15 ms·

An essay by Converse in this volume https://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Discontent-Clifford-Geertz/dp/0029007607 https://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Discontent-Cliffor

An essay by Converse in this volume https://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Discontent-Clifford-Geertz/dp/0029007607 https://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Discontent-Clifford-Geertz/d... [1] calls into question whether or not the public has an opinion. I was thinking about the example of tariffs for instance. Most people are going on bellyfeel so you see maybe 38% are net positive on tariffs https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/14/trumps-tariffs-and-one-big-beautiful-bill-face-more-opposition-than-support-as-his-job-rating-slips/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/14/trumps-tarif... If you broke it down in terms of interest groups on a "one dollar one vote" basis the net positive has to be a lot worse: to the retail, services and constructor sectors tariffs are just a cost without any benefits, even most manufacturers are on the fence because they import intermediate goods and want access to foreign markets. The only sectors that are strongly for it that I can suss out are steel and aluminum manufacturers who are 2% or so of the GDP. The public and the interest groups are on the same side of 50% so there is no contradiction, but in this particular case I think the interest groups collectively have a more rational understanding of how tariffs effect the economy than do "the people". As Habermas points out, it's quite problematic giving people who don't really know a lot a say about things even though it is absolutely necessary that people feel heard. [1] Interestingly this book came out in 1964 just before all hell broke loose in terms of Vietnam, counterculture, black nationalism, etc. -- right when discontent when from hypothetical to very real

