Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#881

Post by specialist » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 2:59 PM UTC

bflesch wrote: post #621

soVeryTired wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe in the comparative advantage argument though? Surely it’s only true if comparative advantage is fixed over time. And surely in order to leverage comparative advantage, an economy would need to know how good they would be at producing every possible good. There are good reasons to trade, but comparative advantage doesn’t feel like the correct theoretical underpinning to me.

IMO your logic is all wrong. Comparative Advantage ist just applied "opportunity cost" of time. Humans and resources are unique, everyone has their theoretically "optimal" use of time in terms of economic output. The invisible hand of the market will let you know what aspect of your output is most valuable for others. The benefit of this invisible hand is that the "economy" as a whole does not need to know how good t…

What role does governmental industrial policy have your in thesis?

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#882

Post by bflesch » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 3:17 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #881

bflesch wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO your logic is all wrong. Comparative Advantage ist just applied "opportunity cost" of time. Humans and resources are unique, everyone has their theoretically "optimal" use of time in terms of economic output. The invisible hand of the market will let you know what aspect of your output is most valuable for others. The benefit of this invisible hand is that the "economy" as a whole does not need to know how good t…

What role does governmental industrial policy have your in thesis?

IMO industrial policy is the way to mitigate risks of war or extortion vis-a-vis a specific trading partner. Only once this safety criteria is fulfilled, politicians can think about tackling other issues with industrial policy - and unfortunately these further initiatives often fail or have unintended second-order effects (e.g. we want Intel chip factory in Germany).

My understanding is that due to human nature wars mostly start due to religious or extremist views of individuals leading a nation. Such a risk of your trade partner invading you because they don't like your skin color can be hardly formalized in an economic theory (maybe there exists one already, idk).

So role of industrial policy would be to ensure that a certain balance is kept with regards to creating dependencies to other nations, which could be abused in case of war.

Famous negative examples of failed industrial policy for Germany would be the dependence on gas mostly from russia and the dependence on oil mostly from middle east.

Another example would be the agricultural subsidies to ensure all citizens can be fed even when other nations would not export any food. A current example in Germany would be the production of "German steel" using fossil energy instead of production of CO2-neutral swedish steel. As Germany is part of EU, this is a conflicting view: We can't on one side ask for more trade and integration of supply chains between democratic EU countries, but on the other side assume that Sweden will deny steel exports to us when we'd need it.

Producing steel in Germany with fossil energy instead of doing it in Sweden with hydroelectric power is both more expensive and has more negative externalities (CO2 emissions due to use of fossil fuels). Therefore such industrial policy reduces welfare that would otherwise be available for German people.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#883

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 3:52 PM UTC

Amezarak wrote: post #820

Neonlicht wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People remember those days because the Republicans hadn't destroyed trade unions and the pension system yet.

We can agree unions should be stronger, but union jobs in America cannot compete with nonunion much cheaper labor in other countries. If you have free trade and zero Republicans the same thing happens. If the jobs go away the union doesn’t matter. That’s why the unions consistently lobbied against NAFTA, the WTO, etc. I’m actually not even sure what specific labor law changes you could blame that on. Clinton was runn…

> We can agree unions should be stronger, but union jobs in America cannot compete with nonunion much cheaper labor in other countries.

I mean, they can, if you put up trade barriers or introduce capital controls. It's not a coincidence that after capital controls were removed, basically any manufacturing that could, fled America. And I (and my family) in Ireland were massive, massive beneficiaries of this!

Like, you can definitely make the argument that globalisation has benefited the world overall, while being bad for a bunch of people in the developed countries. And it's not a bad argument.

But unfortunately for all of the people who think globalisation is great, the votes of all the people who disagree count just as much as yours, and it looks like they're willing to vote for anyone who even hints at promising to fix this.

> Clinton was running the show in the 90s,

He introduced NAFTA, which made it profitable for much US manufacturing to move to Canada/Mexico. Bush let China into the WTO (or was that Clinton too?).

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#884

Post by agubelu » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 4:06 PM UTC

nwienert wrote: post #826

zaptrem wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we’d replace income tax with a regressive tax on consumption

I’ve ran the numbers in a bunch of ways and I don’t think they’re much if any more regressive than current income tax, given the rich avoid income past a point and spend a lot more on goods in the middle band, even percentage based. If you want a better progressive tax you’d need to focus on capital or spending on luxury goods and services.

Congratulations, you have rediscovered VAT

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#885

Post by arandomusername » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 4:20 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #880

arandomusername wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpicking? Minor quibble? It was the major point that the user brought up. > Just a good time to remember that the same guy who thinks tariffs are a good idea is the guy who stood at a podium during Covid next to the world’s leading expert and suggested injecting bleach into Covid patients was a good idea. First sentence, right here. It's complete dishonest framing to make what Trump said seem as bad as possible. Wh…

>Nitpicking? Minor quibble? It was the major point that the user brought up. Not really. The major point the user brought up: "I would not say anyone is ‘automatically’ questioning Trump’s character or intelligence. There is plenty of evidence he has neither." That's like reading comprehension 101. >First sentence, right here. It's complete dishonest framing to make what Trump said seem as bad as possible. Which just…

And the bleach argument was the supporting argument for the statement regarding intelligence.

> Not really.

Yes really.

> Exactly what you did to the other poster. The other poster was clearly saying there is great reason to not assume the best about Trump. Your response? Ignore that and bicker about a minor detail.

No. The poster used that bleach argument as the reason here - which is a completely dishonest argument. It's not a minor detail.

Is this how the discussion should go, in your dream world?

- Trump is bad!

- Trump is good!

- Trump is bad!

