7 ms·

The long-term gain might be that this administration so significantly craters the economy and is so obviously responsible that enough voters recognize vote out

by xnx 2y ago

The long-term gain might be that this administration so significantly craters the economy and is so obviously responsible that enough voters recognize vote out enough of these clowns and accomplices to enact real useful reform (gerrymandering, electoral college, senate, filibuster, tax law, etc.)

the__alchemist 2y ago
> (gerrymandering, electoral college, senate, filibuster, tax law, etc.) Open a news website. Several news websites. Turn on the TV. Talk to some people about politics. How often do those topics come up?
- akmarinov 2y ago
  When it all crashes and burns, people would wonder how they got to that point
- xnx 2y ago
  I agree. They definitely don't come up (or campaign finance reform). I wouldn't suggest a candidate run on those issues (a better platform would be anti-chaos), but responsible politicians might be able to enact them once elected.
- nine_k 2y ago
  /* TV is like twitter: in order to preserve one's sanity, it's best to never use it, except for highly technical things like weather forecast or watching sports live. Despite that, it's the pastime of hundreds of millions. */
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  Yuuuup. About half of voters don't even understand how marginal income tax rates work, that is how little they know what's going on and how anything at all works in the mysterious and confusing world around them, and a lot more are barely better off than that. Worrying about gerrymandering et c. is nerd shit, most people don't know a thing about it. They're more likely to, literally, vote on whether general vibes are currently good or bad than to give any fucks about specific policies like that. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691169446/democracy-for-realists https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691169446/de...
rini17 2y ago
It's not completely up to voters, it also requires credible third party to exist and gain traction. Because both Republicans and Democrats seem incapable of such reforms.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  Democrats have instituted independent redistricting commissions, finance transparency laws, the popular vote compact, and many others. Do not imply that both parties are the same on this. That is factually incorrect and Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated an interest in improving democracy. The GOP, on the other hand, is cheering Trump on as he arrests judges and ignores due process.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    They are the same on boxing out third parties. While Democrats don't like losing to Republicans they also don't like losing to a third party. Elected Democrats oppose any system that modifies the status quo that "correctly" elected them.
    - jeffrallen 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - ecb_penguin 2y ago
        > There is no party less democratic than the Democratic party This is such nonsense there's no reason to take you serious as a person. The two independents in Congress caucus with the Democrats. > Their preferred world is a two party system where the Republicans are losing. A private political party doesn't support other private political parties?! Definitely a first in the world.
        jeffrallen 2y ago
        The problem is that their revealed preference is "keep a two party system", when another choice would be "support coalitions in order to broaden the discourse and ensure the most democratic outcome possible".
ArnoVW 2y ago
based on what we've seen with Brexit, I'm not hopeful about the ability of voters to analyze the results of their vote.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  I'm interested in hearing more about this. In my news sphere, there was a lot of doom over Brexit, it happened, and then the story stopped. What's it like and why aren't people connecting the dots?
  - zero_shift 2y ago
    It has made it much more complex to operate across borders and may be gradually cooling the economy
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      Recent estimates put the losses at £100bn/year so far [0]. Long term, the estimate is a 15% hit to the economy. And only 12% of people think that it went well. (For reference, that's about the same proportion as 'Americans who believe shape-shifting lizards control politics, or aren't sure' [1].) In personal experience, my purchases of UK products have taken a massive drop. And that's not even mentioning the losses to the environment or human rights.. So... Not what I would call a mixed bag. More like a deeply homogeneous bag. 0 - https://uk.news.yahoo.com/damning-statistics-reveal-true-cost-163652682.html https://uk.news.yahoo.com/damning-statistics-reveal-true-cos... 1 - https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/...
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    It was really, really bad if you were in tech or finance. Like, I worked for a few companies (I live in Ireland) who had moved their roles from the UK to Ireland because of it. More generally, it's just made life much harder for UK exporters, as they now have way more customs declarations and tariffs on both sides. The big thing for me (and lots of Irish people) was that we now avoid ordering from UK sites as it's likely to take longer and cost more. Overall, it's been bad and kneecapping your productive industries on the promise (not fulfilled) of reducing immigration seems to be a bad idea. That being said, the UK is still there, still a big market so it's more that they get less investment from multinationals than they otherwise would have, and their companies face much higher barriers to export. And the worst part was that the EU introduced checks on agriculture immediately, while the UK didn't which basically meant that EU farmers were much more competitive in the UK than UK farmers could be outside it. To be clear, Brexit could have been managed much better, but it was a bad idea executed poorly.
