Yes, and I would have been perfectly happy with that. The status quo was very much preferred to the chaos we are now experiencing. Just because I wanted different changes does not mean voting to burn it all down is the best alternative to no changes.
People should have spoken up in town hall meetings and protest on the streets years ago. Now it's a bit too late, but better late than never. Americans rather sit on the couch, watch TV or be absorbed by their smartphone than to go out to their representatives and demand accountability. Instead they "shit" on every institution and person who seems to fight for justice and liberty. You get what you deserve guys. You can't vote with your wallet. You have to try to get to those people in power IN PERSON and pressure them. That's the only thing they understand.
You know what the most effective instrument of power is? Distance. The rich and powerful distance themselves physically from the people, so the demands, worries, accusations, questions etc can't reach them.
The reality in 2024 was that yes, the alternative was more of the previous administration.
Maybe that was never a way to whatever ideal solution or policies might be possible in the future. But the only possible benefit of the current administration is that people's eyes get opened to the lunacy that's possible, resulting in a sort of mini-revolution that enacts changes that prevent the collusion and grift that are happening now.
The Trump administration doesn't have any real government improvements in mind. They're only play is to destabilize the current status of whatever's in their sights, blame Democrats or whoever else is convenient for the mess, and profit from the confusion. Example: The Republican party has always had financial conservatism as a main goal. When was the last time the national debt or deficit improved under Republican leadership? Another, healthcare: For all of the complaining that Republicans have done about Obamacare, why haven't they replaced it with something better yet since they've had full control of the government? They've shown that they don't actually care about good government.
What we got in the current administration wasn't any kind of secret before the 2024 election. People voted for it anyway because they're susceptible to the kinds of misinformation they were being fed. Trump's latest comments on his lack of commitment to peace, the cost of housing, and the well-being of the general population (just to name a few) make it clear that he doesn't consider them important; and Republican's fealty to him show the same of them.
It's less that but rather the hypocrisy of promoting burdensome regulations and bans implemented in one county (e.g. Germany) which hurts domestic industry and raises costs for its citizens, all while being silent on countries like China and India continuing to massively build more and more coal fired power plants
I will say on point one, the rate which a country can scale usage throws this off. For example the first 50 years of Germany's usage likely represents far less than a current Chinese year of usage.
This is an excellent argument because it can be used to justify approximately any behavior.
Murder is bad? Well that's a bit hypocritical considering that the Golden State Killer killed 10 more people than I did!
I also think this pattern of critique is dismissible on its face once stated explicitly: "Oh you are spending your time trying to change things that are within the scope of your own political power, while ignoring similar things that are outside of the scope of your political power? Hypocritical!"
Unfortunately there is hypocrisy to go around. Here's the argument China and India will use: "coal and fossil fuel always was for all its history and still is the largest portion of Germany's energy mix. It's hardly in a position to ask other countries to stop."
"China and India have the right to industrialize themselves using the same tools Western countries have used. China is leading the world in alternative energy manufacturing making clean energy profitable and India is the 4th largest renewable energy producer."
We saw this happen with the Montreal Protocol over CFCs/greehouse gases when everyone went mad and banned just about every fluorocarbon known to science.
This was a case of zealotry and overregulation egged on by puritanical ideologs without full consideration of the consequences.
We correctly banned fluorocarbons as refrigerants in systems where they would not be properly recycled, such as domestic refrigerators, air-conditioning systems incuding those in vehicles, and like. This made for good regulation, and it made sense.
The volume of CFCs with other specislist applications was miniscule by comparison, and for most of these recovery, capture and recycle systems along with protocols for use could have been implemented.
Instead, we stupidy put an outright ban on just about every CFC in sight, many of which have no direct equivalents that are anywhere near as effective as CFCs, and many are dangerous and inflammable and form explosive mixtures with air.
Right, in one fell swoop we banned many of the most useful chemicals ever invented. Little wonder these's now a backlash to overregulation. If Montreal were to be repeated today the zealots would have to take more of a backseat.
