this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
90 points (98.9% liked)

New York Times gift articles

810 readers
169 users here now

Share your New York Times gift articles links here.

Rules:

Info:

Tip:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

"...The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released its methodology and cited an academic paper produced by four economists, including me, seemingly in support of their numbers. But they got it wrong. Very wrong. I disagree fundamentally with the government’s trade policy and approach. But even taking it at face value, our findings suggest the calculated tariffs should be dramatically smaller — perhaps one-fourth as large..."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

what are these? Tariffs for ants?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

They already tariffed penguins. Ants are next.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

"If 1/4 tariff is good, 4x as much tariff must be 4x as good!"

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh hey! It's the thing I was talking about!

There is no 4D chess. This administration really is as stupid and incompetent as it appears.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This administration really is as stupid and incompetent as it appears.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

I'm all for tariffs, but... Reduce by a 1/4? That is also idiotic. General tariffs are bullshit. Tariffs can and should be used, but in a surgical way. Full blast globalism allows nations like China to dump with the objective of killing other countries sectors. Also, they should be decided by political consensus, in a long term strategy, and supplemented with incentives, to allow local reindustrialization to happen.