Eric_WVGG 2y ago
yeah I thought that back in 2007
- bsimpson 2y ago
  I had hoped Trump getting elected the first time would trigger a wave of voter reform. Instead, it just made it trendy to be constantly apoplectic.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    Why did you think this? I have a friend who voted for Trump because (paraphrasing) "he's different or we need to shake things up". Like our entire country is some game where the outcome doesn't affect people.
    - transcriptase 2y ago
      Everyone who thinks like you needs to watch this: https://youtu.be/vMm5HfxNXY4?si=u4qVgziq6QRLoyEM https://youtu.be/vMm5HfxNXY4?si=u4qVgziq6QRLoyEM
      - Braxton1980 2y ago
        This short but can you bullet point the reasons?
        transcriptase 2y ago
        Basically for the people with little to lose, who for the last 30-40 years have been increasingly screwed over by the wealthy and the political elite (and the media who serve them) Trump is a nothing but a Molotov cocktail to throw back. Whether he’s on their side, lying, or a net negative is irrelevant. Things steadily getting worse for the poor and lower-middle class is nothing new, but things finally not going the way the elites want and seeing them seethe is cathartic. The fact that nearly everyone who is responsible for the erosion of the middle class hates him is reason enough put him in power, because what else can the average voter do to make those who hold all the power feel the same uncertainty they have. That’s what people don’t understand about a significant part of who they think is his “base”, who in reality just consider the enemy of their enemy to be their friend.
bongoman42 2y ago
Democracy is the theory that common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. - H L Mencken.
ferguess_k 2y ago
This gives me the thought that maybe some elites who back the current government are looking forward to making changes, but it is too risky for themselves to stand up and make changes, so they push out Trump to make a mess so they can be the hero correcting all of these, with much less resistance.
- axus 2y ago
  If we're indulging in conspiracy theories, I can say those elites are Russian oligarchs. Anyone know if Trump watches RT International? I'd rather use the scientific method: make predictions, let the experiment run, and compare to the results. Predicting that the national debt ceiling will be raised or removed, taxes cut, labor unions attacked, and "elites" not correcting anything or being heroes.
Braxton1980 2y ago
The economy will tank, Democrats will get elected, then when it's not fixed in 6 months Republicans will blame them and their voters will eat it up
- platevoltage 2y ago
  That's sort of how we got here in the first place.
- stouset 2y ago
  I hate that I know you're right.
ryandrake 2y ago
This is the least likely outcome. Voters are more like fans of a sports team. They stick with the team whether or not they're doing well or making good or bad decisions. My brother would stay an Eagles fan even if they lost every game they played and hired software engineers instead of football players to play. There are people who consider themselves 4th generation Republicans. It's passed down through their family like their religion. When (not if) the economy craters, each team's news bubble will spin it how they like, and ultimately both teams will keep doing the same things and voting the same way for the foreseeable future.
- xnx 2y ago
  Good point. Less enthusiastic Trump voters may not vote for a Democrat, but they might also sit out a midterm election. Even diehard Eagles fans probably attend fewer games during a losing year.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  > My brother would stay an Eagles fan even if they lost every game they played Are you sure? People often claim this, but don't follow through. There's even an expression, "fair weather fan". It's true some people seem to support some political parties beyond all reason. But to keep the support through personal hardship is different, and hasn't been tested as often. Worldwide, nothing particular to US.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    If it was just politics, I'd agree with you. And I hate to be the "but this time it's different" guy, but I really think it is different this time. Trump is more of a religious figure than a politician. His fans literally (in the literal meaning of the word literally) worship him, and he can do no wrong in their eyes. People have made him their entire personality. My wife's church sometimes spends more time talking about Trump than Jesus. In a religious context, personal hardship just strengthens their resolve and convinces them they're being persecuted for Knowing The Truth, just like debunking a conspiracy theory only serves to further convince the conspiracy theorist. America is getting less and less involved with traditional organized religion, and I honestly think this personality cult is taking a lot of its place.
BurningFrog 2y ago
When the voters turn on Trump, they will not adopt the pet causes of either you or me...
brewdad 2y ago
Good luck. Jan 29th Trump took full credit for a roaring stock market. Today's decline is Biden's fault somehow. 30% of the country (at least) will believe this with not a single thought as to whether it makes sense.
pjmlp 2y ago
Assuming that voting is still a thing, too many people haven't yet understood where this administration is going.
- fundad 2y ago
  Yeah that's what scares me. They are breaking laws AND lower living standards as if they won't have to run for reelection (or accept electoral loss) ever again.
- platevoltage 2y ago
  He won with 49% of the vote. I think there are enough people to prevent him from winning again if there was another election held today, and The Dems didn't completely botch it. These same people have no object-permanence, and would vote for someone even worse than trump in 4 years though.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    The way administration is going there won't be elections, or if they happen, it will be like in any other authoritarian country, he will win even with 0%. Up to US citizens to decide how they want their future to look like. From the outside we can only express our sympathy to those that suffer under it.