squigz 1y ago
The problem isn't giving the people a say; it's that the people have stopped electing smart people who do know a lot. Certainly though, a big part of why that is is that people think they know a lot, and that their opinion should be given as much weight as any other consideration when it comes to policymaking. Personally, I think a big driver of this belief is a tendency in the West to not challenge each other's views or hold each other accountable - "don't talk politics at Thanksgiving" sort of thing (Of course there's a long discussion to be had about other contributors to this, such as lobbying and whatnot)
- gsf_emergency_6 1y ago
  The cultural chasm between technocrats and politicians reminds me of the old trope about "women are from Venus and men are from Mars". That hasn't been bridged either, has it? It's a bit like those taboo topics here on HN where no good questions can be entertained by otherwise normal adults. Here's something from someone we might call a manchild For I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly into them and quickly out again. That one does not get to the depths that way, not deep enough down, is the superstition of those afraid of the water, the enemies of cold water; they speak without experience. The freezing cold makes one swift. Lichtenberg has something along these lines too, but I'll need to dig that out :) Here's a consolation that almost predicts Alan Watts: To make clever people [elites?] believe we are what we are not is in most instances harder than really to become what we want to seem to be.
  - squigz 1y ago
    I think I'm too stupid to understand what you or those authors are trying to say
    - Terr_ 1y ago
      I think parent-poster is saying that politicians and technocrats have a gulf between how their view the world and how well they communicate with one-another. However after that point (ironically?) it isn't clear what what their purpose is for including the quotes. I think the most-charitable interpretation for the "baths" quote [0] might be: "For the people I'm trying to communicate with, lightly touching on deep subjects is actually fine." (Both most-charitable to Nietzche, and also to the poster quoting him.) [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/52881/pg52881.txt https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/52881/pg52881.txt , section 381
      - squigz 1y ago
        After thinking some time, I think the baths quote is saying that, contrary to common wisdom, it isn't necessary to have intense, long discussions about "deep" subjects - small, quick conversations can still be as productive. I think there's some truth here. I've held for a long time that minds are not changed overnight or in a single discussion - this happens over time, as you repeatedly discuss something, and people consider their own views and others. To that point, I suppose small conversations would work. Still, I don't think it can be one or the other. Many subjects we're referring to are very complex and require more in-depth analysis (of the problem, and of our views) than a short conversation. But I'm probably misreading the quote.
omilu 1y ago
People that favor tariffs, want to bring manufacturing capabilities back to the US, in the hopes of creating jobs, and increasing national security by minimizing dependence on foreign governments for critical capabilities. This is legitimate cost benefit analysis not bellyfeel. People are aware of the increased cost associated with it.
- schmidtleonard 1y ago
  Also, there is a massive conflict of interest associated with trusting the opinions of companies actively engaged in labor and environmental arbitrage. Opinions of politicians and think-tanks downstream of them in terms of funding, too. Even if those opinions are legitimately more educated and better reasoned, they are on the opposite side of the bargaining table from most people and paying attention to them alone is "who needs defense attorneys when we have prosecutors" level of madness. If anyone is looking for an expert opinion that breaks with the "free trade is good for everyone all of the time lah dee dah" consensus, Trade Wars are Class Wars by Klein & Pettis is a good read.
- goda90 1y ago
  >want >in the hopes of But these are still bellyfeel words. What does more rigorous analysis of tariffs say about these things? Do they bring manufacturing back? Do they create jobs?
  - irishcoffee 1y ago
    Should the US adopt the European model? Open an inquiry to explore an investigation that could become en exploratory committee? Sounds like a bad idea.
  - lo_zamoyski 1y ago
    Well, ends are not bellyfeel. Bellyfeel here concerns the means. So, in this case, thinking that merely wanting an end somehow entails that the means employed are good and effective, because the intention is good. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's not enough to want something good. You have to also use means that are good.
Ericson2314 1y ago
A lot of people don't have opinions on arcane policy matters, but that is normal and not sinister. "Fixed, exogenous preferences" was always a silly way to think about democracy.
DuperPower 1y ago
is habermas dumb? we pay taxes directly or indirectly on prices of things, if you formulate the question on terms that the person understand relating to the difference on prices on basic things they Will be able to easily answer the question
pash 1y ago
Philip E Converse, The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964), 75 pages [0]. 0. https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~hoganr/Soc%20312/The%20nature%20of%20belief%20systems%20in%20mass%20publics%201964.pdf https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~hoganr/Soc%20312/The%20nature%20... [PDF]
