10 ms·

You realize that the only reason this is a topic of discussion is because of politics, right?

• jameslk 2y ago
  No? I see comments here discussing things other than politics
  • consteval 2y ago
    You don't, you just don't understand how they're intrinsically linked to politics. That's not me being mean, because a lot of the time it isn't obvious. But, you would be shocked how often you can trace an exact bill or executive order that is causing the thing people are thinking about. I mean, you can trace various seemingly random effects today to Reagan policies.
    • jameslk 2y ago
      I responded to a similar comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43263416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43263416 Essentially, yes those other comments are linked to politics. All things could be extrapolated to politics. That doesn't mean we should directly talk about the political aspects, otherwise it drowns out curious discussion
• MichaelZuo 2y ago
  There rarely seem to be any substantive discussion in these types of threads, beyond vibes or repeating tautologies and talking points. Over the past few months I doubt there have even been 10 discussions total with some non-circular, credible, arguments along with some coherent logic backing them…
  • ty6853 2y ago
    Both right wing economists like Friedman and Mises, and left wing, understand initiating tariff wars against friendly neighbors is economically illiterate. No persons of educated thinking have anything fundamental to add. There is nothing to discuss. What we are witnessing is, to be crass, an exercise of pure idiocy.
    • MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Based on what logic…? There’s not a widely agreed upon definition of intelligence last time I checked. So it seems impossible for “idiocy” to be any better defined. There’s not even such an agreement that all human adults are even sentient in the first place, or what the critical threshold is.
      • johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >Based on what logic That trump's narrative of what tariffs are is a lie and that these do not in fact help the economy. They can help, but not the way trump is using the tools. >There’s not a widely agreed upon definition of intelligence last time I checked. >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        • MichaelZuo 2y ago
          How does this relate to the prior claim? It’s clearly possible for people to have ulterior goals and motives… so assessments based on outward usages, of anything, seem irrelevant to determining intelligence, or the lack of it.
          • johnnyanmac 2y ago
            This is my first reply to you, AFAIK. So I'm not sure what the thoughts are of the claim up the chain. I'm not interested in this tangent here that you keep trying to veer on. Point it many economists know this trade war is not good for the economy. The history of this is as recent as Trump 45.
            • MichaelZuo 2y ago
              This doesn’t make sense. Of course I know you are a different user, otherwise I would have reiterated the unanswered question directly.