6 ms·

I've never thought America could ever experience lack of goods. "Deficit" was a very well known term during the Soviet times and it was one of the reasons the S

I've never thought America could ever experience lack of goods. "Deficit" was a very well known term during the Soviet times and it was one of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed. If Trump wants to destroy the United States, he is acting very efficiently by repeating the same mistake the Soviet leaders were making.

mstade 1y ago
It's weird to see the party claiming to be for free markets essentially go all-in on central planning. Black is white and up is down, I s'pose.
- HideousKojima 1y ago
  How are tariffs (and now basically significant tariffs on only China now) in any way similar to a centrally planned economy? Tariffs have existed in every country capable of enforcing them for all of human history, and they existed in the US prior to Trump, and will continue to exist after Trump. Even countries we have supposed "free trade" agreements with still get tariffed (and impose tariffs on our goods).
  - ForHackernews 1y ago
    They're taxing certain things and then carving out exemptions for other things. Personal favors and political ideology driving the economy instead of market forces.
    - HideousKojima 1y ago
      That's how "free trade" agreements have worked for decades too. Look at the specific categories Canada puts protective tariffs on despite our trade agreements with them (in particular their agricultural goods which have quotas after which massive tariffs are applied). Governments worldwide have been subsidizing and otherwise favoring specific companies and industries for as long as civilization has existed. I don't like it when Trump does it too, but I don't understand the people acting like this is somehow a new and unprecedented thing.
      - jjulius 1y ago
        >I don't like it when Trump does it too, but I don't understand the people acting like this is somehow a new and unprecedented thing. Sans near-total embargoes on goods from a country, have we ever imposed sweeping tariffs of 145% on all goods coming from one of our most-imported trade partners? No, no we have not. Certain tariffs were very targeted for specific reasons, you are correct. But those were not blanket-applied haphazardly at such high levels. Hence, "unprecedented".
        HideousKojima 1y ago
        We've had an infinity% tariff on all goods from Cuba for decades
        jjulius 1y ago
        Those are broader economic embargoes, not tariffs. A lot more is involved in that situation and it's much more nuanced than what's happening with tariffs today. Hence my comment, "sans near-total embargoes on a country". Tariffs are taxes on goods allowed to enter the country - embargoes are a total elimination of trade (meaning we can't receive and we can't ship to) with a country. This is another apples/oranges comparison.
      - tim333 1y ago
        Many counties manage agriculture by having quotas for farm products and some price regulation. If you don't do that in good years the crop price plummets, farmers go broke and then in poor years there are shortages because of that. Canada or the EU doing that and sorting their own food isn't the huge conspiracy against America that Trump seems to think it is.
  - hyperpape 1y ago
    "How dare you judge me for drinking a case of beer. I know for a fact you had two beers this evening!"
  - jjulius 1y ago
    >Tariffs have existed in every country capable of enforcing them for all of human history, and they existed in the US prior to Trump, and will continue to exist after Trump. Even countries we have supposed "free trade" agreements with still get tariffed (and impose tariffs on our goods). To what degree relative to what we're seeing now, though?
    - HideousKojima 1y ago
      Much, much more than what we're seeing now, historically. Including outright banning all or nearly all foreign trade. See Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate for one of the more extreme examples.
      - jjulius 1y ago
        Apples, meet oranges. Japan outright banning trade with all other countries is different than implementing tariffs.
  - mstade 1y ago
    Others have responded more eloquently than I to this, so I won't. All I will say is I never equated tariffs with central planning, but I can see how from context you drew that conclusion. Tariffs aren't the only thing the republicans are doing under Trump, and taken as a whole the current administration smells – to me at least – a lot more politburo than the free trade champions of yesteryear. (Well, more like decade at this point.)
  - cyberax 1y ago
    Remember when Trump threatened Amazon for even thinking about showing the tariffs on the payment screen? Very free market.
    - HideousKojima 1y ago
      He called it a "hostile and political act", when did he threaten them?
      - cyberax 1y ago
        > when did he threaten them? When he called it "a hostile and political act". Remember when just officially telling people that they are not horses turned out to be a free speech violation?
- jimbokun 1y ago
  That party has been gone for awhile. Trump has never shown any affinity for free markets.
tonyhart7 1y ago
well the goods are there, its not like they stop flowing or something just need 30% tax on top of it edit: ok, I didnt know that bussiness stop buying, but they must buy somethings in the future right either buy from other tax exempt or buy thing with add value tax
- nemomarx 1y ago
  Have you seen the news at the ports? less containers coming in. the goods will not necessarily keep flowing if the price goes up and their margin goes away
- hundreddaysoff 1y ago
  I think the theory is like this: 1. new 30% tax 2. people stop buying so many goods due to (1) 3. due to lack of demand, our shipping industry seizes up and goods stop flowing, at least till (1) goes away My main source for that theory is https://medium.com/@ryan79z28/im-a-twenty-year-truck-driver-i-will-tell-you-why-america-s-shipping-crisis-will-not-end-bbe0ebac6a91 https://medium.com/@ryan79z28/im-a-twenty-year-truck-driver-...
  - gymbeaux 1y ago
    There’s a bill[1] sitting in the House of Representatives that would abolish the IRS and replace all tax code with a consumption tax. In typical fashion they’ve written it so it seems like the flat consumption tax will be something like 24% but it’s actually 30% (they word it as something like “24% of the total is tax” which really means “the tax is 30%”). I’m curious when they plan on deploying this. It specifies a 3-year schedule so you think okay is this to be signed into law in 2025 so that the IRS is abolished during the next election year, or are they going to wait a year or two and have the IRS abolishment only “trigger” if Republicans continue to control the government beyond 2028? Or perhaps they will push it through if/when Democrats retake some or all of Congress in 2026? One thing’s for sure though, the 1% will use cryptocurrency to dodge this consumption tax and it will (as usual) disproportionately affect the lower and middle classes, who aren’t as savvy in tax fraud/evasion/“loopholes”. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/25/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/25/t...
gymbeaux 1y ago
Why do you think he’s bullish on Bitcoin?
- pphysch 1y ago
  Because it's an easy political win among demographics that care about cryptocurrency. ... You don't actually believe he cares about Bitcoin or the technology, right?
  - gymbeaux 1y ago
    He cares about it insofar as it’s a tool he can use and abuse to make money. Obviously he has no interest in or understanding of blockchains. When the stock market (and confidence in the U.S.) falls, people typically flock to gold and bonds. If the U.S. is seen as unstable and at risk of not making debt payments, bonds are a bad place to move money into. That leaves gold (and to a lesser extent foreign stock markets). With crypto though- that’s a con man’s wet dream. Volatile. No government oversight. Crypto pump and dumps are literally legal (though come close to being fraud, as people like Du Kwon have learned).