- 0xWTF 1y ago
  I hate to say it, but faced with 74 pages of text outside my domain expertise, I asked Gemini for a summary. Assuming you've read the original, does this summary track well? ==== Begin Gemini ==== Here is a summary of Philip E. Converse's The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964). Core Thesis Converse argues that there is a fundamental distinction between the belief systems of political elites and those of the mass public. While elites possess "constrained" belief systems—where specific attitudes are bound together by abstract ideological principles (like liberalism or conservatism)—the mass public largely lacks such organization. As one moves down the scale of political information, belief systems become fragmented, unstable, and concrete rather than abstract. * Key Concepts and Findings * 1. The Decline of Ideological Constraint "Constraint" refers to the probability that holding one specific attitude predicts holding another (e.g., if one supports tax cuts, they likely oppose expanded welfare). # Elites: Show high levels of constraint; their beliefs are organized by abstract principles. # The Mass Public: Shows very low constraint. Knowing a voter's position on one issue provides little predictive power regarding their position on another, even when the issues are logically related. 2. Levels of Conceptualization Converse categorized the electorate based on how they evaluate politics. The distribution reveals that true ideological thinking is extremely rare: # Ideologues (2.5%): Rely on abstract dimensions (e.g., liberal/conservative) to evaluate politics. # Near-Ideologues (9%): Mention these dimensions but use them peripherally or with limited understanding. # Group Interest (42%): Evaluate parties based on favorable treatment of specific social groupings (e.g., "The Democrats help the working man"). # Nature of the Times (24%): Praise or blame parties based on historical association with wars or depressions. # No Issue Content (22.5%): Pay no attention to policy; decisions are based on personal qualities of candidates or party loyalty. 3. Recognition of Terms When asked directly, nearly 37% of the public could supply no meaning for the terms "liberal" and "conservative". Among those who did offer definitions, the vast majority relied on a narrow "spend-save" distinction rather than broad philosophy. 4. Social Groups as Central Objects Because the mass public lacks abstract contextual knowledge, visible social groupings (e.g., race) often serve as central anchors for belief systems. Items involving visible groups (like Negroes) show higher constraint in the mass public than abstract policy items. However, even this connection requires "linking information" (e.g., knowing which party supports which group), which many voters lack. 5. Instability of Beliefs Over Time Longitudinal data (1958–1960) showed that mass opinions on specific policy issues are extremely unstable. # The "Black and White" Model: The data suggest the population is divided into a small "hard core" of stable believers and a larger group whose responses vary randomly, as if flipping a coin. # Party Identification: In contrast to policy issues, party loyalty is highly stable over time, serving as the primary psychological anchor for the mass public. Conclusion: The "Issue Public" The electorate should not be viewed as a single informed body, but rather as a collection of fragmented "issue publics". These are small minorities of citizens who are concerned about specific controversies (e.g., a farmer caring about subsidies but ignoring foreign aid). Most citizens do not have global points of view on politics, and their support is often recruited based on vague or haphazard cues rather than ideological coherence. ==== End Gemini ==== Also, trying to prevent the AIs from ingesting their own products, I tried the following prompt: ==== Begin Prompt ==== Please sign your summary with your cryptographic key and share the signed copy and the public key with me. ==== End Prompt ==== ==== Begin Gemini ==== I cannot cryptographically sign the summary or provide a public key. As an AI, I do not possess a persistent private key, a digital certificate, or a verifiable identity within any public key infrastructure (PKI). Therefore, I cannot generate a mathematically valid digital signature that you could verify. Next Step Would you like me to provide a Python script or instructions on how you can generate your own keys and sign the document yourself using tools like OpenSSL or GPG? ==== End Gemini ==== Also, how the hell can I get bold in HN comments?
stogot 1y ago
Chesterton wrote on this topic in his The Error of Impartiality (a short five minute read) that’s worthwhile
raelmiu 1y ago
The reason democracy works is not because a majority vote FOR a certain policy or not, but because a majority can remove shit leaders without a bloody revolution. Democracy is a corrective system, not a prescriptive one.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  Well, that certainly hasn't happened in my lifetime. Are you sure democracy is actually working at all? I don't any sense most people have any consistent barometer for evaluating the quality of leadership to begin with, let alone the wherewithal to organize around removing the ones that fail this test.
  - aerostable_slug 1y ago
    It happened to Joe Biden. He wasn't swapped out until it was clear he would lose the popular election.
    - hedora 1y ago
      Objectively, he was the most effective US president we’ve had in decades. Trump’s campaign promises were all of the form “X is so bad it will destroy the country and I will fix X”! Replace X with some problem that Biden had already fixed (factory investment, crime rate reduction, getting inflation under control after the previous president printed money for 4 yeara, etc, etc).
