6 ms·

Many people here were so confident a few days ago that the tariffs were just some 4d chess to get interest rates down, despite this not making any sense.

procaryote 1y ago
It's interesting that conspiracy theorists nowadays are looking for hidden plans for how the government might be working in our best interest, in spite of appearances
- simmerup 1y ago
  Low interest rates isn’t in the common persons interests, it’s in the interests of those who own and those who have relationships with people close to the money faucet
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Low rates very much in the interests of people who want to get mortgages. (Interestingly, because of the very long mortgage duration, US homeowners are very insulated from interest rate shocks. But it will show up in consumer credit, car payments etc.) Low rates are also expansionary for the economy in general.
    - Ekaros 1y ago
      Actually I think moderate rates are best for mortgages. Low rates just push prices and thus down payments to sky as have been seen. And that is no good. Moderate rates keep prices at cost of building. In the end monthly payment is what matters.
- pjc50 1y ago
  The weird thing is how conservatives get to play both the "federal government is inherently evil" and "look at all the stuff we're doing with our power over the federal government" cards at the same time, often for the same events.
  - pwatsonwailes 1y ago
    Not mutually exclusive. "We're incredibly powerful and government is evil" and "we're absolutely going to use governmental power now we have it to fuck shit up that we don't like", is totally a position those in government can take. The key is in the idea of governance and who's governing. Any and all governance which has happened by those the people in power don't like (basically the other team) is what is labelled bad. The only question is, ultimately, is their governance sane and sensible? From the perspective of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And no. No it isn't.
  - milesrout 1y ago
    What a stupid strawman. The claim is "the government is too powerful, that power is easily abused, it wastes your money on pointless 'woke' things, and we are cancelling it all".
    - bmicraft 1y ago
      If they're so concerned about abuse, why are they abusing it more than anybody else?
  - roenxi 1y ago
    Is it weird to be consistent? The "federal government is inherently evil" is a principle that doesn't magically go away when small-government people get in to power. The argument never was nor will be that [this thing] is bad when [the wrong people] do it; the argument is that [this thing] is bad. There isn't an expectation that a right wing government will somehow transcend the realities of government. The ideal social contract with the politicians - from the liberal part of the right wing - is that they do whatever it is that motivates them to take on the job and that is tolerated to some extent - but in exchange they shrink the size and scope of the government bureaucracy. Obviously the ideal is a distant dream at this point, but the principle lingers. It is the only realistic option.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      > The "federal government is inherently evil" is a principle that doesn't magically go away when small-government people get in to power. In my experience it’s exactly this. The principle vanishes quickly, because none of those “small government” people were really so. The primary small government faction in the US is conservatives. They’ve been, for a few decades now, VERY large government. Bordering on fascist. They just lie, because it’s easy and none of their constituents care. You have better odds of hell freezing over than conservative constituencies holding their representatives accountable. When you’re in that situation, you’d be stupid not to lie. To expand on this, shrinking the bureaucracy isn’t shrinking the government. Because, if you had read the agenda in project 2025, you’d know that the intention is to then concentrate those powers in the president. That’s not smaller gov, that’s bigger. You’re creating a monarch.
- Gibbon1 1y ago
  Some guy that writes about politics wrote something that stuck with me 'a lot of people think they are in on the grift'
- NikkiA 1y ago
  Conspiracy theories have always just been a form of confirmation bias. They theorise what matches the reality they want to have.
- candiddevmike 1y ago
  > in spite of appearances Or disappearances, in some cases
QuesnayJr 1y ago
I never even understood what the theory was supposed to be for why it would lower interest rates. You can only run a trade deficit if the country you are trading with is a net investor. Part of that investment is going to be in the form of bonds. If you force a cut in the trade deficit, you cut the demand for bonds, which lowers their price and raises their interest rate.
tim333 1y ago
I'm not sure the current lot are capable of 2d chess. See penguins for example. Also see "I’d like to apologize to bricks for calling Peter Retarrdo dumber than a sack of bricks. That was so unfair to bricks." - E Musk
- leereeves 1y ago
  I'm afraid the President's critics aren't always capable of critical reading. Consider: > Ten-year Treasury yields have risen 39 basis points to 4.38% this week alone as prices tumble. Ok, but the recent high point for 10-year yields was 4.79% on January 13. Why is this 4.38% alarming? And why is a brief intraday spike above 4.5% (in a foreign market) newsworthy? This reads like someone was looking for bad news to report. https://ycharts.com/indicators/10_year_treasury_rate https://ycharts.com/indicators/10_year_treasury_rate
  - kzs0 1y ago
    I think that has to do with the rate at which it moved no?
griffzhowl 1y ago
> despite this not making any sense. Most commentary, for and against, has been exclusively on the economics, and from that perspective it makes little to no sense. But I've seen suggestions in a couple of places that there are relevant "national security" motivations, or to put it bluntly, a greater freedom to wage war - or at least to put oneself in a position where the threat of it would be more realistic. Decoupling the US economy from the rest of the world, but especially from China, makes sense if the strategic cost-benefit analysis sees a significant potential for war with that country. It's a commonplace of international relations, and intuitively obvious, that the more integrated are the economies of two countries, the less likely they are to start wars with each other (no doubt there are exceptions, but as a rule...). That doesn't have to mean anything imminent or indicate concrete plans on the part of US, but it's plausibly a factor in the overall calculations. In fact, the economic interdependence of the US and China had seemed to be a big reason to remain hopeful that there wouldn't be a war between them, among other reasons of course. Reducing this interdependence seems to destabilize this situation. The unfortunate fact is that I can't see the US military establishment just peacefully allowing China to become more militarily powerful than itself. I'd be happy to hear other perspectives on this, I'm far from an expert and haven't seen this angle discussed much.
- leereeves 1y ago
  I think the strategic angle is important, but I doubt it's part of a long-term plan to start a war with China. I think the more likely concern is that if the US becomes too dependent on Chinese manufacturing, China could impose sanctions on the US to control US foreign policy. And a similar concern applies if the US lacks the manufacturing capability to wage wars with its own resources. Something we already saw that when we ran out of ammo because of the war in Ukraine.
  - griffzhowl 1y ago
    Thanks, that's probably a more sober and probable assessment. It could make sense for reducing potential Chinese leverage over US. I think if the point were to shore up defense-critical industries, though, then direct support for those industries would make more sense and be considerably less disruptive than these tariffs.

