Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

Just because someone has a different point of view than yours does not make them stupid. I know plenty of people that have different views of mine that are much smarter than I am, and engaging with them leads to interesting conversations. I can still think they are "wrong" at the end of these conversations, but I'd never call them stupid. Hell, the lottery is often described as a tax on poor people. Yet the vast majority of lottery players would never call it a tax. The vast majority of people that I've talked to that don't understand tariffs are not incapable of understanding the concept. They've only ever heard their information from one source that does not discuss tariffs in this manner. Once they hear other viewpoints not from a single source, they typically admit they are taxes and do not argue against it. It does not change their mind that they are still a good idea.

View on HN

> Just because someone has a different point of view than yours does not make them stupid.

True, but I'm not sure what that proves. Some people who have different points of view than I do have come to those points of view via reasonable means, and some of their PoVs might even be more consistent with reality than some of mine.

But some people are actually just stupid. Sometimes it's for understandable reasons, but sometimes it's for reasons that the GP laid out, and that's sad and unfortunate, and makes life difficult for the rest of us. I think there are a lot of people like this, and I'm afraid that public policy is in no small part driven by these people's susceptibility to propaganda, and their inability to think critically.

It’s not “a different point of view” to think that tariffs get paid by the other country. It’s not “a different point of view” to loathe Obamacare and like the ACA. It’s just ignorance. When the information is easily available, it’s willful ignorance. When they won’t obtain the information and they still hold strong opinions and vote accordingly, it’s at best stupidity.

How is it not a different point of view to think that healthcare should be tied to one's employment as opposed to all people should have access to affordable healthcare? We can discuss if Obamacare achieved what it wanted to do as I believe it was not very successful, but it at its core is a different view point. Yes, people believing other countries pay the tariffs are clearly not understanding of how tariffs work. But then you went made some clearly erroneous comment that ruined everything else just to get back to stupidity. Which by your standards means you must be stupid too for continuing to put forth a clearly wrong point.

That’s not what I was saying. Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing. The ACA is the official name and Obamacare is an attempt at a derogatory nickname which became common. Hating one and liking the other is an inherently contradictory position. And yet it’s one a lot of people hold. That’s not a different point of view, that’s not having even the most basic understanding of the thing you have an opinion about.

That’s democracy though, everyone gets a vote, even if you’re a doofus.

Right, but it puts rational people who seek to govern in a very uncomfortable position when they're up against an adversary who is happy to seize power at all costs, including weaponizing ignorance, ideology, polarization, conspiracy theories, and a complicit media apparatus, and then engages in blatantly un-democratic tactics like gerrymandering and the filibuster, and all the rest of it.

Basically when all or most of the facts are on your side, how do you balance the need to indulge stupid talking points and perspectives so that you can "reach" people, while also not inadvertently conceding ground in an attempt to meet a person where they are?

IMO it’s an incentive problem - it takes effort to be knowledgeable but the practical benefits are next to nothing. But being in a group of ignorant people is actually probably pretty fun, not to mention the dopamine hit of outrage.

Ideally being informed would be both easier than it is today (less misleading crap, more trustworthy structure to think about what issues are relevant) while also being more rewarded somehow.

Of course. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have a vote. I’m just saying they are in fact doofuses.

I disagree with your blanket assumption that consumers always pay for tariffs. In my experience working for a major garment importer, we kept retail prices the same even after tariffs were added. Why? Because competition from local brands forced us to absorb the cost ourselves. Sure, that's not how every industry works, but saying consumers always pay is an oversimplification. It really depends on the industry, pricing power, and competitive pressure.

Whether tariffs are paid by the consumer is a bit pointless. The incontrovertible fact is that tariffs are paid by someone in the importing country, whether the importing business or their customer or a middleman or some combination. These dingbats are out there thinking that these tariffs will be paid by China or Canada or whatever.

But that's not true, why would it be? Tariffs are paid by someone in the supply chain. It's not obvious that the payer is in the importing country.

They are paid by the importer. It’s possible those costs will be passed along with higher prices, but you can’t really pass costs back.

Of course you can. Competition means exporters can lower their prices to help mitigate the tariffs in order to beat their competitors.

They can do that without tariffs too.

But why would they if they don't have a competition on price without a tariff?

Why wouldn’t they have competition?

Even if you assume perfect competition costs like tariffs can be passed back to producers.

Imagine a demand and a supply curve. From the perspective of a producer outside the country the tariff effectively shifts the demand curve, but doesn't affect supply. That's going to lead to a lower price at equilibrium.

Of course, from the perspective of the consumer it's the opposite situation, the supply curve shifts which leads to a higher price at equilibrium.

Both happen simultaneously, who pays most of the tariff depends on the elasticity of the supply and the demand

"Tariffs are paid by someone in the supply chain" is the most accurate way to put it because it reflects how things really work in practice. Sure, the importer is the one who physically pays the tariff at the border, but that cost doesn't always stay with them. Depending on the situation, that expense can be shared, passed on, or absorbed by others involved in the trade.

