366
submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

What?

Why am I getting down votes?
How am I shitting on anything? What am I even shitting on? \

All I'm doing is asking "why do we shit on teriffs and treat them as inherently bad?"
Im trying to have a discussion in good faith, and rather than having any of my questions explained or answered I'm just down voted and vaguely demeaned.

I'm being very clear I do not support whatever shit trump is doing, I'm trying to understand why people just hate tariffs.
I don't understand how, if the importer bares all tariff costs, what would disincentivize a foreign nation from exporting to us since they bear no increased costs. Why would this not just appear as a decrease in demand, from their perspective?

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago

I literally explained it to you in simple terms and you still argued against the facts.

Tariffs

Shit on

USA Commerce and Industry

They cannot ever be a replacement for taxation. Their uses are purely as a defence from foreign fuckery in the markets.

[-] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago

You didn't provide facts, you provided arguments and assertions.
Then I refuted one of your arguments showing how it is seemingly contradicted one of your assertions and asked for elaboration.

I don't understand where your hostility is coming from. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm pointing out arguments that don't appear (to me) to lead to your conclusion.

I absolutely don't refute that Trump's idea is a bad one. My question is more general than that.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The hostility is coming because of you advocating harm on a massive scale and refusing that you might be wrong. Also why you're getting those downvotes. Stop asking about Trump. I used Trump as an example, but we've explained to you that Tariffs are bad in general.

[-] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago

Ok, I see the problem; you're not reading my replies.

I have been bending over backwards to make it clear I'm not advocating anything in general, and that I don't support trump or his suggestion in specific.

You keep saying that you've explained tariffs in general, but most of what you've done is just assert they're bad and then claim that you've explained it, but if you haven't been reading my replies then of course you wouldn't have read the questions I've asked about the explanations you did provided

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago

You think tariffs aren't that bad. That's your stance. I've explained to you that tariffs are bad, albeit sometimes necessary. There is no confusion here. You can't explain it, because you're wrong.

[-] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No, again.

I didn't make a stance, I didn't say they're not that bad. I asked why everyone immediately shit on them, and then I asked for more information when your examination seemed contradictory in one area.

You keep putting words in my mouth and getting angry at me for them.

You gave me a reasonable explanation at first, and then when I asked for clarification about a part that seemed contradictory to me, I was immediately met with anger, accusations, and a repeated claim that all my questions had been answered.

Someone else actually gave me a pretty decent answer, but then they deleted their reply before I could follow up with them 😢. It was more about posturing than about economics (although when governments posture, economics are always impacted)

this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
366 points (95.8% liked)

News

36628 readers
669 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