mstade 1y ago

It's weird to see the party claiming to be for free markets essentially go all-in on central planning. Black is white and up is down, I s'pose.

HideousKojima 1y ago
How are tariffs (and now basically significant tariffs on only China now) in any way similar to a centrally planned economy? Tariffs have existed in every country capable of enforcing them for all of human history, and they existed in the US prior to Trump, and will continue to exist after Trump. Even countries we have supposed "free trade" agreements with still get tariffed (and impose tariffs on our goods).
- ForHackernews 1y ago
  They're taxing certain things and then carving out exemptions for other things. Personal favors and political ideology driving the economy instead of market forces.
  - HideousKojima 1y ago
    That's how "free trade" agreements have worked for decades too. Look at the specific categories Canada puts protective tariffs on despite our trade agreements with them (in particular their agricultural goods which have quotas after which massive tariffs are applied). Governments worldwide have been subsidizing and otherwise favoring specific companies and industries for as long as civilization has existed. I don't like it when Trump does it too, but I don't understand the people acting like this is somehow a new and unprecedented thing.
    - jjulius 1y ago
      >I don't like it when Trump does it too, but I don't understand the people acting like this is somehow a new and unprecedented thing. Sans near-total embargoes on goods from a country, have we ever imposed sweeping tariffs of 145% on all goods coming from one of our most-imported trade partners? No, no we have not. Certain tariffs were very targeted for specific reasons, you are correct. But those were not blanket-applied haphazardly at such high levels. Hence, "unprecedented".
      - HideousKojima 1y ago
        We've had an infinity% tariff on all goods from Cuba for decades
        jjulius 1y ago
        Those are broader economic embargoes, not tariffs. A lot more is involved in that situation and it's much more nuanced than what's happening with tariffs today. Hence my comment, "sans near-total embargoes on a country". Tariffs are taxes on goods allowed to enter the country - embargoes are a total elimination of trade (meaning we can't receive and we can't ship to) with a country. This is another apples/oranges comparison.
    - tim333 1y ago
      Many counties manage agriculture by having quotas for farm products and some price regulation. If you don't do that in good years the crop price plummets, farmers go broke and then in poor years there are shortages because of that. Canada or the EU doing that and sorting their own food isn't the huge conspiracy against America that Trump seems to think it is.
- hyperpape 1y ago
  "How dare you judge me for drinking a case of beer. I know for a fact you had two beers this evening!"
- jjulius 1y ago
  >Tariffs have existed in every country capable of enforcing them for all of human history, and they existed in the US prior to Trump, and will continue to exist after Trump. Even countries we have supposed "free trade" agreements with still get tariffed (and impose tariffs on our goods). To what degree relative to what we're seeing now, though?
  - HideousKojima 1y ago
    Much, much more than what we're seeing now, historically. Including outright banning all or nearly all foreign trade. See Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate for one of the more extreme examples.
    - jjulius 1y ago
      Apples, meet oranges. Japan outright banning trade with all other countries is different than implementing tariffs.
- mstade 1y ago
  Others have responded more eloquently than I to this, so I won't. All I will say is I never equated tariffs with central planning, but I can see how from context you drew that conclusion. Tariffs aren't the only thing the republicans are doing under Trump, and taken as a whole the current administration smells – to me at least – a lot more politburo than the free trade champions of yesteryear. (Well, more like decade at this point.)
- cyberax 1y ago
  Remember when Trump threatened Amazon for even thinking about showing the tariffs on the payment screen? Very free market.
  - HideousKojima 1y ago
    He called it a "hostile and political act", when did he threaten them?
    - cyberax 1y ago
      > when did he threaten them? When he called it "a hostile and political act". Remember when just officially telling people that they are not horses turned out to be a free speech violation?
jimbokun 1y ago
That party has been gone for awhile. Trump has never shown any affinity for free markets.