procaryote 1y ago

It's interesting that conspiracy theorists nowadays are looking for hidden plans for how the government might be working in our best interest, in spite of appearances

simmerup 1y ago
Low interest rates isn’t in the common persons interests, it’s in the interests of those who own and those who have relationships with people close to the money faucet
- pjc50 1y ago
  Low rates very much in the interests of people who want to get mortgages. (Interestingly, because of the very long mortgage duration, US homeowners are very insulated from interest rate shocks. But it will show up in consumer credit, car payments etc.) Low rates are also expansionary for the economy in general.
  - Ekaros 1y ago
    Actually I think moderate rates are best for mortgages. Low rates just push prices and thus down payments to sky as have been seen. And that is no good. Moderate rates keep prices at cost of building. In the end monthly payment is what matters.
pjc50 1y ago
The weird thing is how conservatives get to play both the "federal government is inherently evil" and "look at all the stuff we're doing with our power over the federal government" cards at the same time, often for the same events.
- pwatsonwailes 1y ago
  Not mutually exclusive. "We're incredibly powerful and government is evil" and "we're absolutely going to use governmental power now we have it to fuck shit up that we don't like", is totally a position those in government can take. The key is in the idea of governance and who's governing. Any and all governance which has happened by those the people in power don't like (basically the other team) is what is labelled bad. The only question is, ultimately, is their governance sane and sensible? From the perspective of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And no. No it isn't.
- milesrout 1y ago
  What a stupid strawman. The claim is "the government is too powerful, that power is easily abused, it wastes your money on pointless 'woke' things, and we are cancelling it all".
  - bmicraft 1y ago
    If they're so concerned about abuse, why are they abusing it more than anybody else?
- roenxi 1y ago
  Is it weird to be consistent? The "federal government is inherently evil" is a principle that doesn't magically go away when small-government people get in to power. The argument never was nor will be that [this thing] is bad when [the wrong people] do it; the argument is that [this thing] is bad. There isn't an expectation that a right wing government will somehow transcend the realities of government. The ideal social contract with the politicians - from the liberal part of the right wing - is that they do whatever it is that motivates them to take on the job and that is tolerated to some extent - but in exchange they shrink the size and scope of the government bureaucracy. Obviously the ideal is a distant dream at this point, but the principle lingers. It is the only realistic option.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    > The "federal government is inherently evil" is a principle that doesn't magically go away when small-government people get in to power. In my experience it’s exactly this. The principle vanishes quickly, because none of those “small government” people were really so. The primary small government faction in the US is conservatives. They’ve been, for a few decades now, VERY large government. Bordering on fascist. They just lie, because it’s easy and none of their constituents care. You have better odds of hell freezing over than conservative constituencies holding their representatives accountable. When you’re in that situation, you’d be stupid not to lie. To expand on this, shrinking the bureaucracy isn’t shrinking the government. Because, if you had read the agenda in project 2025, you’d know that the intention is to then concentrate those powers in the president. That’s not smaller gov, that’s bigger. You’re creating a monarch.
Gibbon1 1y ago
Some guy that writes about politics wrote something that stuck with me 'a lot of people think they are in on the grift'
NikkiA 1y ago
Conspiracy theories have always just been a form of confirmation bias. They theorise what matches the reality they want to have.
candiddevmike 1y ago
> in spite of appearances Or disappearances, in some cases

