←back to thread

232 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.506s | source
Show context
banku_brougham ◴[] No.43948598[source]
Huge amount of discussion in this thread neglects the idea that a massive increase in tariffs will throttle trade shipments. Its the obvious expected effect.
replies(2): >>43948674 #>>43949034 #
roxolotl ◴[] No.43949034[source]
Again further stating the obvious here but this is the _desired_ effect. Not saying if that’s good one way or the other but it’s clear the goal is to reduce inbound volume from the world.
replies(3): >>43949676 #>>43949818 #>>43949951 #
bsder ◴[] No.43949951[source]
> Again further stating the obvious here but this is the _desired_ effect.

Hanlon's Razor suggests that your statement is incorrect.

Tariffs need consistency and stability to be effective rather than purely disruptive.

You can see this in how much more effective the countries applying tariffs against the US are handling things. Since they are applying tariffs and leaving them in place, the incentives are working properly, and they are disconnecting from the US businesses.

In the US, by contrast, businesses are either shutting down or holding their breath in the hopes that tariffs will pass.

replies(1): >>43950313 #
roxolotl ◴[] No.43950313[source]
I think the desire is a stupid one, not a malicious one. If you read through their documentation and their statements they seem to think this is a positive outcome and genuinely desire it.
replies(4): >>43950761 #>>43953933 #>>43955010 #>>43958347 #
1. justinrubek ◴[] No.43953933[source]
By the time the effects get to me, I think it is irrelevant which one of these it is. Functionally stupidity is malice here.