exe34

29 ms·

841.
by exe34 1y ago
no, you need to explain why you thought the Soviet connection was important enough to mention. you could have said you agreed with the number or you thought it was too high for reasons or too low for reasons.
842.
by exe34 1y ago
It's pretty clear who pays the tariffs. the buyer pays the manufacturer. the manufacturer ships the product. the product gets held in customs until the buyer pays the tariff.
843.
by exe34 1y ago
The shipment won't be released by customs until the buyer pays the tariff. I can tell who's paying. It's impressive how so many are contorting their minds trying to make this seem uncertain.
844.
by exe34 1y ago
what happens in practise is that local sellers also increase their prices so that the customer still pays more, but the exporter isn't paying any tariff. if exporters paid tariffs, every country would put tariffs on things that they di
845.
by exe34 1y ago
They are not equivalent. What usually happens isn't that people buy less foreign and more local, but that local sellers take advantage and raise their prices to be just below the foreign+tariff. the fact is that IRS is collecting money
846.
by exe34 1y ago
Well yes, I too can pull stuff out of my ass, but I wouldn't usually then call people talking about reality "but that's like your opinion man".
847.
by exe34 1y ago
> But the vast majority do not. yeah and that's why they are shit and barely work. Even a php app without decorations would be faster and better for most applications.
848.
by exe34 1y ago
As long as it includes compensation for lowering house prices, of course!
849.
by exe34 1y ago
I suspect you could bias it to always say no, with a long list of pointless shit that they need to address first, and come up with a brand new list every time. maybe even prompt "suggest ten things to remove to make it simpler". u
850.
by exe34 1y ago
I assume you have citations you are holding off on for dramatic effect?
851.
by exe34 1y ago
> We might very well be able to fake it to an extent that it fools us, but awareness isn’t there we only need to fake it to the point it's undistinguishable from the carbon based one. faking is all you need.
852.
by exe34 1y ago
We want tools that aren't designed to trigger our impulses.
853.
by exe34 1y ago
No other country flip flops like he does - nobody will make any long term plans when they don't know if the tariffs will be there Tuesday, much less in 3.5 years. Business and investment need stability, not histrionic outbursts and for
854.
by exe34 1y ago
Sounds like he made America great again - people can't afford the food they like anymore.
855.
by exe34 1y ago
We don't have to pretend. We know who's paying. It's the consumer/importer.
856.
by exe34 1y ago
> The long-term purpose is that foreign companies start making their products in your country to avoid tariffs and be able to compete. There is no long term in the US anymore. TACO flip flops every few days, based on who he spoke to last
857.
by exe34 1y ago
I assume the left know more than Adam Smith, given his ideas have been tried for few hundred years, while the right can't read
858.
by exe34 1y ago
companies are persons. see: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.
859.
by exe34 1y ago
If you're not interested at all, why did you even join the conversation? Are you just lonely?
860.
by exe34 1y ago
> they've been extremely effective. yes, as a pump and dump scheme. He and people in his administration have made a lot of money with tariffs!
861.
by exe34 1y ago
Losing sales isn't the same as paying the tariff. The person importing the item pays the tariff. Their item won't be released from customs if they don't pay. They pay to the US government. The correct thing to say is that the
862.
by exe34 1y ago
The manufacturer are subsidising the tariffs if they lower their price in the us to counteract part of the tariff. When they charge other markets more to make up for the cost, they are making those markets pay for the subsidy.
863.
by exe34 1y ago
The exporter gets paid the same as before. The buyer pays more. There's a subtle difference, can you spot it?
864.
by exe34 1y ago
To be fair, to them, starving is "other people aren't spending their money on me". Remember Emlo sued people who stopped advertising on his personal blog when he let the Nazis back in.
865.
by exe34 1y ago
it's like a seal to show that they had disobeyed.
866.
by exe34 1y ago
If you cared to find out, you could try asking questions about the views, instead of poisoning the well.
867.
by exe34 1y ago
I don't think GPL cares where the money is coming from - we're talking about closed/open source, not ethical business models. If we did, we'd have to also go over unfettered free markets and capital flow.
868.
by exe34 1y ago
Many open source projects are written by people who are paid to do so. Just because you couldn't do it doesn't mean it's not possible.
869.
by exe34 1y ago
Sometimes people take the time to read and understand something and conclude that this is the best way to express it, better than they themselves can paraphrase.
870.
by exe34 1y ago
so why did it take you so long to be open about your own motives? still, it's good that you did admit to it in the end.

More ›