3 ms·

The rich are always behind every change that people don't like or understand. The argument used to be that low tariffs enabled shifting work to where labor and

The rich are always behind every change that people don't like or understand. The argument used to be that low tariffs enabled shifting work to where labor and environmental laws were weaker, reducing demand for American labor. Effectively subsidizing pollution and human suffering. But then someone came along and agreed. Can't believe something that he agrees with.

segfaultex 2y ago
This is a bit reductive. The opposition to tariffs doesn't stem from a kneejerk reaction to a certain someone wanting them. It comes from economic consensus. Implementing targeted tariffs in a way that spurs domestic labor and secures vital industries is common practice. What's not common practice or beneficial are the broad tariffs we're levying, which come from a place of ignorance. The implementers literally didn't think retaliation would happen, but it is/will. All these are accomplishing is increasing the cost of goods.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > The opposition to tariffs doesn't stem from a kneejerk reaction to a certain someone wanting them. It comes from economic consensus. Democrats think lots of things that are "economic consensus" do not accurately describe how the world works in practice, or fails to capture important values. "Economic consensus" also is that VAT is the most efficient form of taxation and that capital gains taxes are harmful.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    To be clear about the above, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that position. It’s fine to have policy planks that posit that experts are wrong about something.
rayiner 2y ago
That certain someone embraced Bernie's views on the three major points he has most been correct about: immigration, free trade, and the self-serving administrative state. And now a large swath of the other side sounds like Reagan republicans on those points.

3 ms·

The rich are always behind every change that people don't like or understand. The argument used to be that low tariffs enabled shifting work to where labor and

by stretchwithme 2y ago

segfaultex 2y ago
This is a bit reductive. The opposition to tariffs doesn't stem from a kneejerk reaction to a certain someone wanting them. It comes from economic consensus. Implementing targeted tariffs in a way that spurs domestic labor and secures vital industries is common practice. What's not common practice or beneficial are the broad tariffs we're levying, which come from a place of ignorance. The implementers literally didn't think retaliation would happen, but it is/will. All these are accomplishing is increasing the cost of goods.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > The opposition to tariffs doesn't stem from a kneejerk reaction to a certain someone wanting them. It comes from economic consensus. Democrats think lots of things that are "economic consensus" do not accurately describe how the world works in practice, or fails to capture important values. "Economic consensus" also is that VAT is the most efficient form of taxation and that capital gains taxes are harmful.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    To be clear about the above, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that position. It’s fine to have policy planks that posit that experts are wrong about something.
rayiner 2y ago
That certain someone embraced Bernie's views on the three major points he has most been correct about: immigration, free trade, and the self-serving administrative state. And now a large swath of the other side sounds like Reagan republicans on those points.