Trump says Canada and Mexico to be hit with 25% tariffs on Saturday

[croquette@sh.itjust.works]

Picking local versus imported has no effect whatsoever on the price of the transformed product.

Business will find the source of primary resources that is the cheapest for their needs. Best case scenario, local is what's used already and prices won't change.

Otherwise, the transformed product will cost more because either the businesses pay the new inflated price for imported resources or they switch to a local resources which is more expensive. Prices will raise no matter what.

Guess which one we'll see happening?

[azal@pawb.social]

I'm sorry you're getting the thoughts you didn't vote, but I'll admit I'm very much in the "Enjoy the collapse, losers!" territory so at least I'll express mine, hopefully it helps make sense, and honestly, I appreciate your feeling to try to do better. If you figure out a way to move forward, fantastic. I just remember the top post of a comment when Trump won however and it so truly fits, "I'm tired, boss."

I have been fighting to get people to vote for years, trying to keep them involved. Not trying to get to vote every 4 years, but every year, local stuff, this shit is important, people need to stay up on it. I'm considered a news hound amongst people I know... I listen to the morning news on the 30 minute commute to work, that's how much time I put in to the news, that's it. It's not hard. Some days I say fuck it and listen to an audiobook.

People I've known who vote R, lets be honest, they went through the last Trump era and learned nothing. I remember back in the W. era people saying it should be illegal to speak against the president, who turned around and called Obama a muslim who should be deported. End of Trump era I knew republicans who were just starting to get it, maybe healthcare is fucked, maybe a lot of big corpo things are the problem... but immediately turned around and jumped right back in to Trumps circle the moment it came around "I couldn't just vote for Kamala" just like "I just couldn't vote for Hillary" and so on. Hell my state voted to repeal the strictest abortion ban and make abortion legal in the state, but still voted pretty much straight R despite a history of the party overturning ballot initiatives "Because the voters didn't know what they were voting for." So yes... after years of this, there's the tribal "If you're republican, you can go fuck yourself with a pineapple" especially as this collapse is coming.

On the non-voters. I'm sorry, I consider them just as culpable. In 2016 at least Trump was a... well anyone who paid fifteen minutes of attention knew what he was about but fuck it, I'll give the people who said "Fuck it lets try something new" a bit of a pass. This time, there were no surprises on the table. You had Kamala, which yes was about as dead standard democrat as you got, and you got Project 2025 Trump back with a vengeance. Those that say "I didn't vote for Trump" but by doing so stayed home gave their voice to "meh" and whatever happens they agreed to it. People I directly know who were in this, I know of one at least in a gay marriage, a few hispanic workers, and a trans individual, all who were "I'm just not interested in politics." Well, suddenly they're REALLY interested in politics. And many wanting to "rise up", well I'm not going to trust someone who couldn't be faffed to even do the basic fucking minimum to try to prevent things to watch my back when shit hits the fan.

So yes, we're all hosed and anyone who didn't see it coming had their heads so far up their own asses in the past 8 years they've proven they can't be taught. I'm sitting in the fire too, I'm not going to like the collapse. But after years of the fighting and still witnessing the apathy, my empathy is dead. The tribalism is useful, these were the people who were willing to do the basic minimum to resist, so maybe we can actually help each other. I'll help them as I can. The others I expressed about, no, I don't want bad to happen... but at least the schadenfreude can be a little bit of light through some very dark times coming. Don't weep for the stupid, you'll be crying all day.

[azal@pawb.social]

Dunno, I remember those days.

I remember commenting how we were a pretzel away from President Cheney...

Then again I remember Cheney being the "He picked him as a running mate to be a body shield because I'd take a bullet for W just to stop that from happening." Unfortunately now we're in the era where Cheney is the sensible politician (I threw up in my mouth a little when I just typed that last bit)

[rcbrk@lemmy.ml]

[rcbrk@lemmy.ml]

[mapleengineer@lemmy.world]

If you are a non-Trump voter in a red state, especially if you work for the flagship company or industry in that state, I would like to apologize on behalf of all Canadians for what our government is about to do. We don't want to do it but it is the only way to deal with a bully.

[werefreeatlast@lemmy.world]

And this is normal now:

https://youtube.com/shorts/zypX7QE4kDA

[ricecake@sh.itjust.works]

So do either of those strategies apply to the manufacturing of physical goods as are being tarifed?

Do you think that Ford is going to sell cars at a loss to make money on service contracts now that their costs are rising because some parts are fabricated in Detroit, assembled in Windsor, and then shipped back for installation in Flint? If it didn't make sense to sell at a loss before, why would it make sense to do so now?

Do you think that there's money to be made on getting people hooked on buying wheat perks?

We're not talking videogame DLC, we're talking about food, manufacturing materials, electrical power, and physical goods. The price of these things are going up, just like they went up with previous tariffs. This is a super easy case, because he did it to a lesser extent before, and it didn't do what he's saying it will. There's no reason to believe that making the bad choice more vigorously will make it suddenly have a different outcome.

[bradd@lemmy.world]

Google "byd china car sell at a loss" and "chicken tax".

You will see price wars or the race to the bottom in the auto industry and you will see how tariffs on imported cars are one way we have protected domestic manufacturing.

[ricecake@sh.itjust.works]

Dude, go reread my first comment. I specifically mention tarrif as a counter to restore market balance after manipulation. These aren't being used to counteract an anticompetitive subsidy. Raising prices to restore equilibrium and raising prices to disrupt it are very different things.

I know you want this to be something that works, but there's a reason why reputable economists think this is just the worst idea.

[bradd@lemmy.world]

I'm having a hard time connecting what you're saying and my point. I also don't really care what economists are saying, I don't automatically assume economists are correct because they are economists. I understand tariffs are not good, which is why I said "ultimately", and nothing that you have said yet has changed that opinion, but I am open. I didn't even disagree with many of your statements I just didn't see how they connect.

[ricecake@sh.itjust.works]

I do ultimately think tariffs will be good for the US.

Can you see how maybe it would be easy for a person to think that you thought tariffs would be good for the US? If that wasn't your point, then I have no idea what you're talking about.

Why don't you care what economists say? They're people who have actually spent time looking at and thinking about these things. They have numbers to back up their claims and, while fallible, they're likely the most qualified people to make assessments about the economic impact of policy changes.
It's like saying you don't care what engineers say when what you're doing is building a bridge. At the very least it should raise a red flag when nearly all of them say something is a bad idea.

[bradd@lemmy.world]

You're saying "there's a reason reputable economists say", as if there aren't reputable economists also saying something else, like "tariffs are a tool and predicting impact is difficult if not impossible due to complexity". So, whats the point in mentioning that "reputable economists say" unless you're pandering to an appeal to authority. Economists are just people and can make mistakes, entire groups of people like "reputable economists" can have the wrong ideas at the same time, or collectively jump to conclusions. I don't care what economists say, I care about why they say it and if it makes sense. Your point is "there's a reason why" and you load this with "reputable". How do you qualify reputable and what is the reason they say? Could they be wrong and if not, why is there an economy at all?

Engineers make mistakes all the time too. The idea that an engineer can't be wrong about engineering and a layman can't comprehend even intuitively understand engineering concepts is exactly what an appeal to authority is about.