Comment by bryant | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryant | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote.

87% of Trump voters during Oct 23-25 2024 at least slightly believed that "American jobs are insecure right now and our future prosperity is under threat."[0]

I reckon I don't have to point at what's been going on the last few months. It's certain that the election going the other way would've at least not resulted in the current debacle.

> Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now.

Implying that tariffs of this magnitude would've been inevitable[1][2] regardless of the government elected shows a lack of good-faith participation in this conversation, so I'll move on. Cheers, mate.

[0] Cambridge/YouGov survey finalized Nov 7 2024. https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/docume... // press release https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/trump-voters-2024

[1] Harris policy proposals budget model, noting no tariffs and reasonably assumed to have remained consistent with a Harris win. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/harri...

[2] Trump policy proposals budget model, noting the anticipated 10+% tariffs that have since materialized, including retaliation etc. from trading partners. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/trump...

My opinion stands. Claiming that I'm not being honest in my opinion is not a valid escape from the conversation. But be my guest.

Tariffs were inevitable, in any administration. Unless the plan was to have been much worse. With all due respect, truly, I'm sure that you don't understand how the international monetary system works at a basic level. For reasons, tariffs were inevitable. All sides have been preparing.

Kamala Harris had zero chance of winning, lost in a landslide, and could have said whatever she pleased because she was never going to be there to follow through. Believe they knew she didn't have a chance. She was truly a candidate who could not win. Hillary Clinton could not beat Donald Trump, and she was a vastly superior candidate. Anyone with political horse sense knew that the first woman POTUS would not be Kamala Harris. Forcing Biden out was equivalent to throwing the election. Though, I'm not saying that I know that he would have won.

Second, I look at policy to inform on politician intention. I recommend that you do the same. Instead of looking at stated intent.

Preparation for reshoring under Joe Biden:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act

https://www.wri.org/insights/inflation-reduction-act-anniver...

Herded via tariffs, look for foreign-owned companies to begin setting up in Foreign Trade Zones on US soil. Thereby avoiding tariffs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/foreign-trade-zones-...

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/17/2023-08...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-trade_zones_of_the_Uni...

In your sources, "strategic" (or surgical[0]) tariffs are mentioned, which is perhaps the only accepted practice for applying tariffs compared to blanket tariffs.

As it happens, you've now twice doubled down on claiming both administrations would've imposed tariffs, and the manner in which you conveyed your point ("Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. In a complex economy that few to no people in public discussions understand.") implies that both policies would've been equal when in fact it's quite clear even from your links that the two approaches would've been different - Biden/Harris' surgical application vs Trump's current blanket tariffs.

The repeated implication that the two policies would be equivocal is at best a failure to understand the debate and, at worst, in bad faith.

[0] https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-pr... - "This isn’t normally the way presidents act when it comes to tariffs. Additional tariffs are generally imposed very selectively, under trade remedy statutes crafted by Congress. They are actions taken pursuant to a finding that a particular product is involved in a specified unfair trade act, or it may be that the new tariff is a surgical retaliatory measure to open a market for a specified American product."

---

Went ahead and chucked the thread into archive.is so it's not lost to the sands of time. I guess now I'll bow out in a manner that's not valid :)

You tell me what I supposedly implied, and then set that up as a shifted-goalposts straw-man argument.

Which in my experience is consistently the sign of someone who can't take the "L".

It's common with people who "argue in bad faith". In contrast with your "twice doubled down" accusation of me doing so, we have actual hard evidence of you arguing in bad faith.

Your argument consistently relies on gaslighting me as to what my unstated beliefs are.

Tactics of a scoundrel, or perhaps just a person unskilled in having "good faith" debates.

I more than understand the debate. I'm even being polite surrounding your general and clear lack of information on how the global monetary system works and its current state of affairs. That is, your lack of context for tariffs. Because if you had it, you'd realize how dumb this conversation is.

You can't keep the discussion on-track without needing to shift it, in order to feign superiority before telling me that you again won't be back. A shameful demonstration!

The original argument was whether tariffs were going to be applied or not, in any administration.

I stated that they were unavoidable. I didn't make any statements in regard to exactly equivalent tariff policies across administrations. You created a prior non-existent argument, blew it up, and stomped off.

Comparative intended granular tariff policy isn't even even an interesting discussion in my opinion. I don't think that the realized strategy would be predictable for either administration, whatever they said in the past. Nuance of tariff policy is too granular to predict. In spite of any prior statements. I don't believe that such statements are evidence of firm commitment, just direction.

But I'm glad you now admit that the Harris administration would have applied tariffs.

We want people to be able to discuss difficult topics on HN but please keep to the guidelines.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We want people to be able to discuss difficult topics on HN but please keep to the guidelines.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com