50% of Americans will find out if this is what they thought will "Make America Great Again".
Destroying our relationship with our neighbors and embracing Russia, Iran, and North Korea by assisting them in destroying Ukraine and the Western alliance.
At every step of this increasingly demented reality Ive thought, this is it, this has gone too far, surely nobody will accept this and most Americans shrugged. I hold no hope that anything can motivate the general public to pay attention.
At least 30% of seniors in the US are living precariously and that is likely to increase as SSA benefits are gutted. The statistics are even worse when disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender.
People always cite Parable of the Sower as proof of an inevitable dystopian collapse. They fail to then point out that Octavia Butler’s protagonists constructed Earthseed, a commune that stood in opposition to MAGA.
I wouldn't be surprised if it starts up pretty soon as the gigantic tax cuts were just made permanent - that likely means the folks with money have gotten everything they needed out of this administration.
It isn’t a one time thing. Voting is the bare minimum and likely takes the least effort of all other types of civic engagement, perhaps only behind signing an online petition.
There is a significant fraction of the US population which was excluded from voting. Deliberately, as a partisan tactic. Sufficient likely to have changed the outcome.
I'd clarify that those people have absolutely no responsibility for the administration and it's an absolute shame that any US citizen is denied the right to vote (including felons - yes even the really bad ones). Populations have a wide range of people in them - and if a society is so close to the razor's edge that it'd only survive in normalcy by excluding felons then it's already lost.
Regular folks who can't afford special IDs being denied from voting is just criminal in my eyes.
I agree that's a major problem - but I hope my original comment was worded clearly enough to be directed at those who had the opportunity and actively chose not to vote... if not, I hope this clears that up.
A key problem with that as a major argument is that 1) that group is unlikely to be persuaded regardless,[1] and 2) the disenfranchised population seems plausibly capable of having altered the outcome.
________________________________
Notes:
1. I'm increasingly of the view that political debate is far less about persuasion and far more about motivation and probably even moreso demotivation. At least in the present media landscape. The wrong side's been winning that war of late in the US. Though as many political commentators have noted, the theme in 2024 seems to have been less authoritarian advantage than incumbent disadvantage (see esp. Tory loss in UK). Even given that, a challenge is that authoritarian wins tend to be stickier (through promulgation of further anti-democratic voter exclusion, amongst other means) than nonauthoritarian wins. Reversing that trend will be a major challenge for the next few decades, should it even be possible.
If you mean a Christian one, I can't see it. Trump's discomfort at having even Sunday School levels of belief explained to him makes me doubt he could sustain that.
Since we just asked you twice to stop posting political flamewar comments and you've instead done even more of it, I've banned this account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Note: following the rules doesn't just mean not posting flamewar comments—it also means not using HN primarily for political arguments (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...). I mention that because your account has been badly on the wrong side of that rule too.
p.s. Btw, lest anyone is concerned that the mods are taking sides: no, we don't care what your politics are. We care about these flamewars and how unbelievably lame they are. Comments like what you posted here amount to vandalism, if not arson. Seriously not cool.
As a bit of a surprising note - Canada actually does have a serious issue with drugs and weapons illegally crossing into Canada... not enough to start a trade war over but quite a bit more significant than stuff going in the other direction.
Inflation is caused by more money chasing after less stuff. If you keep the money supply constant, but reduce the amount of stuff you can buy with it, you will just as surely create inflation as printing money would.
The excess private borrowing to pay tariffs or higher cost supply lines to keep business moving, especially where the govt is using the money to give tax breaks to people already well above the income/consumption curve, is going to drive a spike in inflation.
As we've seen with covid and post covid cycles companies will adjust margins and increase profits after these spikes rather than reduce costs further increasing the length and impacts of inflation spikes.
On top of that I expect more performative crap like checks sent out in Trump's name that aren't enough to actually help for more than a single grocery bill, but drive debt and inflation up further overall.
There are no concrete asks from the US. The president appears to vehemently believe that tariffs will “generate revenue”. There is also the unhinged proposition to absorb Canada as the 51st state.
Almost everything you have said is wrong. Its quite remarkable to hear accusations of being ill informed or living in an information bubble from someone who is clearly suffering from both.
I hope you’re right. But even if that were the case, and trade agreements were better on paper, the net effect on the U.S. after all is said and done (damaged relationships, seeking out new markets etc.) is probably negative
You did not factor in the public opinion here. Already in Europe a mass wave of boycotting American products is shaping up. The same in Canada. It's different this time.
Ya, China imported around $40b of American agriculture a year. It turns out they like soybeans and chicken feet while we produce a lot and don't need as many ourselves. But they found an alternate supplier in Brazil the last time this happened, so I guess they will just double down on getting these things from other countries.
Except there is a truck sized hole of de minimus exceptions, so effective tariff rate is practically 0. but I guess it’s a good excuse for a market correction.
Would the idea not be to carefully select things that have viable alternatives after being diverted away from the U.S? Seems like instead have having a blanket export tax on our own people, it would make more sense to move money back into areas that'd see losses from a decline in U.S imports
Retaliatory tarrifs are something like MAD. Tarrifs are bad for both countries. Yes, Canada placing retaliatory tarrifs hurts Canadian consumers, but it also hurts American exporters. The alternative, doing nothing, would in some sense be preferable immediately, but in the long run would risk losing Canadian industry to the US.
Tariffs in some ways coddle USA businesses in that they create incentives for Americans to prefer American goods. But USA businesses depend on foreign goods. Tariffs are a tax which increases their costs.