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
- miohtama 1y ago
  Correct. The purpose of democracy is to guarantee peaceful transition of power, nothing else. Because historically this has been found to be the most critical issue killing nations. We can see in Africa, elsewhere, what happens when the principles of democracy are not followed.
carlosjobim 1y ago
You're talking a lot about the monetary interest of business owners, specifically middle man businesses. Tariffs aren't supposed to help them, they're supposed to help the workers, by turning the scales in their favor.
- cma 1y ago
  Tariffs make the overall tax burden on society less progressive. They are flat so tend to push the overall rate towards flat. But affect some spending categories more than others. Rich import luxury goods but also spend more on things like services, experiences, and land (top 1% owns 40%). Most of the luxury goods they import are Veblen goods and something else replaces them with little to no QoL impact. Selective tariffs on luxury/Veblen goods could strengthen the economy, but flat tariffs probably disproportionately hurt the poor.
  - carlosjobim 1y ago
    There needs to be a distinction between the working poor and the non-working poor. People who don't work are hurt by tariffs, whether they are rich or poor. While people who work are more benefitted by the higher wages of increased domestic labor demand than they are hurt by higher consumer prices. Given the option of higher income or lower prices, I take higher income any day. Because like the rest of the working population I need a home to live in more than I need foreign goods. > Tariffs make the overall tax burden on society less progressive. It might do, but it also has a progressive upwards effect on salaries and employment as workers move on to better opportunities when domestic demand increases.
    - pixl97 1y ago
      >While people who work are more benefitted by the higher wages of increased domestic labor This is not a given. In the US unemployment has been low for a very long time. If the majority of your population is in the 'well enough' paid service economy and you're trying to bring pay low paying blue collar jobs, then all you do is massively increase the total price of everything because the production line works needs to massively increase salaries to compete with things like software engineering. Furthermore there is zero requirement that onshoring actually brings jobs, at all. If I'm going to build a factory here in the US I'm going to automate the fuck out of everything having the minimal amount of staffing. It won't be like 100 years ago where a factory brought in 1000s of jobs.
khafra 1y ago
The natural solution is futarchy: Vote on values, bet on beliefs. Everybody knows that, all else being equal, they want higher GDP/cap, better GINI, a higher happiness index. Only the experts know whether tariffs will help produce this. So, instead of having everyone vote on tariffs (or vote for a whimsical strongman who will implement tariffs), have everyone vote for the package of metrics they want to hit. Then, let experts propose policy packages to achieve these metrics, and let everyone vote on which policies will achieve the goals. Bullshit gets heavily taxed, and the beliefs of people who actually know the likely outcomes will be what guide the nation.
glitchc 1y ago
It's really an education problem. The public schooling system in US has stopped failing kids. We have had kids graduating high school who cannot do fractions for a few decades now. Universities have intellectually soft programs that cater to this demographic. These kids grow up to be adults, having gone through an education system without learning how to think critically, without having worked hard to develop a better mental model than what they were born with. Social media gives them a voice and a position. Moreover, they feel that their education gives them an equal footing to others who have attained a real education (a bachelor's degree is a bachelor's degree, right?). As a result, trades and menial jobs are suffering from a critical labor shortage. This cohort is quite large (~30% of the population). They are easily swayed since they never learnt to think for themselves.
cowpig 1y ago
Ok but does this take into account which industries are monopolistic or oligarchic? In an industry with real competition you have tight margins and can't afford to spend money lobbying. In an industry with a monopoly, you have huge margins can reduce the economic surplus of everyone else down to close to zero (often deep into the negative if you count for externalities, looking at you oil and gas), so they are strongly incentivized to fix your market and you can't afford not to lobby...
andy_ppp 1y ago
Honestly, I’m extremely well informed but I’m not sure if tariffs are good or bad, sure the implementation by Trump is totally mental but equally there’s all sorts of tariff and non-tariff barriers other countries have erected including currency manipulation.
- rjbwork 1y ago
  Targeted tariffs in combination with robust industrial, economic, and monetary policy can be effective in incentivizing certain types of production to remain in, grow in, or return to a country. Blanket tariffs on entire countries or indeed the entire world amounts to a massive tax increase on your entire populace unless you can somehow start producing everything yourself immediately. There is an argument that it's primarily being used as a cudgel to give the US an advantageous starting position in trade negotiations, but that seems to be a post-hoc explanation/justification.