Since, according to you, actually discussing the exact cases/reasoning brought up is quibbling over minor details, nitpicking.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#886

Post by freejazz » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 5:00 PM UTC

arandomusername wrote: post #885

freejazz wrote: post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nitpicking? Minor quibble? It was the major point that the user brought up. Not really. The major point the user brought up: "I would not say anyone is ‘automatically’ questioning Trump’s character or intelligence. There is plenty of evidence he has neither." That's like reading comprehension 101. >First sentence, right here. It's complete dishonest framing to make what Trump said seem as bad as possible. Which just…

And the bleach argument was the supporting argument for the statement regarding intelligence. > Not really. Yes really. > Exactly what you did to the other poster. The other poster was clearly saying there is great reason to not assume the best about Trump. Your response? Ignore that and bicker about a minor detail. No. The poster used that bleach argument as the reason here - which is a completely dishonest argument…

>And the bleach argument was the supporting argument for the statement regarding intelligence.

It was but one example of a list much longer than the post you responded to, which anyone who was fair would recognize.

>Yes really.

No, not really.

>No. The poster used that bleach argument as the reason here - which is a completely dishonest argument. It's not a minor detail.

The bleach argument was one example and you're being nitpicky about it anyway.

>Is this how the discussion should go, in your dream world?

Strawman.

>Since, according to you, actually discussing the exact cases/reasoning brought up is quibbling over minor details, nitpicking.

You're not engaging the substance of his argument while decrying that exact failure in everyone else. You say people should focus on main points and not quibble about small details and it's exactly what you are doing.

When did you engage with the main point that Trump has poor character and is unintelligent? You didn't. You're bickering about whether or not he literally said inject bleach. Okay, throw out the bleach part. The point still stands but you don't want to discuss it because you just want to quibble about the bleach. It's a complete waste of time for anyone interested in engaging in a conversation. Maybe he was wrong, maybe he misremembered, maybe in this one instance he isn't being fair. You don't engage in any of that and you assumed the worst. It's exactly what you're complaining about and I'm not going to sit here repeating myself because you like to argue.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#887

Post by freejazz » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 5:23 PM UTC

arandomusername wrote: post #877

jonplackett wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK so he suggested injecting disinfectant. Which is basically the same as bleach. If you can’t tell that from the video I’m not sure what’s going on anymore. He also talks about putting UV lights inside the body, which is still a bit dumb, but not as dumb as injecting or ingesting disinfectant or bleach. If you want to say he is only says it could be ‘interesting’ to inject or consume disinfectant then sure, why not…

When you get a wound, it's often a good idea to disinfect it. Do you wash your wounds with bleach?

When you are engaged in a conversation is it a good idea to crater the conversation by myopically focusing on one minor detail, to the detriment of everyone else?

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#888

Post by arandomusername » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 6:22 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #886

arandomusername wrote: post #885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the bleach argument was the supporting argument for the statement regarding intelligence. > Not really. Yes really. > Exactly what you did to the other poster. The other poster was clearly saying there is great reason to not assume the best about Trump. Your response? Ignore that and bicker about a minor detail. No. The poster used that bleach argument as the reason here - which is a completely dishonest argument…

>And the bleach argument was the supporting argument for the statement regarding intelligence. It was but one example of a list much longer than the post you responded to, which anyone who was fair would recognize. >Yes really. No, not really. >No. The poster used that bleach argument as the reason here - which is a completely dishonest argument. It's not a minor detail. The bleach argument was one example and you're…

> It was but one example of a list much longer than the post you responded to, which anyone who was fair would recognize.

"Anyone who is fair would see it exactly how I see it!"

> No, not really.

Yes, really.

Wonderful way to have a conversation, isn't it. Everything else in your response is nitpicking and hanging up over minor details!

> The bleach argument was one example and you're being nitpicky about it anyway.

The other example was groping. So I refuted half the points the user made, pretty major to me. It's not being nitpicky, it's major difference. If I said Kamala wanted to establish soviet like price controls, people would rightfully correct that and that wouldn't be nitpicky or hanging up over minor details.

> Strawman.

No, you are just nitpicking.

> When did you engage with the main point that Trump has poor character and is unintelligent?

I did, by engaging in the DIRECT argument that the user provided for him being unintelligent. User said "Trump did X. He is unintelligent". I'm supposed to say "ohh no but he is intelligent" completely ignoring the reasoning for his conclusion? In an actual conversation, you engage the reasons provided - otherwise it just turns into unproductive "no/yes/no/yes" conversation.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#889

Post by arandomusername » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 6:25 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #887

arandomusername wrote: post #877

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you get a wound, it's often a good idea to disinfect it. Do you wash your wounds with bleach?

When you are engaged in a conversation is it a good idea to crater the conversation by myopically focusing on one minor detail, to the detriment of everyone else?

When your point is defeated and you were wrong, maybe make a new point instead of being hung up on how anyone who points out your blatant lies is nitpicking and focusing on minor details.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#890

Post by ascorbic » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 7:08 PM UTC

mikrl wrote: post #749

ascorbic wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prime minister in the UK is regularly kicked out by their party, and it's the same in most parliamentary systems. Liz Truss introduced ridiculous ideological economic policies that caused a bond market revolt. Her party kicked her out within the lifetime of a lettuce. This is only possible in a parliamentary system. Most of her recent predecessors were similarly if less rapidly removed. In the past 40 years, only…

The UK is not Canada though. You have the House of Lords, we have a Senate. We are a (con)federation, and that adds a whole new political overlay that the UK doesn’t have. The executive power of our PM relative to the body politik is much higher. We don’t have a tradition of backbench rebellion, and the PMO often wields more power than the cabinet.

The point is that a parliamentary system doesn't need to mean an unchecked leader