pc86 2y ago
Gerrymandering is at the state level. The electoral college is in the Constitution. What does "senate reform" mean other than filibuster reform, which if you ask anyone who has studied government will tell you is an intentional design decision for a more deliberative body. "Pass laws quickly" is, depending on who you ask, either not the right thing you want to optimize for, or the exact opposite of what you want. "Tax law reform" okay great but that's going to mean 15 different things to 10 different people.
- cyberax 2y ago
  The Senate _itself_ is gerrymandering on the national level.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    That's mixing up "gerrymandering" with "wildly disproportionate representation to certain states because of a join-up bribe from 237 years ago". Nobody's redrawing the lines, and in a way that's part of the problem. The former is much shorter to say, but... not really accurate. Tangential gripe: Anyone who says it's "to protect the rural areas" or whatever is talking nonsense. The greater NYC area could legally convert to ~14 new states, and all those very-urban voters would reap the same kind of unfair benefits that Wyoming does with the equivalent population.
    - pc86 2y ago
      Both of these comments show a pretty glaring ignorance of how the government worked prior to 17A, when Senators weren't elected by popular vote. Prior to that they were "elected" by state legislatures. Why is that important? Put a little more crudely, and with a lot of hand-waving generalization, Senators aren't supposed to represent people in a district, they're supposed to represent the interests of their state as a whole. They're not just "Representatives but Bigger," they're something else entirely. So the fact that "but disproportionate representation!!1" is even an argument belies the lack of understanding about why the system was set up that way in the first place. It has nothing to do with rural or urban but that's a great "I don't like Republicans" dog whistle. The needs of Wyoming are different than the needs of Kansas, which are different than the needs of Upstate NY (even considered in isolation from NYC) and a representative body concerned primarily with the interests of a state protects those needs better than one Senator covering several states would be able to.
Theodores 2y ago
Brexit was similar. What amazed me about Brexit was how nobody that voted for it cheered when it came in. Next, I was amazed at a lack of coordinated opposition. Nobody joined the barricades, there was no unrest, no opposition party garnered votes. Biggest take away was that life went on. There was no shortage of goods on the shelves and nobody cared that the pound lost 25 percent or so. From Brexit, I anticipate much the same in America, for the economy to linger on due to generational wealth, with people just getting on with it. The pricing due to tariff taxes will also be easier to absorb than what people think. Imagine a finished good such as a bicycle, imported from China. Retail margins are not great for the retailer because they expect sales from accessories. If the bicycle costs USD 1000 at retail, what does it cost to the importer? The retailer buys the bike from a wholesaler for USD 500 and the wholesaler buys the bike from the distributor for USD 250. The distributor buys it from the importer for USD 125. Margins will be negotiated with volume and delivery schedules, but the bicycle, at import is only valued at 125, not 1000 in this simplified example. Lets assume the tariff works out so the importer has to pay 300 rather than 125 to get the bike out the port. Let's assume a 175 tariff fee. This can be passed down the chain much like how duty is charged on tobacco that gets imported. Hence the customer is paying 1175 for the 1000 bike, not 2450. The customer can buy a lower specification model of they don't like the price hike, or the retailer can shave their margins to gain market share, shift inventory and gain a customer. In time the price can creep up. If the tariffs were collected at Walmart rather than at the port then this means of handling the tariffs would not be possible. For a cycle manufacturer that owns the factory in China as well as the distribution chain to the customer, they could set up a shell company that imports the bicycle for a dollar, to then sell that bike to the retailer they own for proper money. The customer then pays the same 1000 with the 1.45 absorbed. The company could also own a design office in the Chinese factory and sell their design consultancy services back to the US sales operation for millions, millions that won't be taxed as a tariff since it is a service, not goods. In this way the USD profits are repatriated with the factory. The factory sells it's goods almost for free. Next there is the problem of what to do with those dollars since the factory workers are paid in Yuan. Those dollars need to be sold or used to buy oil, rubber and other raw materials. This type of Hollywood accounting is standard for multinationals but beyond the reach of small businesses. Apple do this type of magic accounting, most famously in Ireland. Amazon use Luxembourg. So why the exemption for iPhones? Well, if Apple have to pay USD 2 in tariff taxes on a 1000 iPhone then that is a big deal to them. They were never going to have to charge 2450 for that same iPhone. Ideally a multinational makes a loss in the country of manufacture and a loss in the country of sale. This means minimum wages and no taxes paid. They then make billions in their chosen base for the shell company in the middle and use a tax haven to get the dollars out, which they then use to buy their own shares, thereby not paying dividends.
rustcleaner 2y ago
[flagged]