No, most wouldn’t. Too much risk and overhead for most companies to do so… most companies should and do just focus on the business value they add, rather than the underlying physical infra
And yet prices are marginally up while all the "economists" expected major inflation.
Dollar vs Euro is at same level now as it was in 2019 - there are benefits to the economy as well when the currency is less strong.
I keep seeing this “marginally higher” statement about prices, usually as part of a “things are actually fine” argument, but everything in my life has increased in cost in a way I just don’t understand. Is it that these are counterbalanced in some way making it not macroeconomically relevant?
Gold front runs monetary policy and "economists" aren't the only ones trading that. Look at the gold chart for the past year. I don't think it's really disputed that high inflation is on the horizon due to the debt situation (which Trump has made worse with the OBBB)
> there are benefits to the economy as well when the currency is less strong
Care to list those? I can think of a few but it assumes that we're already in the position of being an export based economy which we're not and not tangibly working towards.
> I don't think it's really disputed that high inflation is on the horizon
This is moving the goalpost because you know economists (the critics) forecasted major inflation sooner/now, and it hasn't happened.
> Care to list those? [...] it assumes that we're already in the position of being an export based economy which we're not and not tangibly working towards.
You're not making sense or making coherent thoughts. The US is still the #2 exporting country in the world in absolute terms despite importing a relatively higher amount.
> This is moving the goalpost because you know economists (the critics) forecasted major inflation sooner/now
Yes, because no one expected him to chicken out as hard as he did. It also came out that people in his cabinet (specifically Howard Lutnick) were betting against tariffs while simultaneously advocating for them. The legal opinion is heavily leaning towards them being illegal after many lower court decisions. Do you care to explain how tariffs wouldn't be inflationary if the actions matched the rhetoric?
> The US is still the #2 exporting country
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Look at how much we import vs how much we export. What would you call an economy that imports more than it exports? A ___ based economy?
> Do you care to explain how tariffs wouldn't be inflationary if the actions matched the rhetoric?
It's like you're asking people to explain something that happened as if there's no explanation beyond your hatred of Trump. Why do you choose to dismiss drivers like stockpiling inventory, increased USMCA compliance, broader economic offsets (AI/tech boom, energy production) that could explain how tariffs aren't necessarily inflationary?
> Look at how much we import vs how much we export. What would you call an economy that imports more...
You ask this as if I didn't say the US imports more than it exports.
> Why do you choose to dismiss drivers like stockpiling inventory, increased USMCA compliance, broader economic offsets (AI/tech boom, energy production)
Okay, so you're admitting that they're inflationary but choose to rattle off a list of random stuff that somehow, magically, offsets the increased costs from tariffs. Please go into detail on one of those, including what you're talking about (e.g. what is "increased USCMA compliance"?)
AI datacenters have increased energy costs in the localities where they're based and raised memory prices by eating up all the supply.
> You ask this as if I didn't say the US imports more than it exports.
So.. you were agreeing with my point then? I don't understand why you'd call my thoughts "not coherent" then agree with it.
> Okay, so you're admitting that they're inflationary but choose to rattle off a list of random stuff that somehow, magically, offsets the increased costs from tariffs.
Haha! I haven't seen someone try to dismiss counterarguments as "magic." I should've said that more when I got answers wrong on my tests in high school.
> So.. you were agreeing with my point then?
If not "magic," then the objector "actually agrees" with you.
I asked you to elaborate since you didn't explain anything, hence the use of "magic" which is sometimes referred to as hand waving. I'll take your non-response as a sign that you're not interested in elaborating for reasons.
You’re arguing that tariffs aren’t inflationary by bringing up other events affecting the economy, which I agree with ‘hypeatei needs explaining, but even assuming those do offset the tariffs you’re still incorrect.
>You’re arguing that tariffs aren’t inflationary by bringing up other events affecting the economy
Huh? You're not reading what I said and instead are relying on accusations. It's also weird to say direct behaviors triggered by tariffs don't play into realized inflation. That's mental gymnastics.
>Tariffs definitionally are inflationary.
