• 0 Posts
  • 246 Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年7月1日

help-circle
  • No one should ignore Trump’s tariff threats. Tariffs would hurt the economies of both countries involved. Literally no one wins in a trade war.

    The last time America passed large blanket tariffs like the kind Trump is threatening was the Smoot–Hawley Act of 1930. Which had the effect of reducing both imports and exports by almost 2/3 and was broadly considered to have significantly prolonged the Great Depression.

    I’m not sure why Trump thinks tariffs are a good idea. He talks about it like it’s a way to get other countries to pay money to the US… but that’s not how tariffs work. Tariffs cause inflation for the US consumer, which is bad for the economies of both the USA, and the country being tariffed.

    I suspect Trump framing of this as “external” revenue will be used to justify income tax cuts which will predominantly benefit the wealthy in the US and the expense of both middle class in both countries.

    Countries being threatened by Trump should focus on diversifying their trade partners to mitigate the damage,

    Americans should be calling their representatives and demanding they put a halt to this nonsense.



  • Ummm no.

    In the real world consumers ultimately end up paying the tariffs.

    Domestic suppliers have a tendency to raise prices is response to increased demand and decrease competition from imports.

    When Trump implemented a tariff on Washing Machines in 2018 during his first term. The price of imported washing machines went up, the price of domestic washing machines went up, the price of dryers… which weren’t tariffed went up.

    Eventually it did led to more washing machines and dryers being manufactured domestically. Which did lead to a small increase manufacturing in jobs. But it was a net loss for the consumers.

    Tariffs function as a flat tax on goods. Like all flat taxes this benefits the wealthy and hurts poor and the working class.


  • this just feels more like an suped up Switch model.

    To be fair, the last 2-3 generations of PlayStation and Xbox consoles have also been a little more than a bump in CPU/GPU specs. Anything else they added was just gimmicky fluff like Kinect that never really caught on.

    Were we really expecting Nintendo to come out with something that wasn’t also just a souped up version of the last console?





  • I want to see a trial.

    I also want to start a go fund me for his or her legal defence find.

    I’d love to see a well funded law firm make the argument that the shooter acted in defence of self and others and drag all of UHC bullshit under a very large and uncomfortable deposition microscope to prove the CEO was responsible for letting people die.

    Maybe we could even start putting these health insurance CEOs on trial for all the wrongful deaths they’re causing without needing someone to take justice into their own hands first.




  • Newsrooms with a large base of popular support receive greater funding

    “Popular” newsroom receiving greater funding is the problem with the current approaches.

    Currently popular newsrooms have more viewers, which means more eyeballs on advertising, which generates more ad revenue. It creates an incentive to use fear mongering (because fear keeps people watching the news) and biased news (because most people want to hear news that reinforces their beliefs and they turn off news that challenges them.)

    I don’t know what the solution is, but somehow we need to get to a solution where funding favours unbiased factual reporting regardless of popularity.









  • You seem to be misunderstanding friend.

    I’m all for building as much wind, hydro, and solar power as possible. It is the cheapest option.

    I’m not arguing against that.

    People here seem to think that money spent on nuclear is money NOT spent on Wind/Solar/Hydro/Storage/etc as if there’s a fixed budget for all energy transition projects. That’s not the situation.

    Insurance and financial institutions are losing big money on climate change disasters, and they are getting data from their actuaries and climate scientist, saying it’s going to get massively worse. There is rapidly growing interest from “big money” private sector investors, In any technology that might solve the climate crisis.

    There’s more money investors wanting invest in wind, solar, or hydroelectric projects, than there are projects to invest it. The limiting factor isn’t money.

    Believe me, no one would be happier than me to be proven wrong that we can build enough wind, solar, and hydroelectric to get off a fossil fuels by 2050.

    But if you extrapolate the current data and the current trend lines, they don’t come anywhere close.

    If we also invest in nuclear, we come closer.