Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday January 16 2020, @01:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the do-you-want-to-play-a-game? dept.

CNN

300,000 jobs lost A report from Moody's Analytics [PDF] says that the trade war with China, which started in early 2018, cost 300,000 jobs through September, based on an economic simulation. While it's hard to know exactly how many jobs losses can be attributed to trade tensions, the Moody's report isn't the only one that suggests the duties are having an effect on US workers. A survey of businesses by staffing firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas found that trade difficulties were cited as the reason for more than 10,000 job cuts in August alone. And an analysis by the Tax Foundation also suggests the trade war will result to job losses in the long-run.

American importers paid an extra $46 billion in tariffs Trump is wrong when he claims that China is paying the tariffs. The cost of the tariff comes directly out of the bank account of an American importer when the good arrives at the port. US companies have paid $46 billion more in tariffs than they would have without Trump's tariffs, according to an analysis of government data by the free-trade coalition called Tariffs Hurt the Heartland...

Tariffs cost US consumers Several studies show that tariffs end up costing US families. JPMorgan Chase said that the tariffs imposed in 2018 cost the average household $600 a year.
A separate report, from researchers at the NY Fed, Princeton, and Columbia University, estimated that those tariffs would cost households even more: $831 annually. Their research also considered the cost of shifting supply chains to avoid paying the tariffs

....

Manufacturing takes a beating Trump has often argued that his tariffs are boosting the American manufacturing sector, but the industry is in a slump. In December, a measure of manufacturing activity weakened to its lowest point in more than a decade. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that just 46,000 net manufacturing jobs were added in 2019, an increase of less than 0.5%. While there are likely a lot of factors at play, a recent paper from economists at the Federal Reserve showed that the tariffs are certainly dragging down the sector.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 16 2020, @04:04PM (26 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 16 2020, @04:04PM (#944037) Journal

    What is "pyrrhic" to the socio/psychopath? A win is a win. The bigger problem is that these kind of people win elections. Majority rule has been weaponized.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Thursday January 16 2020, @05:38PM (25 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 16 2020, @05:38PM (#944123) Journal

    No. The US doesn't have majority rule, it has plurality rule. Majority rule would require that the candidate get more than 50% of the votes, not "the largest number". Of course, the electoral college means that we also don't have plurality rule for president, but I'm not convinced that that is bad. But we do have plurality rule for selection of the candidates, and for senators, representatives, governors, mayors, etc.

    FWIW, I don't think majority rule would fix things, but it would be an improvement. It does, however, require an implementing mechanism, like Instant Runoff Voting or it would be a continual cycle of elections.

    Personally, the lobbying or, as I prefer to call it, the bribing of the candidates, has so corrupted things that I've essentially given up on voting as a solution and prefer sortilege. (i=I.e., selecting the officials by lottery from an extremely large pool of candidates. My preference is that the pool include everyone legally qualified to vote and hold office.)

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 16 2020, @05:56PM (7 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 16 2020, @05:56PM (#944130) Journal

      plurality rule

      A distinction without a difference, a superficial matter. The government we have is by popular choice. If something is wrong, people are supposed to correct it, not try to capitalize on the disaster.

      Yes, lottery and conscription are viable solutions. Working in the government should be treated as community service, like jury duty, not a life long career with special privileges and benefits. You serve, then it's back to the farm.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Friday January 17 2020, @12:03AM (6 children)

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 17 2020, @12:03AM (#944314) Journal

        Sorry, but majority and plurality are extremely different. If a majority is required then the selected candidate my convince over half the voters that his choice is correct, and the opinions of minority groups cannot be ignored. With three parties and plurality voting a candidate could win with 34% of the votes. That is, of course, an extreme example, but it validly demonstrates the difference.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday January 17 2020, @01:58AM (4 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 17 2020, @01:58AM (#944348) Journal

          Without three parties, as in the US, the difference is nil. Hell, in the US, there are hardly two parties in any kind of opposition. And that is by popular choice. 95%, that's pretty popular.

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday January 17 2020, @06:12AM (3 children)

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 17 2020, @06:12AM (#944431) Journal

            If third parties were meaningful, they would become significant.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 17 2020, @06:32AM (2 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 17 2020, @06:32AM (#944434) Journal

              They are as meaningful as the voters make them. The voters make the system what it is.

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday January 17 2020, @12:51PM (1 child)

                by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 17 2020, @12:51PM (#944509) Journal

                Sorry, but no. The voters are *PART* of what makes the system what it is. The structure of the system, however, plays a very large part also. If you can see that voting 3rd party will not affect the result, you are quite likely to not vote that way, which may result in you voting for "the lesser(?) of two evils". If the candidate needs acceptance by more than half the voters, the decisions will often come out differently.

                There is the problem that majority rules systems, like Condorcet or Instant Runoff, have a heavily increased burden of information.

                --
                Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 17 2020, @06:50PM

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 17 2020, @06:50PM (#944655) Journal

                  The voters approve of the structure and have to power to change it as they wish. Or they can keep on voting "strategically" for their lesser evil and continue the decline. It is still their choice. They either make it happen or let it happen.