by xnx 2y ago

the__alchemist 2y ago

> (gerrymandering, electoral college, senate, filibuster, tax law, etc.) Open a news website. Several news websites. Turn on the TV. Talk to some people about politics. How often do those topics come up?

akmarinov 2y ago
When it all crashes and burns, people would wonder how they got to that point
xnx 2y ago
I agree. They definitely don't come up (or campaign finance reform). I wouldn't suggest a candidate run on those issues (a better platform would be anti-chaos), but responsible politicians might be able to enact them once elected.
nine_k 2y ago
/* TV is like twitter: in order to preserve one's sanity, it's best to never use it, except for highly technical things like weather forecast or watching sports live. Despite that, it's the pastime of hundreds of millions. */
alabastervlog 2y ago
Yuuuup. About half of voters don't even understand how marginal income tax rates work, that is how little they know what's going on and how anything at all works in the mysterious and confusing world around them, and a lot more are barely better off than that. Worrying about gerrymandering et c. is nerd shit, most people don't know a thing about it. They're more likely to, literally, vote on whether general vibes are currently good or bad than to give any fucks about specific policies like that. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691169446/democracy-for-realists https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691169446/de...

rini17 2y ago

It's not completely up to voters, it also requires credible third party to exist and gain traction. Because both Republicans and Democrats seem incapable of such reforms.

SR2Z 2y ago
Democrats have instituted independent redistricting commissions, finance transparency laws, the popular vote compact, and many others. Do not imply that both parties are the same on this. That is factually incorrect and Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated an interest in improving democracy. The GOP, on the other hand, is cheering Trump on as he arrests judges and ignores due process.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  They are the same on boxing out third parties. While Democrats don't like losing to Republicans they also don't like losing to a third party. Elected Democrats oppose any system that modifies the status quo that "correctly" elected them.
  - jeffrallen 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ecb_penguin 2y ago
      > There is no party less democratic than the Democratic party This is such nonsense there's no reason to take you serious as a person. The two independents in Congress caucus with the Democrats. > Their preferred world is a two party system where the Republicans are losing. A private political party doesn't support other private political parties?! Definitely a first in the world.
      - jeffrallen 2y ago
        The problem is that their revealed preference is "keep a two party system", when another choice would be "support coalitions in order to broaden the discourse and ensure the most democratic outcome possible".

