366
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
366 points (95.8% liked)
News
36546 readers
384 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Tarrifs on imports?
So basically jacking up prices on all the things made overseas that are cheapest to buy in the US. That affects everyone, especially the poorer people that tend to shop places where that cheap imported stuff is sold because it’s a bigger percentage of their income. It’s gonna affect the middle class the most because they’re probably the biggest consumers. The rich DGAF because well, they’re rich.
Quickest way to put even more people below the poverty line.
Things that are made overseas because American business owners outsourced the manufacturing jobs to the countries with the cheapest labour (and also the least worker protections)?
Yeah, that's a whole 'nuther discussion besides the tariffs...
What? No, this is the same exact discussion... that is literally one of the primary purposes of tariffs: to give an advantage to local producers.
I think you misunderstand, friend. The ship has already sailed overseas and there aren’t enough “local” producers to make up for the rise in costs faced by the people who shop where the cheap imported goods are and the middle class that consumes the most.
The only advantage is to the government collecting the tariffs on the poor and middle class. Like I said, the rich won’t care.
Yes... that's literally the point? Tariffs both support existing local producers and are an incentive to move production local.
It's becoming a problem for Americans because labor leverage abroad (particularly in China and India) have been improving as labor demand eclipses supply.
African and Latin American states (particularly Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, and South Africa) were supposed to be the next places to extract labor, but they keep going Woke, with socialist state governments making demands on exports that Western states don't want to surrender.
Imperials are running out of countries to exploit.
You're kinda making the imperials sound good there, if every time they move into a country they start running out of poor people a generation later
If you neglect what they destroy on their way in, perhaps.
Nailed it.
That's a consequence of outsourcing as much as anything. Tariffs don't have to mean making retail goods unaffordable for the bulk of the population. When you have domestic industry with room to grow, insourcing your demand can simply mean building out more capital and consuming more labor at home.
But insourcing also means boosting wages and incentivizing immigration, things conservatives hate.
So Trump's pitch ultimately amounts to giving domestic producers with no intention of boosting production an opportunity to price gouge their clients with the blessing of the state.
Your assumption that things become unaffordable is incorrect, they just cost more.
Prove that wages get boosted. That flies in the face of corporate methodology to cheapen wages and benefits along with product quality in the service of quarterly reports and profits.
Price gouging is already happening. It doesn’t require trump’s ok to allow it.
Wages rise when demand for labor exceeds supply. That's Econ 101.
Wages are kept low by artificially stunting labor demand. That happens either by under-investing in new capital or cartelizing the hiring process.
Gouging involves monopolizing supply of commodities. If we increase the supply of capital and the number of hiring firms, that monopolization becomes more difficult.
But if we simply freeze out imports with trade laws, the existing firms can monopolize domestic supply more easily.
None of your replies have any basis other than broad opinion. It’s devoid of manufacturing ability, profiteering, or the corporate price gouging we already experience.
You just wave a magic wand and suddenly the US can defray the manufacturing deficit and will suddenly throw money at the workforce. Must be a nice imaginary world you live in.
K
Lookit you....solved everything with a 'k'. Pity it isn't as easy as you handwave away.
"The invisible hand of the free market will save us all!"
It's very real hands of very real people
While I mostly agree with you, econ101 is a pretty poor argument; early econ courses (like intro to micro and macro) are notoriously not grounded in reality.
You can argue about the goals of economic policy, but that's very different from arguing the effects.
What is the response to rising labor demand? Do you
Or
The former is the "natural" response you learn about in 101, assuming a naive approach to the problem. The latter is what you learn works best in 201, when your goal is profit maximization.
Plus rich people can better afford quality stuff made in the USA.
Rich people have enough money that a small percent in price increase doesn’t affect them the way it affects a “normal” person. If you make millions vs 100k/yr combined income it does that the same.
It’s not about quality, it’s about what you’re being sold.
But right now the cheap stuff is made overseas like in Asia. The expanse stuff is built in Europe or the US. Tariffs would likely be harsher on Asia products. So expensive stuff might not get much more expensive at all. The cheap stuff would get much more expensive.
Meaning there'd be a bigger cost percentage increase for the people who already can't afford it. A double whammy.
That’s pretty much what I said.
Not what I understood from it but okay. I thought you were saying rich people are better able to absorb the cost increase. I was saying the cost increase would also be less for rich people.
That is what I said.
If you say so