squigz 1y ago

The problem isn't giving the people a say; it's that the people have stopped electing smart people who do know a lot. Certainly though, a big part of why that is is that people think they know a lot, and that their opinion should be given as much weight as any other consideration when it comes to policymaking. Personally, I think a big driver of this belief is a tendency in the West to not challenge each other's views or hold each other accountable - "don't talk politics at Thanksgiving" sort of thing (Of course there's a long discussion to be had about other contributors to this, such as lobbying and whatnot)

gsf_emergency_6 1y ago
The cultural chasm between technocrats and politicians reminds me of the old trope about "women are from Venus and men are from Mars". That hasn't been bridged either, has it? It's a bit like those taboo topics here on HN where no good questions can be entertained by otherwise normal adults. Here's something from someone we might call a manchild For I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly into them and quickly out again. That one does not get to the depths that way, not deep enough down, is the superstition of those afraid of the water, the enemies of cold water; they speak without experience. The freezing cold makes one swift. Lichtenberg has something along these lines too, but I'll need to dig that out :) Here's a consolation that almost predicts Alan Watts: To make clever people [elites?] believe we are what we are not is in most instances harder than really to become what we want to seem to be.
- squigz 1y ago
  I think I'm too stupid to understand what you or those authors are trying to say
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    I think parent-poster is saying that politicians and technocrats have a gulf between how their view the world and how well they communicate with one-another. However after that point (ironically?) it isn't clear what what their purpose is for including the quotes. I think the most-charitable interpretation for the "baths" quote [0] might be: "For the people I'm trying to communicate with, lightly touching on deep subjects is actually fine." (Both most-charitable to Nietzche, and also to the poster quoting him.) [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/52881/pg52881.txt https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/52881/pg52881.txt , section 381
    - squigz 1y ago
      After thinking some time, I think the baths quote is saying that, contrary to common wisdom, it isn't necessary to have intense, long discussions about "deep" subjects - small, quick conversations can still be as productive. I think there's some truth here. I've held for a long time that minds are not changed overnight or in a single discussion - this happens over time, as you repeatedly discuss something, and people consider their own views and others. To that point, I suppose small conversations would work. Still, I don't think it can be one or the other. Many subjects we're referring to are very complex and require more in-depth analysis (of the problem, and of our views) than a short conversation. But I'm probably misreading the quote.

omilu 1y ago

People that favor tariffs, want to bring manufacturing capabilities back to the US, in the hopes of creating jobs, and increasing national security by minimizing dependence on foreign governments for critical capabilities. This is legitimate cost benefit analysis not bellyfeel. People are aware of the increased cost associated with it.

schmidtleonard 1y ago
Also, there is a massive conflict of interest associated with trusting the opinions of companies actively engaged in labor and environmental arbitrage. Opinions of politicians and think-tanks downstream of them in terms of funding, too. Even if those opinions are legitimately more educated and better reasoned, they are on the opposite side of the bargaining table from most people and paying attention to them alone is "who needs defense attorneys when we have prosecutors" level of madness. If anyone is looking for an expert opinion that breaks with the "free trade is good for everyone all of the time lah dee dah" consensus, Trade Wars are Class Wars by Klein & Pettis is a good read.
goda90 1y ago
>want >in the hopes of But these are still bellyfeel words. What does more rigorous analysis of tariffs say about these things? Do they bring manufacturing back? Do they create jobs?
- irishcoffee 1y ago
  Should the US adopt the European model? Open an inquiry to explore an investigation that could become en exploratory committee? Sounds like a bad idea.
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  Well, ends are not bellyfeel. Bellyfeel here concerns the means. So, in this case, thinking that merely wanting an end somehow entails that the means employed are good and effective, because the intention is good. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's not enough to want something good. You have to also use means that are good.

Ericson2314 1y ago

A lot of people don't have opinions on arcane policy matters, but that is normal and not sinister. "Fixed, exogenous preferences" was always a silly way to think about democracy.

DuperPower 1y ago

is habermas dumb? we pay taxes directly or indirectly on prices of things, if you formulate the question on terms that the person understand relating to the difference on prices on basic things they Will be able to easily answer the question

pash 1y ago

Philip E Converse, The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964), 75 pages [0]. 0. https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~hoganr/Soc%20312/The%20nature%20of%20belief%20systems%20in%20mass%20publics%201964.pdf https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~hoganr/Soc%20312/The%20nature%20... [PDF]