ArnoVW 2y ago

based on what we've seen with Brexit, I'm not hopeful about the ability of voters to analyze the results of their vote.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
I'm interested in hearing more about this. In my news sphere, there was a lot of doom over Brexit, it happened, and then the story stopped. What's it like and why aren't people connecting the dots?
- zero_shift 2y ago
  It has made it much more complex to operate across borders and may be gradually cooling the economy
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    Recent estimates put the losses at £100bn/year so far [0]. Long term, the estimate is a 15% hit to the economy. And only 12% of people think that it went well. (For reference, that's about the same proportion as 'Americans who believe shape-shifting lizards control politics, or aren't sure' [1].) In personal experience, my purchases of UK products have taken a massive drop. And that's not even mentioning the losses to the environment or human rights.. So... Not what I would call a mixed bag. More like a deeply homogeneous bag. 0 - https://uk.news.yahoo.com/damning-statistics-reveal-true-cost-163652682.html https://uk.news.yahoo.com/damning-statistics-reveal-true-cos... 1 - https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/...
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  It was really, really bad if you were in tech or finance. Like, I worked for a few companies (I live in Ireland) who had moved their roles from the UK to Ireland because of it. More generally, it's just made life much harder for UK exporters, as they now have way more customs declarations and tariffs on both sides. The big thing for me (and lots of Irish people) was that we now avoid ordering from UK sites as it's likely to take longer and cost more. Overall, it's been bad and kneecapping your productive industries on the promise (not fulfilled) of reducing immigration seems to be a bad idea. That being said, the UK is still there, still a big market so it's more that they get less investment from multinationals than they otherwise would have, and their companies face much higher barriers to export. And the worst part was that the EU introduced checks on agriculture immediately, while the UK didn't which basically meant that EU farmers were much more competitive in the UK than UK farmers could be outside it. To be clear, Brexit could have been managed much better, but it was a bad idea executed poorly.

Eric_WVGG 2y ago

yeah I thought that back in 2007

bsimpson 2y ago
I had hoped Trump getting elected the first time would trigger a wave of voter reform. Instead, it just made it trendy to be constantly apoplectic.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  Why did you think this? I have a friend who voted for Trump because (paraphrasing) "he's different or we need to shake things up". Like our entire country is some game where the outcome doesn't affect people.
  - transcriptase 2y ago
    Everyone who thinks like you needs to watch this: https://youtu.be/vMm5HfxNXY4?si=u4qVgziq6QRLoyEM https://youtu.be/vMm5HfxNXY4?si=u4qVgziq6QRLoyEM
    - Braxton1980 2y ago
      This short but can you bullet point the reasons?
      - transcriptase 2y ago
        Basically for the people with little to lose, who for the last 30-40 years have been increasingly screwed over by the wealthy and the political elite (and the media who serve them) Trump is a nothing but a Molotov cocktail to throw back. Whether he’s on their side, lying, or a net negative is irrelevant. Things steadily getting worse for the poor and lower-middle class is nothing new, but things finally not going the way the elites want and seeing them seethe is cathartic. The fact that nearly everyone who is responsible for the erosion of the middle class hates him is reason enough put him in power, because what else can the average voter do to make those who hold all the power feel the same uncertainty they have. That’s what people don’t understand about a significant part of who they think is his “base”, who in reality just consider the enemy of their enemy to be their friend.

bongoman42 2y ago

Democracy is the theory that common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. - H L Mencken.

ferguess_k 2y ago

This gives me the thought that maybe some elites who back the current government are looking forward to making changes, but it is too risky for themselves to stand up and make changes, so they push out Trump to make a mess so they can be the hero correcting all of these, with much less resistance.

axus 2y ago
If we're indulging in conspiracy theories, I can say those elites are Russian oligarchs. Anyone know if Trump watches RT International? I'd rather use the scientific method: make predictions, let the experiment run, and compare to the results. Predicting that the national debt ceiling will be raised or removed, taxes cut, labor unions attacked, and "elites" not correcting anything or being heroes.

