4 ms·

> I think that Trump’s approach, while more theoretically valid than it is being given credit for, is the wrong one. I disagree that Trumps approach is "theor

> I think that Trump’s approach, while more theoretically valid than it is being given credit for, is the wrong one. I disagree that Trumps approach is "theoretically valid". So do 16 Nobel Prize-winning economists and the entire stock market. > These tariffs, however, are much more complicated, because they exist (for now anyways), while a war does not. I think the author means to imply that the tariffs will be short lived here. However, I initially misread it to mean that a war was coming, and found it to be prescient. Republicans lost the house/senate for 50 years the last time they tried tariffs. It's going to take a pretty large distraction to keep the retirees from noticing that cat food doesn't taste as good as it used to.

setsewerd 2y ago
My understanding of economics doesn't go further than a few college classes I took, and I have no idea how sophisticated the models are that modern economists are using to make these kinds of conclusions. And Trump's whole approach does seem to be a pretty terrible idea from what I've read. However, a part of me is curious whether certain political maneuvers (power dynamics etc) are sufficiently captured in modern economic models? Could there be a reason that the Trump administration is continuing to persevere on something that is seen across the board as an objectively bad idea? Is it possible that this is actually smarter than just a poorly calculated ego trip or a means to game the economy for personal profit?
- Volundr 2y ago
  > Could there be a reason that the Trump administration is continuing to persevere on something that is seen across the board as an objectively bad idea? From cofefe to tarrifs there's always someone out there insisting that whatever inexplicable move Trump is making at this moment is actually 4D chess, and ready to explain how this is some convoluted move we just don't understand. In reality I think the answer is no. I've seen nothing to convince me over the years that Trump is operating at this level, and it's telling that it's never Trump whose explaining how these moves are supposed to lead to wonderful outcomes through convoluted paths, but instead some rando on the Internet.
  - setsewerd 2y ago
    There's definitely still a part of me hoping that in order to have what it takes to win the presidency, a president has to be much more capable than the average person when it comes to operating at these peak positions of global power. So while I'm not big on the 4D chess arguments, I do like to keep an open mind and question whether the most obvious prevailing interpretations might be wrong or at least incomplete. But of course this might just be wishful thinking because the alternative is a pretty hard pill to swallow, so it's less anxiety-inducing to stay optimistic.
- computerthings 2y ago
  [dead]
palmotea 2y ago
>> I think that Trump’s approach, while more theoretically valid than it is being given credit for, is the wrong one. > I disagree that Trumps approach is "theoretically valid". So do 16 Nobel Prize-winning economists and the entire stock market. Trump being wrong doesn't mean "16 Nobel Prize-winning economists and the entire stock market" is right if they disagree with him. Actually, I'd bet "16 Nobel Prize-winning economists and the entire stock market" have a myopic view that misses a lot of important things. Make a tradeoff that favors one of the things they miss for something they're myopically focused on? They'll scream bloody murder, but no one should listen to them until they wise up and expand their view (which they probably won't, because economics is miasma of dogma and numbers).
- stevenAthompson 1y ago
  > Make a tradeoff that favors one of the things they miss for something they're myopically focused on? Ok, I'll bite. If boosting the economy isn't the goal of his economic policy what is it?
margalabargala 2y ago
The disagreement is just a result of the percieved goal. Trump's approach is valid, if the totality of one's goal is "decrease the US trade deficit". You, and the economists, are adding on bonus goals that the current administration isn't considering, like "and also don't cause an economic disaster"
tim333 2y ago
I think the trouble with Trump's approach is the ham fisted way he's trying to do it. If he wanted to bring manufacturing back to the US for strategic reasons even if the costs may be a bit higher than doing it in China, which I could understand, he should have announced a stable thought out policy years in advance to give people time to train, build factories and so on. The current approach is a mess.

setsewerd 2y ago

My understanding of economics doesn't go further than a few college classes I took, and I have no idea how sophisticated the models are that modern economists are using to make these kinds of conclusions. And Trump's whole approach does seem to be a pretty terrible idea from what I've read. However, a part of me is curious whether certain political maneuvers (power dynamics etc) are sufficiently captured in modern economic models? Could there be a reason that the Trump administration is continuing to persevere on something that is seen across the board as an objectively bad idea? Is it possible that this is actually smarter than just a poorly calculated ego trip or a means to game the economy for personal profit?

Volundr 2y ago
> Could there be a reason that the Trump administration is continuing to persevere on something that is seen across the board as an objectively bad idea? From cofefe to tarrifs there's always someone out there insisting that whatever inexplicable move Trump is making at this moment is actually 4D chess, and ready to explain how this is some convoluted move we just don't understand. In reality I think the answer is no. I've seen nothing to convince me over the years that Trump is operating at this level, and it's telling that it's never Trump whose explaining how these moves are supposed to lead to wonderful outcomes through convoluted paths, but instead some rando on the Internet.
- setsewerd 2y ago
  There's definitely still a part of me hoping that in order to have what it takes to win the presidency, a president has to be much more capable than the average person when it comes to operating at these peak positions of global power. So while I'm not big on the 4D chess arguments, I do like to keep an open mind and question whether the most obvious prevailing interpretations might be wrong or at least incomplete. But of course this might just be wishful thinking because the alternative is a pretty hard pill to swallow, so it's less anxiety-inducing to stay optimistic.
computerthings 2y ago
[dead]

palmotea 2y ago

>> I think that Trump’s approach, while more theoretically valid than it is being given credit for, is the wrong one. > I disagree that Trumps approach is "theoretically valid". So do 16 Nobel Prize-winning economists and the entire stock market. Trump being wrong doesn't mean "16 Nobel Prize-winning economists and the entire stock market" is right if they disagree with him. Actually, I'd bet "16 Nobel Prize-winning economists and the entire stock market" have a myopic view that misses a lot of important things. Make a tradeoff that favors one of the things they miss for something they're myopically focused on? They'll scream bloody murder, but no one should listen to them until they wise up and expand their view (which they probably won't, because economics is miasma of dogma and numbers).

stevenAthompson 1y ago
> Make a tradeoff that favors one of the things they miss for something they're myopically focused on? Ok, I'll bite. If boosting the economy isn't the goal of his economic policy what is it?

margalabargala 2y ago

The disagreement is just a result of the percieved goal. Trump's approach is valid, if the totality of one's goal is "decrease the US trade deficit". You, and the economists, are adding on bonus goals that the current administration isn't considering, like "and also don't cause an economic disaster"

tim333 2y ago

I think the trouble with Trump's approach is the ham fisted way he's trying to do it. If he wanted to bring manufacturing back to the US for strategic reasons even if the costs may be a bit higher than doing it in China, which I could understand, he should have announced a stable thought out policy years in advance to give people time to train, build factories and so on. The current approach is a mess.