In the late 1800's, under McKinley, the USA tried to use tariffs to ruin Canada and annex it. One of the results was that some USA businesses moved to Canada to avoid tariffs on supplies they needed from Canada. That would have worked for businesses whose customers were not mainly in the USA, or that could expand beyond the USA.
Canada was working on increasing trade with other parts of the world, like Great Britain; businesses moving to Canada could have participated in that.
72 comments
[ 6.7 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadDestroying our relationship with our neighbors and embracing Russia, Iran, and North Korea by assisting them in destroying Ukraine and the Western alliance.
Meanwhile property prices and 401ks are up, old people (the largest cohort of voters) really just don't care.
I wish people had more empathy for others, but they don't. They mostly only care about taxes and their personal wealth.
This level of personal greed-individualism is partly what makes America great in the good times, but awful when things get bad.
I mean, a trade war absolutely will.
> Meanwhile property prices and 401ks are up
The S&P500 is down YTD.
That said, this will probably all take a while to sink in.
https://www.ncoa.org/article/get-the-facts-on-economic-secur...
As militant actions in Greece, France, and places across the globe attest, voting is not nor should be the only sphere of political engagement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Sower_(novel)
I don't think the collapse is inevitable. I lean towards doomerism but I know I can't predict what's going to happen next week, let alone next decade.
The peoples of the world deserve better, direct democracy.
"Voting Laws Roundup: September 2024"
<https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...>
Overall 2024 turnout was below that of 2020, though that itself was the highest since 2004:
<https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_...>
Regular folks who can't afford special IDs being denied from voting is just criminal in my eyes.
I agree that's a major problem - but I hope my original comment was worded clearly enough to be directed at those who had the opportunity and actively chose not to vote... if not, I hope this clears that up.
A key problem with that as a major argument is that 1) that group is unlikely to be persuaded regardless,[1] and 2) the disenfranchised population seems plausibly capable of having altered the outcome.
________________________________
Notes:
1. I'm increasingly of the view that political debate is far less about persuasion and far more about motivation and probably even moreso demotivation. At least in the present media landscape. The wrong side's been winning that war of late in the US. Though as many political commentators have noted, the theme in 2024 seems to have been less authoritarian advantage than incumbent disadvantage (see esp. Tory loss in UK). Even given that, a challenge is that authoritarian wins tend to be stickier (through promulgation of further anti-democratic voter exclusion, amongst other means) than nonauthoritarian wins. Reversing that trend will be a major challenge for the next few decades, should it even be possible.
Can you point to a single trade war in which the obvious winners were random third parties? (And smugglers.)
If you mean a Christian one, I can't see it. Trump's discomfort at having even Sunday School levels of belief explained to him makes me doubt he could sustain that.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Note: following the rules doesn't just mean not posting flamewar comments—it also means not using HN primarily for political arguments (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...). I mention that because your account has been badly on the wrong side of that rule too.
p.s. Btw, lest anyone is concerned that the mods are taking sides: no, we don't care what your politics are. We care about these flamewars and how unbelievably lame they are. Comments like what you posted here amount to vandalism, if not arson. Seriously not cool.
I realize it is a hot moment, but this is not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The excess private borrowing to pay tariffs or higher cost supply lines to keep business moving, especially where the govt is using the money to give tax breaks to people already well above the income/consumption curve, is going to drive a spike in inflation.
As we've seen with covid and post covid cycles companies will adjust margins and increase profits after these spikes rather than reduce costs further increasing the length and impacts of inflation spikes.
On top of that I expect more performative crap like checks sent out in Trump's name that aren't enough to actually help for more than a single grocery bill, but drive debt and inflation up further overall.
It'll be a fun ride.
1. Impose tariffs on countries that collectively purchase ~40% of U.S. goods exports
2. ???
3. Profit
1. Tariffs
2. Negotiation
3. Better trade agreements
People are acting like this didn’t happened in his first term.
Why should they continue to trade with us?
They did take action. Trump slapped them anyway, without Trump asking anything more.
>He has said this nearly every time he has talked about the tariffs. Will it generate some revenue sure but probably not much.
Trump has literaly said that it would bring in so much revenue that he will dismantle the IRS and replace it with the ERS.
>This is all about does American and its people have the resolve to play hardball.
Why would anyone trust Trump to abide by any agreement? He's a liar and a backstabber.
The rest of the world can act as if the US was razed to the ground.
Where are you getting this $57T number from? Most sources put it closer to $2.5-$3T max
https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/statistics/202312/29/cont...
America is a clown state.
Beijing Retaliates After Trump's Levies Hit China, Canada and Mexico - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2025-03-04/trump-ta... | https://archive.today/iXcYm
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-vows-countermeasur...
China’s apparently the biggest importer of US agricultural products.
LOL
We were the North American empire, but that is now internally crumbling.
I just hope the United States of America stay united and we don’t get Tariffs from California and Texas.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10997
It's like they believe Trump's theory of tariffs.
"We're going to make Americans pay to do business here! Yeah!"
Tariffs in some ways coddle USA businesses in that they create incentives for Americans to prefer American goods. But USA businesses depend on foreign goods. Tariffs are a tax which increases their costs.
In the late 1800's, under McKinley, the USA tried to use tariffs to ruin Canada and annex it. One of the results was that some USA businesses moved to Canada to avoid tariffs on supplies they needed from Canada. That would have worked for businesses whose customers were not mainly in the USA, or that could expand beyond the USA.
Canada was working on increasing trade with other parts of the world, like Great Britain; businesses moving to Canada could have participated in that.