3 ms·

I think the total reliance is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed. I still think this approach to addressing that issue is complete madness. Not o

I think the total reliance is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed. I still think this approach to addressing that issue is complete madness. Not only is there no coherent plan for how that reliance will be reduced, but we’ve now crippled ourselves in the meantime.

justin66 1y ago
Yeah. One thing among many that some in the US don't seem to get: only one side in this war needs to completely rearrange their economy in order to survive, and it's us.
- PKop 1y ago
  I think the people attempting to do that understand it
  - justin66 1y ago
    On the contrary, they give the appearance of simply assuming "the market" will solve the problem they've created.
    - mullingitover 1y ago
      The people who believe government intervention can't do anything good are arguing that we're in an existential crisis because the Chinese government is executing too well. And their approach is to cripple our own government.
nickff 1y ago
I have no idea what the administration’s plan or thoughts might be, but I suspect that one part of it is that they’ve seen how many governments (including their own, as well as allies like the EU) delay and defer as negotiation strategies. The EU even used delays and uncertainty against its very closest ally (the UK) in trade negotiations. As a result, sudden and ‘violent’ shifts are the only way to get things done in the current environment.
- Izkata 1y ago
  Trump has said as much in interviews - just asking gets nothing done, and now all those governments are coming to him for deals.
jacobyoder 1y ago
> I think the total reliance is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed. > I still think this approach to addressing that issue is complete madness. You're assuming the 'total reliance' argument and corresponding actions are being done in good faith. The original 'emergency' declarations justifying large initial tariffs in February were because of a 'fentanyl crisis'. Which then morphed in to 'well, we should be manufacturing here for defense purposes' and assorted other arguments along the way ("we're getting ripped off!", etc). There's a danger in being cynical about this, but also danger in taking everything at face value. There's been no coherent communicated policy with justifications and expected outcomes or timelines ever put forward the same way twice from this administration.
- haswell 1y ago
  > You're assuming the 'total reliance' argument and corresponding actions are being done in good faith. To clarify, I’m not assuming the administration is acting in good faith. But in casual conversation, I try to assume the person who worries about total reliance is acting in good faith, so my reply was primarily directed at the comment itself which I have to assume comes from someone who may believe the administration is actually attempting to address the issue. I think there are numerous ways to split this: - The reliance concern as a standalone consideration - How the current administration sees/uses this concern - How the public perceives this concern - How the current administration claims they’re addressing it - Whatever the current administration’s true goals are

justin66 1y ago

Yeah. One thing among many that some in the US don't seem to get: only one side in this war needs to completely rearrange their economy in order to survive, and it's us.

PKop 1y ago
I think the people attempting to do that understand it
- justin66 1y ago
  On the contrary, they give the appearance of simply assuming "the market" will solve the problem they've created.
  - mullingitover 1y ago
    The people who believe government intervention can't do anything good are arguing that we're in an existential crisis because the Chinese government is executing too well. And their approach is to cripple our own government.

nickff 1y ago

I have no idea what the administration’s plan or thoughts might be, but I suspect that one part of it is that they’ve seen how many governments (including their own, as well as allies like the EU) delay and defer as negotiation strategies. The EU even used delays and uncertainty against its very closest ally (the UK) in trade negotiations. As a result, sudden and ‘violent’ shifts are the only way to get things done in the current environment.

Izkata 1y ago
Trump has said as much in interviews - just asking gets nothing done, and now all those governments are coming to him for deals.

jacobyoder 1y ago

> I think the total reliance is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed. > I still think this approach to addressing that issue is complete madness. You're assuming the 'total reliance' argument and corresponding actions are being done in good faith. The original 'emergency' declarations justifying large initial tariffs in February were because of a 'fentanyl crisis'. Which then morphed in to 'well, we should be manufacturing here for defense purposes' and assorted other arguments along the way ("we're getting ripped off!", etc). There's a danger in being cynical about this, but also danger in taking everything at face value. There's been no coherent communicated policy with justifications and expected outcomes or timelines ever put forward the same way twice from this administration.

haswell 1y ago
> You're assuming the 'total reliance' argument and corresponding actions are being done in good faith. To clarify, I’m not assuming the administration is acting in good faith. But in casual conversation, I try to assume the person who worries about total reliance is acting in good faith, so my reply was primarily directed at the comment itself which I have to assume comes from someone who may believe the administration is actually attempting to address the issue. I think there are numerous ways to split this: - The reliance concern as a standalone consideration - How the current administration sees/uses this concern - How the public perceives this concern - How the current administration claims they’re addressing it - Whatever the current administration’s true goals are