←back to thread

842 points putzdown | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pjc50 ◴[] No.43692988[source]
> China generates over twice as much electricity per person today as the United States. Why?

This appears to be completely wrong? All the stats I can find say that the US has about 4x the per capita electricity generation of China.

Other than that it seems to be mostly good points, especially the overall one: you cannot do this overnight.

> If you’re building a new factory in the United States, your investment will alternate between maybe it will work, and catastrophic loss according to which way the tariffs and the wind blows. No one is building factories right now, and no one is renting them, because there is no certainty that any of these tariffs will last

Policy by amphetamine-driven tweeting is a disaster.

> 12. Enforcement of the tariffs will be uneven and manipulated

Yup. The 145% level seems designed to create smuggling, and the wild variations between countries to create re-labelling. It's chicken tax trucks all over again.

> This is probably the worst economic policy I’ve ever seen

Per Simpsons: this is the worst economic policy you've seen so far. The budget is yet to come.

> If American companies want to sell in China, they must incorporate there, register capital, and name a person to be a legal representative. To sell in Europe, we must register for their tax system and nominate a legal representative. For Europeans and Chinese to sell in the United States, none of this is needed, nor do federal taxes need to be paid.

This is .. not a bad idea, really. It would probably be annoying for small EU and UK exporters but less so than 10% tariffs and even less so than random day of the week tariffs. Maybe one day it could harmonise with the EU VAT system or something.

(also I think the author is imagining that sub-par workers, crime, and drugs don't exist in China, when they almost certainly do, but somewhere out of sight. Possibly due to the internal migration control of hukou combined with media control?)

replies(11): >>43693137 #>>43693301 #>>43693319 #>>43693410 #>>43693431 #>>43693454 #>>43693553 #>>43693635 #>>43704244 #>>43705580 #>>43706047 #
like_any_other ◴[] No.43693410[source]
> Other than that it seems to be mostly good points, especially the overall one: you cannot do this overnight.

It's annoying Americans were given only two choices - offshoring is great and let's keep doing it, and, as you say, the opposite, meth-fueled let's bring back manufacturing overnight. The kind of slow and steady protection and promotion of home-grown industry that China and most of Asia so successfully used to grow their economies was completely absent as even a talking point.

replies(16): >>43693491 #>>43693509 #>>43693565 #>>43693767 #>>43694052 #>>43694176 #>>43695172 #>>43698484 #>>43704057 #>>43704570 #>>43704866 #>>43705785 #>>43706157 #>>43706354 #>>43707310 #>>43713322 #
hn_throwaway_99 ◴[] No.43694176[source]
This is the part that is so frustrating to me, and not just with regards to tariffs. It's that I see the extremes being so laughably bad (though not necessarily equally - I'm not "both sides"-ing this), and more ludicrously bad is that I've seen positions that don't follow these extremes as being derided now as "centrism". E.g. before the administration's attack on higher education, I do believe a lot of elite universities had completely jumped the shark with their ideological purity tests like required DEI statements. And importantly, there were thoughtful, measured criticisms of these things, e.g. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/02/10/jon-haidt-goes-aft....

But the administration attack is so ridiculously egregious and demands an even worse, government-imposed ideological alignment, that making logical arguments in this environment feels almost pointless.

replies(5): >>43694813 #>>43704217 #>>43705560 #>>43705923 #>>43706658 #
bananalychee ◴[] No.43705923[source]
Tangential comment, but I now see people adding disclaimers reiterating their political affiliation to their posts regularly and I want to say that you shouldn't have to justify bilateral criticism. It doesn't imply equal magnitude, and it's only taken that way by bullies in dogmatic bubbles.
replies(2): >>43706161 #>>43706472 #
Arkhadia ◴[] No.43706161[source]
Your rationality here will surely be flagged. Over apologizing is the new norm to avoid being canceled for dissenting opinions.
replies(1): >>43706921 #
HelloMcFly ◴[] No.43706921{3}[source]
The commenter is right that you shouldn't have to state those kinds of beliefs, but pragmatically this is a message board that invites all sorts of responses. Those additional notes are an attempt to head-off annoying and wrongly-based counter-responses built on assumptions that shouldn't have been made. But just because they shouldn't be doesn't mean they won't be.

Your comment evoking a victim complex on the other hand I find a far more annoying element of online discourse.

replies(1): >>43710707 #
1. hn_throwaway_99 ◴[] No.43710707{4}[source]
Thank you, because this is exactly why I did it, and will continue to.

So often when I write a comment I find responses either missing the point, laser focusing on something offhand/tangential I wrote, or imbuing my post with a viewpoint I didn't make. Sometimes the fault is mine, sometimes the fault of the responder.

I state where I'm coming from not as some sort of "tribal identifier", but simply to add clarity, and to stave off misdirected responses that I can find annoying.