1 year ago
Vote to comment and see the results
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • a year ago

    It's kind of hard to know. In general, I'd like to not see tariffs and the like. Because we have nations and because nations are obligated to look out for their citizens, there are times when that duty compels you to use tariffs or other trade policy to try and benefit your citizens over someone else's.

    If, for whatever reason, you want some self-sufficiency in some industry or another, then a tariff is a way to protect it from foreign competition long enough for it to get established. Then, you could wean it off the tariff over time.

    Domestic subsidies are another way to achieve the same thing, but for other countries, these can seem unfair so they might use a tariff to counteract the subsidy. That's the contention with the latest tariffs by Trump.

    A lot comes down to - What are you trying to achieve, What are the costs of the action, Does the action achieve what you are aiming to do, Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

    • a year ago

      @sigfried tge answer is no. Youre just taxing everyone in America to pay for some.

    • a year ago

      @bronsonkaahui well in general I’d agree with ya. I’m very much a free trader. But an occasional anti-dumping duty can be effective to save certain native industries from economic collapse.

    • a year ago

      @sharkb8 why should we save certain corporations from collapse?

    • a year ago

      @sharkb8 I read this article this morning and the whole time I'm thinking to myself "what is the issue here?" Why should I be worried that China is challenging the US government/foreign policy establishments hegemony over the world? From my perspective, that is objectively a good thing. Good for the taxpayers, good for world peace, good for everyone. I think Americans, and the world, would be objectively better off without US military adventurism in the Middle East and Asia. I think if China wants better ties with Asia and Europe that the world will ultimately be better off.

      From my perspective, the only people who will suffer are the foreign policy apparatchik here in the US. Those people will probably need real jobs in the future which is why we should abolish the minimum wage to help find employment for these ex federal bureaucrats and "think tank" "intellectuals" at their market value. I'm sure they have something to offer society/the economy, it's just not their ideas that are valuable to anyone.


  • a year ago

    Again, what is the point of the voting system? I know that there are 20% of 10 people who disagree with my position, but I also know that they are intellectual cowards who can't defend their positions. What is the point of them voting to express their intellectual cowardice? Why should I care that someone has a view that they are not willing to defend? What is the value of such information?

    There is really no point to people voting on these issues. I think it should be comment only.

    • a year ago

      @bronsonkaahui What if other people don't care that you don't care about their opinions? Does that mean we should turn off your comments so we don't have to see what you think?

      Try not worrying about what other people do or don't do or think or don't think and stay focused on your own thoughts.

      It's more important to know what you want, and what you seek to achieve through debate than to worry too much about what others want. Now for Qallout, they do have to consider what everyone wants in aggregate to try and make the best site.

      But since you asked questions...

      1. Sometimes people are lazy but want a way to express their views and have them represented. They vote on a topic because they like to, and it is easy to do.

      2. When people make a topic, sometimes they are interested in what the prevailing audience view is on an issue. How much default support does it have or not have.

      3. Sometimes a person wants votes to validate the argument they are making. (not as common on community debates since many don't open their community debate with an argument). But for head to head that can be part of it. In those cases the voting is a judging function. Here it's more 1&2.

      For Bronson...

      I get the impression that your goal is to enter into a dialog with people or to try and persuade them of your view. For both of those, the voting is not very useful. If you open with an argument, then perhaps you could use the votes to see how persuasive you might be. But I think that's probably not a good gauge for various reasons.

    • a year ago

      @sigfried "What if other people don't care that you don't care about their opinions? Does that mean we should turn off your comments so we don't have to see what you think?"

      Actually, yes. They should probably block me if they dont want to hear what I say. There is actually a solution to that specific problem so yout attempt at whataboutery actually falls flat.

      "Try not worrying about what other people do or don't do or think or don't think and stay focused on your own thoughts."

      In general, I dont care what people think, especially if that belief is wrong or indefensible. Im merely making a suggestion to get rid of superflous/useless/irrelevant information which is contained in the voting system. To me, this is about as useful as noting the skin color of the OP, and I would question the utility of that information for the same reasons.

      1. Thats not something we should encourage because that does nothing to increase rational discussion and it only increases bullshit.

      2. Nothing prevents people from commenting their views. Why not take a poll from your Facebook friends? That would be equally unscientific.

      3. Again, why is this desireable?

      Your summary seems to be in agreement with my assessment of the issue.

  • a year ago

    Economically, tariffs are bad for everyone.