• PhilipTheBucketOPA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Lol

    You read the place where I said I’ve already addressed it, and failed to notice that part, and only noticed the part where I quickly touched on the TLDR of what I’d already addressed in more detail previously. Is that what happened?

    This definitely sounds like a reading comprehension issue. Slow down. Read! It is good for you.

    • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I’ve read all 19 of your comments in the two threads. Apart from the points about Treasury Bills and manufacturing capacity, you keep saying you have another analysis there but the rest of us are not smart enough to see it. It’s incredibly obviously a naked emperor.

      • PhilipTheBucketOPA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        I’m fine with many many points of view, including pro-Trump ones if they make sense (one random example from recently being that he seems genuinely surprised and angry that Russia broke the cease-fire instantly). My complaint with this article is not that it’s pro-Trump, it’s that it is horseshit.

        There’s also this:

        He literally thinks (or thought, at one point, I don’t know if he still does) that the country doing the exporting pays the tariff. He put 50% tariffs on Lethoso. That’s not underestimating, that’s just facts.

        Other more coherent people have written about his motivations, the source of his tariff ideas, all kinds of stuff. You can do analysis of any of his ideas and the goals (if any) behind them without agreeing with any of it. But this article’s thesis is more or less “he’s trying to devalue the dollar to set right the balance of trade, and it might work” and that is a bunch of sanewashing and horseshit with some additional fantasies about how well Reagan’s stuff worked out thrown in for good measure.

        You’ve given your argument before that Trump is “one random guy”, and it’s erroneous to focus on him when talking about tariffs or talking about this article. Still want to stick with that? I merely ask for information.

          • PhilipTheBucketOPA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            I mean apparently it defeated you lol. Like I said, I’m trying to help you with your reading comprehension and research abilities apparently.

            Also:

            You’ve given your argument before that Trump is “one random guy”, and it’s erroneous to focus on him when talking about tariffs or talking about this article. Still want to stick with that? I merely ask for information.

            • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              Your explanation of why the plan won’t work is Orange Man Bad. You wasted time with the naked emperor act, but it’s still naked.

              The tariff plan won’t work if:

              • The Americans lack the political trust and international goodwill to make a ‘Mar-A-Lago Accord’ and the international community makes an exclusionary deal. I think this isn’t very likely because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets

              • The Americans don’t execute the plan in 3¾yr and the new government backs down from the plan.

              • The USA lacks can’t build/import industrial capacity before the political support for the plan runs out. China built a manufacturing industry in 20-25yr, but they build faster.

              • The world responds with accelerated de-dollarisation. Then perhaps a trade deal/tariff deal would happen but they’d lose the exorbitant privilege they’ve had for 81 years.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedollarisation / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege

              • If the oligarchs force a climbdown because of the asset crash

              • If the common people force a climbdown because of the cost-of-living hike (least likely)