Braxton1980 2y ago

The economy will tank, Democrats will get elected, then when it's not fixed in 6 months Republicans will blame them and their voters will eat it up

platevoltage 2y ago
That's sort of how we got here in the first place.
stouset 2y ago
I hate that I know you're right.

ryandrake 2y ago

This is the least likely outcome. Voters are more like fans of a sports team. They stick with the team whether or not they're doing well or making good or bad decisions. My brother would stay an Eagles fan even if they lost every game they played and hired software engineers instead of football players to play. There are people who consider themselves 4th generation Republicans. It's passed down through their family like their religion. When (not if) the economy craters, each team's news bubble will spin it how they like, and ultimately both teams will keep doing the same things and voting the same way for the foreseeable future.

xnx 2y ago
Good point. Less enthusiastic Trump voters may not vote for a Democrat, but they might also sit out a midterm election. Even diehard Eagles fans probably attend fewer games during a losing year.
lucianbr 2y ago
> My brother would stay an Eagles fan even if they lost every game they played Are you sure? People often claim this, but don't follow through. There's even an expression, "fair weather fan". It's true some people seem to support some political parties beyond all reason. But to keep the support through personal hardship is different, and hasn't been tested as often. Worldwide, nothing particular to US.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  If it was just politics, I'd agree with you. And I hate to be the "but this time it's different" guy, but I really think it is different this time. Trump is more of a religious figure than a politician. His fans literally (in the literal meaning of the word literally) worship him, and he can do no wrong in their eyes. People have made him their entire personality. My wife's church sometimes spends more time talking about Trump than Jesus. In a religious context, personal hardship just strengthens their resolve and convinces them they're being persecuted for Knowing The Truth, just like debunking a conspiracy theory only serves to further convince the conspiracy theorist. America is getting less and less involved with traditional organized religion, and I honestly think this personality cult is taking a lot of its place.

BurningFrog 2y ago

When the voters turn on Trump, they will not adopt the pet causes of either you or me...

brewdad 2y ago

Good luck. Jan 29th Trump took full credit for a roaring stock market. Today's decline is Biden's fault somehow. 30% of the country (at least) will believe this with not a single thought as to whether it makes sense.

pjmlp 2y ago

Assuming that voting is still a thing, too many people haven't yet understood where this administration is going.

fundad 2y ago
Yeah that's what scares me. They are breaking laws AND lower living standards as if they won't have to run for reelection (or accept electoral loss) ever again.
platevoltage 2y ago
He won with 49% of the vote. I think there are enough people to prevent him from winning again if there was another election held today, and The Dems didn't completely botch it. These same people have no object-permanence, and would vote for someone even worse than trump in 4 years though.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  The way administration is going there won't be elections, or if they happen, it will be like in any other authoritarian country, he will win even with 0%. Up to US citizens to decide how they want their future to look like. From the outside we can only express our sympathy to those that suffer under it.

pc86 2y ago

Gerrymandering is at the state level. The electoral college is in the Constitution. What does "senate reform" mean other than filibuster reform, which if you ask anyone who has studied government will tell you is an intentional design decision for a more deliberative body. "Pass laws quickly" is, depending on who you ask, either not the right thing you want to optimize for, or the exact opposite of what you want. "Tax law reform" okay great but that's going to mean 15 different things to 10 different people.

