn't want to believe the people they didn't want to believe in. You're assuming that modern politics across most of the World has something to do with rational, logical thought. Russia, China, Europe, the US, the Middle East - they are all in a quagmire of irrational fractures between the public and the political classes who want power/cont…

You are using "believed" - past tense. Facts change nothing. This report means nothing. These people still believe. The report is wrong. They are right. The truth is whatever they want it to be, not something out of their control.

>The truth is whatever they want it to be, not something out of their control.

Yes, this is what we call a "post truth era", for anyone who may still think this is some fringe conspiracy.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#709

Post by johnnyanmac »

MonkeyClub wrote: post #680
CalChris wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a clever bothsiderism. However, these two tribes are not alike.

True, they're not alike, nor are the subtribes that are funneled into the two quasi-distinct groups. But I think the methods by which they're being manipulated are quite alike, and ultimately forced to side with the current tribal figurehead simply because it's not the other tribe's figurehead, even if there are many, and legitimate, contentions.

>many, and legitimate, contentions.

When one chess player chooses to suddenly say that a pawn can move 3 spaces, and you insist on calling a ref to call out cheating, I don't think it's just "two tribes" anymore. You agreed on the rules of engagment at the beginning of the match and one side is objectively breaking them. Saying post haste that "well maybe a pawn should move 3 spaces" does not negate what you agreed upon.

That's why it's tiring to head the "but you're being manipulated" argument. Being manipulated by the very rules of your government is different from a bunch of war mongerers, billionaires, and corrupt politicians continually ignoring the rules and saying "no it's okay".

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#710

Post by mmooss »

hereme888 wrote: post #707

Ignatenko et al., 2025 found the 2025 tariffs could yield modest U.S. welfare gains through improved terms of trade if partners don't retaliate. Concrete data shows $236 billion in revenue, a 25% drop in Chinese imports, and $1.7 trillion in announced manufacturing investments. So the debate isn't who pays (both sides agree Americans do), but whether reshoring and revenue gains justify the cost.

> $236 billion in revenue

That's a tax increase, using a regressive tax. It would strain belief in their seriousness if Republicans suddenly thought tax increases are a good thing.

> reshoring

A tax on ordinary people that goes to welfare for US corporations.

Post reply on HN