QuesnayJr 1y ago

I never even understood what the theory was supposed to be for why it would lower interest rates. You can only run a trade deficit if the country you are trading with is a net investor. Part of that investment is going to be in the form of bonds. If you force a cut in the trade deficit, you cut the demand for bonds, which lowers their price and raises their interest rate.

tim333 1y ago

I'm not sure the current lot are capable of 2d chess. See penguins for example. Also see "I’d like to apologize to bricks for calling Peter Retarrdo dumber than a sack of bricks. That was so unfair to bricks." - E Musk

leereeves 1y ago
I'm afraid the President's critics aren't always capable of critical reading. Consider: > Ten-year Treasury yields have risen 39 basis points to 4.38% this week alone as prices tumble. Ok, but the recent high point for 10-year yields was 4.79% on January 13. Why is this 4.38% alarming? And why is a brief intraday spike above 4.5% (in a foreign market) newsworthy? This reads like someone was looking for bad news to report. https://ycharts.com/indicators/10_year_treasury_rate https://ycharts.com/indicators/10_year_treasury_rate
- kzs0 1y ago
  I think that has to do with the rate at which it moved no?

griffzhowl 1y ago

> despite this not making any sense. Most commentary, for and against, has been exclusively on the economics, and from that perspective it makes little to no sense. But I've seen suggestions in a couple of places that there are relevant "national security" motivations, or to put it bluntly, a greater freedom to wage war - or at least to put oneself in a position where the threat of it would be more realistic. Decoupling the US economy from the rest of the world, but especially from China, makes sense if the strategic cost-benefit analysis sees a significant potential for war with that country. It's a commonplace of international relations, and intuitively obvious, that the more integrated are the economies of two countries, the less likely they are to start wars with each other (no doubt there are exceptions, but as a rule...). That doesn't have to mean anything imminent or indicate concrete plans on the part of US, but it's plausibly a factor in the overall calculations. In fact, the economic interdependence of the US and China had seemed to be a big reason to remain hopeful that there wouldn't be a war between them, among other reasons of course. Reducing this interdependence seems to destabilize this situation. The unfortunate fact is that I can't see the US military establishment just peacefully allowing China to become more militarily powerful than itself. I'd be happy to hear other perspectives on this, I'm far from an expert and haven't seen this angle discussed much.

leereeves 1y ago
I think the strategic angle is important, but I doubt it's part of a long-term plan to start a war with China. I think the more likely concern is that if the US becomes too dependent on Chinese manufacturing, China could impose sanctions on the US to control US foreign policy. And a similar concern applies if the US lacks the manufacturing capability to wage wars with its own resources. Something we already saw that when we ran out of ammo because of the war in Ukraine.
- griffzhowl 1y ago
  Thanks, that's probably a more sober and probable assessment. It could make sense for reducing potential Chinese leverage over US. I think if the point were to shore up defense-critical industries, though, then direct support for those industries would make more sense and be considerably less disruptive than these tariffs.