No. Weird thing to be confidently incorrect about. Tariffs are price increasing (colloquially "inflationary"), but not definitionally inflationary in the economic meaning. Look it up.
> Tariffs are price increasing (colloquially "inflationary"), but not definitionally inflationary in the economic meaning. Look it up.
Weird (okay, not all that weird, but ironic, in context) thing to be confidently incorrect about.
Outside of the overtly ideology-over-description Austrian School of economics, which has a different jargon designed to advance their ideology, the general definition of (unqualified) inflation in economics is a sustained increase in general price levels.
And belief that the Austrian School usage is just the “economic meaning” is a pretty good sign that someone doesn't understand even Austrian School economics beyond rote recitation of doctrines and aphorisms.
The introduction of tariffs does, assuming no additional countervailing policy changes, result in sustained general price increases. (Over time, adaptation to the tariffs will, in cases where there aren't hard reasons preventing this, become more diffuse across products than they are initially at introduction, but the net long-term effect is still a general price increase.)
> assuming no additional countervailing policy changes
When you add this qualifier who is disagreeing? This is tautological.
It's like you're making a point that doesn't flow from the original discussion and point raised that economists missed the mark on how much Trump's tariffs would cause extreme inflation for everyday US citizens. They still can (TBD), but haven't to the extent predicted.
> > assuming no additional countervailing policy changes
> When you add this qualifier who is disagreeing?
Anyone who disagrees that tariffs are inflationary. If you enact them, price level increases are produced which are sustained unless some other event unrelated to the tariffs introduces a deflationary effect which offsets the inflationary effect of the tariffs.
>some other event unrelated to the tariffs introduces
I appreciate your good faith approach to discussion.
IMHO, this has devolved into semantics and has fallen astray from the original discussion above.
Here's an example to demonstrate semantics:
1. Trump put tariffs.
2. USMCA (read: NAFTA 2.0) exemptions, pre-existing policy, started to get used more to avoid tariffs.
They are unrelated in that the policies are different. However, they are related because companies became more incentivized to use the exemptions as a result of the tariff. Nothing new (AFAIK) was "introduced" on just this combo alone.
Even “only” information funnels have value if they seek out valuable info, filter, curate. In reality some funnels in this context mutate the message they’re supposed to pass on :-)
In some organizations, the upper management generates a real burden on people below them with ever changing demands for information.
I have to assume some of it serves a social, rather than practical purpose, like having people re-assure them that projects are going well. If that's the case, automation may just not make sense.
Agreed, and not just engineering quality. The company I've been with for 8 years is on its last legs and massive overhiring has had a huge hand in it. It cost a tremendous amount of money and made management more difficult, reducing the quality of the decisionmaking in many areas. It made its strategy deviate further from doing the things that would have made the company sustainable. It also devastated employee morale with the subsequent repeated waves of layoffs.
> Meanwhile in Europe ? Take your time job hunting a new job, healthcare is still free.
Currently, healthcare coverage tend to be better in several European countries when you are jobless... because the system try to compensate the fact you do not have income anymore.
Don't get me wrong, their is many 'flaws' in several European healthcare systems and it is far from perfect. but it tends to be more "human" and less "for profit".
The bet is that you will earn enough prior to 50 or maybe even 40 so that you won’t have to work, and then you can live off the investments and wherever you want.
High risk, high reward and all that. Although, the previous 20 years of high compensation are obviously no indication of the next 20.
> The FMLA allows eligible employees to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period to care for a new child, care for a seriously ill family member, or recover from a serious illness.
There's limitations on that, but the common idea that Americans don't have healthcare is unfounded and appallingly ignorant.
I left the US, not because I was worried about healthcare for myself or my family, but because of how I felt it reflected on me that I was fine choosing to stay and cash a large check every month while others around me had to worry about healthcare.
“If it was up to Stephen [Miller], there would only be 100 million people in this country, and they would all look like him.”
To accomplish things like that, a lot of us are going to be removed. I don't think these are jokes, it's a pattern of statements to condition and normalize. A thing he has done over and over.
reply