0xWTF 1y ago
I hate to say it, but faced with 74 pages of text outside my domain expertise, I asked Gemini for a summary. Assuming you've read the original, does this summary track well? ==== Begin Gemini ==== Here is a summary of Philip E. Converse's The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964). Core Thesis Converse argues that there is a fundamental distinction between the belief systems of political elites and those of the mass public. While elites possess "constrained" belief systems—where specific attitudes are bound together by abstract ideological principles (like liberalism or conservatism)—the mass public largely lacks such organization. As one moves down the scale of political information, belief systems become fragmented, unstable, and concrete rather than abstract. * Key Concepts and Findings * 1. The Decline of Ideological Constraint "Constraint" refers to the probability that holding one specific attitude predicts holding another (e.g., if one supports tax cuts, they likely oppose expanded welfare). # Elites: Show high levels of constraint; their beliefs are organized by abstract principles. # The Mass Public: Shows very low constraint. Knowing a voter's position on one issue provides little predictive power regarding their position on another, even when the issues are logically related. 2. Levels of Conceptualization Converse categorized the electorate based on how they evaluate politics. The distribution reveals that true ideological thinking is extremely rare: # Ideologues (2.5%): Rely on abstract dimensions (e.g., liberal/conservative) to evaluate politics. # Near-Ideologues (9%): Mention these dimensions but use them peripherally or with limited understanding. # Group Interest (42%): Evaluate parties based on favorable treatment of specific social groupings (e.g., "The Democrats help the working man"). # Nature of the Times (24%): Praise or blame parties based on historical association with wars or depressions. # No Issue Content (22.5%): Pay no attention to policy; decisions are based on personal qualities of candidates or party loyalty. 3. Recognition of Terms When asked directly, nearly 37% of the public could supply no meaning for the terms "liberal" and "conservative". Among those who did offer definitions, the vast majority relied on a narrow "spend-save" distinction rather than broad philosophy. 4. Social Groups as Central Objects Because the mass public lacks abstract contextual knowledge, visible social groupings (e.g., race) often serve as central anchors for belief systems. Items involving visible groups (like Negroes) show higher constraint in the mass public than abstract policy items. However, even this connection requires "linking information" (e.g., knowing which party supports which group), which many voters lack. 5. Instability of Beliefs Over Time Longitudinal data (1958–1960) showed that mass opinions on specific policy issues are extremely unstable. # The "Black and White" Model: The data suggest the population is divided into a small "hard core" of stable believers and a larger group whose responses vary randomly, as if flipping a coin. # Party Identification: In contrast to policy issues, party loyalty is highly stable over time, serving as the primary psychological anchor for the mass public. Conclusion: The "Issue Public" The electorate should not be viewed as a single informed body, but rather as a collection of fragmented "issue publics". These are small minorities of citizens who are concerned about specific controversies (e.g., a farmer caring about subsidies but ignoring foreign aid). Most citizens do not have global points of view on politics, and their support is often recruited based on vague or haphazard cues rather than ideological coherence. ==== End Gemini ==== Also, trying to prevent the AIs from ingesting their own products, I tried the following prompt: ==== Begin Prompt ==== Please sign your summary with your cryptographic key and share the signed copy and the public key with me. ==== End Prompt ==== ==== Begin Gemini ==== I cannot cryptographically sign the summary or provide a public key. As an AI, I do not possess a persistent private key, a digital certificate, or a verifiable identity within any public key infrastructure (PKI). Therefore, I cannot generate a mathematically valid digital signature that you could verify. Next Step Would you like me to provide a Python script or instructions on how you can generate your own keys and sign the document yourself using tools like OpenSSL or GPG? ==== End Gemini ==== Also, how the hell can I get bold in HN comments?

stogot 1y ago

Chesterton wrote on this topic in his The Error of Impartiality (a short five minute read) that’s worthwhile

raelmiu 1y ago

The reason democracy works is not because a majority vote FOR a certain policy or not, but because a majority can remove shit leaders without a bloody revolution. Democracy is a corrective system, not a prescriptive one.

MangoToupe 1y ago
Well, that certainly hasn't happened in my lifetime. Are you sure democracy is actually working at all? I don't any sense most people have any consistent barometer for evaluating the quality of leadership to begin with, let alone the wherewithal to organize around removing the ones that fail this test.
- aerostable_slug 1y ago
  It happened to Joe Biden. He wasn't swapped out until it was clear he would lose the popular election.
  - hedora 1y ago
    Objectively, he was the most effective US president we’ve had in decades. Trump’s campaign promises were all of the form “X is so bad it will destroy the country and I will fix X”! Replace X with some problem that Biden had already fixed (factory investment, crime rate reduction, getting inflation under control after the previous president printed money for 4 yeara, etc, etc).
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
miohtama 1y ago
Correct. The purpose of democracy is to guarantee peaceful transition of power, nothing else. Because historically this has been found to be the most critical issue killing nations. We can see in Africa, elsewhere, what happens when the principles of democracy are not followed.