For example, if there's a 35% tariff on a $100 item, the importer technically owes $135. But the exporter might lower their price, maybe selling it for $70 instead to help offset the tariff and keep the business deal going. In that case, the exporter is basically covering part of the cost. On the flip side, the importer might just raise the final price and make the customer pay more...or better yet, assume the cost due to intense local competition.

So even though the importer pays the duty upfront, who actually feels the cost depends on how the parties involved respond. That's why it makes more sense to say someone in the supply chain pays. It's not always the same person every time.

> How is it not a different point of view to think that healthcare should be tied to one's employment as opposed to all people should have access to affordable healthcare?

Please explain how members of a low-income household would rationally and knowingly advocate to eliminate the only access to healthcare they can afford.

Then, if you are able to present a coherent argument, try to explain that in a stupidity vs diverse point of view, this stance is indeed not founded on stupidity.

OP said:

> loathe Obamacare and like the ACA

they were not arguing for or against obamacare, they were pointing out the laziness of people that don't realize that Obamacare _is_ the ACA, but somehow hate the former and love the latter.

> Just because someone has a different point of view than yours does not make them stupid.

He never suggested that. You defended these voters by saying they gladly accept the propaganda information diet, not that they have well-reasoned differences of opinion.

No, that's not my defense. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that because they voted for someone that you disagree with for whatever reasons does not automatically make them stupid. They could have voted for someone for a totally different reason than tariffs. Now their guy is doing something they don't know anything about and now they are personally getting attacked. Whether they know anything about that topic or not does not make them stupid. If they attempt to argue without being fully versed by quoting what the face on TV tells them, again, that doesn't make them stupid. It just makes them very bad at debating. Look at all of the "man on the street" comedy interviews that are out there. Most of these people have no clue about what they are talking about, but just want to argue against the other side. A lot of the people are definitely not "very smart" but that's because they are cherry picked for that purpose. There are a lot of people that voted for this guy because the last guy was just unable to articulate much of anything and did not put forth a lot of confidence in pretty much anything. Knee jerk reactions usually have some pretty negative consequences. Just looking at current polling suggests there are a lot of people that voted for this administration yet are not happy with what is going on. Yet you are saying they are stupid. If these people were really onboard with "other countries pay the tariffs" there would not be negative polling numbers.

All I'm saying is stop painting with a broad brush in that anyone voting for a party is stupid. I'll defend people voting for who they want or even voting against someone they don't want. To call them stupid is just stupid.

Ugh I did put words in your mouth because I was reading nosignono's comment. Apologies.

Still, arbitrary_name seems consistent about not judging people for ideological differences but rather for choosing not to be accurately informed. I.e. he is not saying "they're dumb because I don't agree with tariffs" he's saying "they're dumb because after Trump promised to make us rich with tariffs, they didn't bother to check how duties are collected." You seem to agree with this to an extent.

> All I'm saying is stop painting with a broad brush in that anyone voting for a party is stupid.

I mean, it's four broad brushes right? The dupes, the single-issue voters, the identity voters, and the ones who believe in whatever his policy happens to be. I don't think it's fair to say they fall into a single bin but they're not all snowflakes who cannot be characterized en masse.

> I'll defend people voting for who they want or even voting against someone they don't want.

Okay but what about the ones who vote for what they don't want. The ones who voted Trump to release the Epstein files. Or to balance the budget. Or to end the Ukraine war day one? They took a look at his first term, listened to his campaign promises, and decided, "surely he will deliver!"

> Once they hear other viewpoints not from a single source, they typically admit they are taxes and do not argue against it.

I think you're being overly optimistic here.

You're leaving out my qualifier of the people I've talked with.

I appreciate you trying to "remember the human" which is one of the top rules of hackernews and every single comment replying to you isn't bothered that they call a whole swath of people stupid.

How can we heal, change, and recover from this without reaching out and understanding their POV.

Even after observing and understanding, healing and recovery may be impossible. Change is still inevitable of course.

As Orwell has stated ages ago, there is a group of people who will only accept the truth when it confronts them on the battlefield. The unshakeable belief in previous priors leads many people to only face certain truths when forced to through lived experience.

There is la video circulating of a business owner making fun of the Amazon concept of showing thd amount tariffs add to the final price to the consumer. This guy in this video says that number is going to be 0 on his website because his product and the stuff used to make it is "Made in America". The next video is literally him bitching about how some of the Made in America stuff he needs to make his product increased by a grand in just one month. And he like, "why in the fuck are these Made in America affected? Something's messed up here."

At the end of the day, this is a business owner who was aware that the biggest online retailer in America said tariffs are going to affect the price of products the American consumer buys. If this guy can't be bothered to dig a little deeper to save his business, it's hard to expect other people that are a couple degrees removed from the action to do so as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com