cyberax 2y ago
The Senate _itself_ is gerrymandering on the national level.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  That's mixing up "gerrymandering" with "wildly disproportionate representation to certain states because of a join-up bribe from 237 years ago". Nobody's redrawing the lines, and in a way that's part of the problem. The former is much shorter to say, but... not really accurate. Tangential gripe: Anyone who says it's "to protect the rural areas" or whatever is talking nonsense. The greater NYC area could legally convert to ~14 new states, and all those very-urban voters would reap the same kind of unfair benefits that Wyoming does with the equivalent population.
  - pc86 2y ago
    Both of these comments show a pretty glaring ignorance of how the government worked prior to 17A, when Senators weren't elected by popular vote. Prior to that they were "elected" by state legislatures. Why is that important? Put a little more crudely, and with a lot of hand-waving generalization, Senators aren't supposed to represent people in a district, they're supposed to represent the interests of their state as a whole. They're not just "Representatives but Bigger," they're something else entirely. So the fact that "but disproportionate representation!!1" is even an argument belies the lack of understanding about why the system was set up that way in the first place. It has nothing to do with rural or urban but that's a great "I don't like Republicans" dog whistle. The needs of Wyoming are different than the needs of Kansas, which are different than the needs of Upstate NY (even considered in isolation from NYC) and a representative body concerned primarily with the interests of a state protects those needs better than one Senator covering several states would be able to.

Theodores 2y ago

Brexit was similar. What amazed me about Brexit was how nobody that voted for it cheered when it came in. Next, I was amazed at a lack of coordinated opposition. Nobody joined the barricades, there was no unrest, no opposition party garnered votes. Biggest take away was that life went on. There was no shortage of goods on the shelves and nobody cared that the pound lost 25 percent or so. From Brexit, I anticipate much the same in America, for the economy to linger on due to generational wealth, with people just getting on with it. The pricing due to tariff taxes will also be easier to absorb than what people think. Imagine a finished good such as a bicycle, imported from China. Retail margins are not great for the retailer because they expect sales from accessories. If the bicycle costs USD 1000 at retail, what does it cost to the importer? The retailer buys the bike from a wholesaler for USD 500 and the wholesaler buys the bike from the distributor for USD 250. The distributor buys it from the importer for USD 125. Margins will be negotiated with volume and delivery schedules, but the bicycle, at import is only valued at 125, not 1000 in this simplified example. Lets assume the tariff works out so the importer has to pay 300 rather than 125 to get the bike out the port. Let's assume a 175 tariff fee. This can be passed down the chain much like how duty is charged on tobacco that gets imported. Hence the customer is paying 1175 for the 1000 bike, not 2450. The customer can buy a lower specification model of they don't like the price hike, or the retailer can shave their margins to gain market share, shift inventory and gain a customer. In time the price can creep up. If the tariffs were collected at Walmart rather than at the port then this means of handling the tariffs would not be possible. For a cycle manufacturer that owns the factory in China as well as the distribution chain to the customer, they could set up a shell company that imports the bicycle for a dollar, to then sell that bike to the retailer they own for proper money. The customer then pays the same 1000 with the 1.45 absorbed. The company could also own a design office in the Chinese factory and sell their design consultancy services back to the US sales operation for millions, millions that won't be taxed as a tariff since it is a service, not goods. In this way the USD profits are repatriated with the factory. The factory sells it's goods almost for free. Next there is the problem of what to do with those dollars since the factory workers are paid in Yuan. Those dollars need to be sold or used to buy oil, rubber and other raw materials. This type of Hollywood accounting is standard for multinationals but beyond the reach of small businesses. Apple do this type of magic accounting, most famously in Ireland. Amazon use Luxembourg. So why the exemption for iPhones? Well, if Apple have to pay USD 2 in tariff taxes on a 1000 iPhone then that is a big deal to them. They were never going to have to charge 2450 for that same iPhone. Ideally a multinational makes a loss in the country of manufacture and a loss in the country of sale. This means minimum wages and no taxes paid. They then make billions in their chosen base for the shell company in the middle and use a tax haven to get the dollars out, which they then use to buy their own shares, thereby not paying dividends.

rustcleaner 2y ago

[flagged]