tonyhart7 1y ago

well the goods are there, its not like they stop flowing or something just need 30% tax on top of it edit: ok, I didnt know that bussiness stop buying, but they must buy somethings in the future right either buy from other tax exempt or buy thing with add value tax

nemomarx 1y ago
Have you seen the news at the ports? less containers coming in. the goods will not necessarily keep flowing if the price goes up and their margin goes away
hundreddaysoff 1y ago
I think the theory is like this: 1. new 30% tax 2. people stop buying so many goods due to (1) 3. due to lack of demand, our shipping industry seizes up and goods stop flowing, at least till (1) goes away My main source for that theory is https://medium.com/@ryan79z28/im-a-twenty-year-truck-driver-i-will-tell-you-why-america-s-shipping-crisis-will-not-end-bbe0ebac6a91 https://medium.com/@ryan79z28/im-a-twenty-year-truck-driver-...
- gymbeaux 1y ago
  There’s a bill[1] sitting in the House of Representatives that would abolish the IRS and replace all tax code with a consumption tax. In typical fashion they’ve written it so it seems like the flat consumption tax will be something like 24% but it’s actually 30% (they word it as something like “24% of the total is tax” which really means “the tax is 30%”). I’m curious when they plan on deploying this. It specifies a 3-year schedule so you think okay is this to be signed into law in 2025 so that the IRS is abolished during the next election year, or are they going to wait a year or two and have the IRS abolishment only “trigger” if Republicans continue to control the government beyond 2028? Or perhaps they will push it through if/when Democrats retake some or all of Congress in 2026? One thing’s for sure though, the 1% will use cryptocurrency to dodge this consumption tax and it will (as usual) disproportionately affect the lower and middle classes, who aren’t as savvy in tax fraud/evasion/“loopholes”. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/25/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/25/t...

gymbeaux 1y ago

Why do you think he’s bullish on Bitcoin?

pphysch 1y ago
Because it's an easy political win among demographics that care about cryptocurrency. ... You don't actually believe he cares about Bitcoin or the technology, right?
- gymbeaux 1y ago
  He cares about it insofar as it’s a tool he can use and abuse to make money. Obviously he has no interest in or understanding of blockchains. When the stock market (and confidence in the U.S.) falls, people typically flock to gold and bonds. If the U.S. is seen as unstable and at risk of not making debt payments, bonds are a bad place to move money into. That leaves gold (and to a lesser extent foreign stock markets). With crypto though- that’s a con man’s wet dream. Volatile. No government oversight. Crypto pump and dumps are literally legal (though come close to being fraud, as people like Du Kwon have learned).