Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
China raised tariffs to 125% on US goods, with Beijing responding in kind.
Summary written by AI.
Edit: For those not seeing it, in this context, Beijing is China. So, China responded to China? That's the kind of nonsense an AI writes, and that sentence is nowhere to be found in the original article. Hence, "Summary written by AI."
It probably means "Responding in kind, China raised tariffs to 125% on US goods." The name "Beijing" is used to mean the Chinese government. It's clumsy wording, but not nonsense.
No it’s a major typo. China raised tariffs to 85%. U.S. raised tariffs to 125%.
Yeah but the US put 125% export taxes on Chinese goods, not US goods. Two opposite typos in the same clause is unlikely.
This is exactly the kind of mistake AI makes - each clause makes sense on its own, but the parts don't add up to a whole that makes sense, and the facts are just wrong.
One mistake, doesn't a.I. make it. .
No, that's not clumsy wording. It's nonsense. Beijing isn't going to "respond in kind" to China raising tariffs. As you correctly stated, Beijing is China. What if it said, "The United States raised tariffs to ___% on Chinese goods, with Washington DC responding in kind."? It's exactly the same nonsense.
Beijing isn’t going to “respond in kind” to China raising tariffs.
I read it as meaning Beijing/China will respond in kind to the USA raising tariffs.
China raised tariffs to 125% on US goods
That's what Beijing is allegedly responding to in that sentence. There's no alternative way to interpret it.
That's what they meant, but it's not what they wrote
Bullshit. Read the article. It's entirely hallucinated.
He is rug pulling an entire nation. Hell, probably the world. Trump is insider trading and MAGA is just too stupid to realize the grift.
He and his wealthy friends could be potentially stealing billions from our retirement funds.
Feels like 2008 out there.
agreed, but we are still in the shallows... the follow-on 2008 redux hasnt even started to hit yet - I am waiting for bond market defenestration. this funamentally feels way more "insane"
It DOES have that 2008 "we know it's gonna be bad but we're waiting to see just HOW bad' vibe out there, doesn't it?
2008 at least had the feeling that unified executive and congressional action was possible regardless of universal agreement. I have serious doubts that enough republicans will act in contravention of trump. we are in mad king territory.
we are quickly running out of runway and its still engines on full power and flaps at zero degrees.
I didn't have that feeling. After all bush and later Obama didn't push for any of those responsible to face any repercussions.
to save the economy for the privileged and retain extractive opportunities from the rest of us, there was going to be something stabilizing done. I dont get that feeling now.
the ones responsible for 2008 were the beneficiaries of the bailouts and continued wealth extraction - aside from feeding on the rotting carcass of Lehman Brothers, of course no one but the public paid any real price. the owners of the country wont punish themselves.
No one but the public will pay the price this time.
indeed and as expected.
stay safe, friend.
I guess we will get to see the effect on certain permanently 'overvalued' sub thirty dollar stocks when marge comes calling. I'm kinda curious if some of the conspiracy crap around the meme stocks is true.
The crazy thing is the buffet indicator is still way high. We have a lot farther to fall before Warren Buffet would suggest entering the market.
I just took a look at it for the first time in months. Not a lot has changed.
Didn't remember U.S.A. threatening war against her own allies and China at the same time during 2008, more like idiot induced economic warfare.
That isn't what I'm talking about.
Nah more '29 vibes
Except this time we get the tariffs before the crash.
Nah. The Hoover administration wasn't intentionally trying to crash the economy.
Dead cat bounce
But I'm winning!
3rd term when‽¿‽