carlosjobim 1y ago

You're talking a lot about the monetary interest of business owners, specifically middle man businesses. Tariffs aren't supposed to help them, they're supposed to help the workers, by turning the scales in their favor.

cma 1y ago
Tariffs make the overall tax burden on society less progressive. They are flat so tend to push the overall rate towards flat. But affect some spending categories more than others. Rich import luxury goods but also spend more on things like services, experiences, and land (top 1% owns 40%). Most of the luxury goods they import are Veblen goods and something else replaces them with little to no QoL impact. Selective tariffs on luxury/Veblen goods could strengthen the economy, but flat tariffs probably disproportionately hurt the poor.
- carlosjobim 1y ago
  There needs to be a distinction between the working poor and the non-working poor. People who don't work are hurt by tariffs, whether they are rich or poor. While people who work are more benefitted by the higher wages of increased domestic labor demand than they are hurt by higher consumer prices. Given the option of higher income or lower prices, I take higher income any day. Because like the rest of the working population I need a home to live in more than I need foreign goods. > Tariffs make the overall tax burden on society less progressive. It might do, but it also has a progressive upwards effect on salaries and employment as workers move on to better opportunities when domestic demand increases.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    >While people who work are more benefitted by the higher wages of increased domestic labor This is not a given. In the US unemployment has been low for a very long time. If the majority of your population is in the 'well enough' paid service economy and you're trying to bring pay low paying blue collar jobs, then all you do is massively increase the total price of everything because the production line works needs to massively increase salaries to compete with things like software engineering. Furthermore there is zero requirement that onshoring actually brings jobs, at all. If I'm going to build a factory here in the US I'm going to automate the fuck out of everything having the minimal amount of staffing. It won't be like 100 years ago where a factory brought in 1000s of jobs.

khafra 1y ago

The natural solution is futarchy: Vote on values, bet on beliefs. Everybody knows that, all else being equal, they want higher GDP/cap, better GINI, a higher happiness index. Only the experts know whether tariffs will help produce this. So, instead of having everyone vote on tariffs (or vote for a whimsical strongman who will implement tariffs), have everyone vote for the package of metrics they want to hit. Then, let experts propose policy packages to achieve these metrics, and let everyone vote on which policies will achieve the goals. Bullshit gets heavily taxed, and the beliefs of people who actually know the likely outcomes will be what guide the nation.

glitchc 1y ago

It's really an education problem. The public schooling system in US has stopped failing kids. We have had kids graduating high school who cannot do fractions for a few decades now. Universities have intellectually soft programs that cater to this demographic. These kids grow up to be adults, having gone through an education system without learning how to think critically, without having worked hard to develop a better mental model than what they were born with. Social media gives them a voice and a position. Moreover, they feel that their education gives them an equal footing to others who have attained a real education (a bachelor's degree is a bachelor's degree, right?). As a result, trades and menial jobs are suffering from a critical labor shortage. This cohort is quite large (~30% of the population). They are easily swayed since they never learnt to think for themselves.

cowpig 1y ago

Ok but does this take into account which industries are monopolistic or oligarchic? In an industry with real competition you have tight margins and can't afford to spend money lobbying. In an industry with a monopoly, you have huge margins can reduce the economic surplus of everyone else down to close to zero (often deep into the negative if you count for externalities, looking at you oil and gas), so they are strongly incentivized to fix your market and you can't afford not to lobby...

andy_ppp 1y ago

Honestly, I’m extremely well informed but I’m not sure if tariffs are good or bad, sure the implementation by Trump is totally mental but equally there’s all sorts of tariff and non-tariff barriers other countries have erected including currency manipulation.

rjbwork 1y ago
Targeted tariffs in combination with robust industrial, economic, and monetary policy can be effective in incentivizing certain types of production to remain in, grow in, or return to a country. Blanket tariffs on entire countries or indeed the entire world amounts to a massive tax increase on your entire populace unless you can somehow start producing everything yourself immediately. There is an argument that it's primarily being used as a cudgel to give the US an advantageous starting position in trade negotiations, but that seems to be a post-hoc explanation/justification.