                  --
                  La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 17 2020, @03:34AM

          by dry (223) on Friday January 17 2020, @03:34AM (#944387) Journal

          Actually with 3+ parties, the winner can win with less then 34% of the vote, at least for elections with districts where you can win a majority of districts with 1% more votes and lose the rest with no votes and another party winning close to 100% of votes.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday January 16 2020, @06:39PM (15 children)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday January 16 2020, @06:39PM (#944149) Journal

      FWIW, I don't think majority rule would fix things, but it would be an improvement. It does, however, require an implementing mechanism, like Instant Runoff Voting or it would be a continual cycle of elections.

      The surest way to guarantee we have another civil war, is to make it so NY, LA, SF, Chicago, Tampa and Seattle get their way every single time and thereby essentially disenfranchise vast swathes of the nation. You see this on the state level, Virginia being an example right now, where a metropolitan center decides to go full bully because it can. The reason it can is because on the state level there is nothing equivalent to the US Senate, all state senates being based on population since Reynolds v. Simms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims [wikipedia.org] Sixty years ago the effect wasn't so bad, but as time has moved on and cities have sprawled, that case has helped fuel a partisan divide that is becoming insurmountable in some states -- a divide created when one party realizes it can do a tyranny of the majority thing and quit negotiating.

      Yeah I get the whining about "why should some hick's vote in buttFuckNowhere count more than mine?!" Because apparently the founders realized that when people feel unrepresented and their views repressed, they get uppity. The Founders addressed that by engaging in a little enlightened self-interest to keep everyone on board. That's been forgotten, and after it has been forgotten at scale for a long enough duration, expect chaos.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday January 16 2020, @09:39PM (11 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday January 16 2020, @09:39PM (#944248)

        Yeah I get the whining about "why should some hick's vote in buttFuckNowhere count more than mine?!

        Because that is not whining, it is a valid question.

        Why should Wyoming, with 500,000 people have the same number of senators as California, with 40,000,000 people? Does it not matter if it is Californians who feel unrepresented?

        How about the people of North Carolina?

        "North Carolina Republicans won 10 of the 13 seats in 2016, when Democrats got 47 percent of the statewide vote. In 2018 Republicans took nine, with one seat undecided, even though Democrats got 48 percent of the overall vote. (Excluding one district where a Republican ran unopposed, Democrats’ share in 2018 was 51 percent.)"

        This is enlightening. [wikipedia.org]

        “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats,” David Lewis, a Republican state representative who led the redistricting effort, said at the time.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @02:32AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @02:32AM (#944359)

          It is obvious from your post you do not live in America. You live in some other country that America dominates. Republicans vs democrats is totally irrelevant.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday January 17 2020, @04:03AM (8 children)

          by hemocyanin (186) on Friday January 17 2020, @04:03AM (#944404) Journal

          Because, as I said above: enlightened self interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest [wikipedia.org]

          Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.

          Because if you repress and oppress a group of people long enough and hard enough, they revolt in dangerous, expensive, and disruptive ways. Especially Americans. Just ask Great Britain.

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday January 17 2020, @09:04AM (7 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Friday January 17 2020, @09:04AM (#944463)

            What is enlightened about:

            “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats,” David Lewis, a Republican state representative who led the redistricting effort, said at the time.

            I can see the self interest bit though.

            • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday January 17 2020, @04:10PM (6 children)

              by hemocyanin (186) on Friday January 17 2020, @04:10PM (#944573) Journal

              The "enlightened" part is understanding that a slim majority leaves a very large minority who, if they feel repressed enough, can say "fuck it, I got no stake in this thing anymore, let's burn it down."

              The disenlighted position is yours, the "suck it up buttercup and follow my orders" position. Right -- that's a recipe for social stability. /s

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @05:58PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @05:58PM (#944625)

                Ah yes the age old oppression from that War on Christmas and the South American Caravans of Death!

                Oooooh, you probably are referring to all those MEAN WORDS like racist, homophobic, and ignorant. So because you're in the conservative minority you feel it is better to disproportionately give yourself more power? And you really don't see how fascist that is?

                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Friday January 17 2020, @07:17PM

                  by hemocyanin (186) on Friday January 17 2020, @07:17PM (#944675) Journal

                  I'm not a conservative, never have been. I am simply able to understand why it is in the __self-interest__ of Person A, to give Person B some of what they want. The Founders understood that too, hence the EC and Senate structure.

                  But whatever -- pile on the self-righteous scorn and oppressive policies (a form of force) and do not be surprised if the situation you create is one where instead of negotiation and enlightened self-interest ruling the day, it's a force v force, power v power, type circumstance. You should also take note that there are more types of force and power than having a majority voting block, most of them extremely undesirable.

              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Saturday January 18 2020, @04:18AM (3 children)

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Saturday January 18 2020, @04:18AM (#944870)

                So a large minority should dictate to the majority?

                OK then. That should work out fine.

                • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday January 18 2020, @06:03AM (2 children)

                  by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday January 18 2020, @06:03AM (#944890) Journal

                  I don't think you can understand what enlightened self-interest means. This is where you do something not to your immediate benefit, so you can benefit long term. What you propose, disenlightened self-interest, is to be a bully because you can and because it feels good now. Perhaps you believe that will lead to greater stability. I don't.

                  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday January 19 2020, @07:10AM (1 child)

                    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Sunday January 19 2020, @07:10AM (#945223)

                    What you're talking about has nothing to do with enlightened self-interest.

                    You're happy because your side has control.

      • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 17 2020, @03:40AM (2 children)

        by dry (223) on Friday January 17 2020, @03:40AM (#944392) Journal

        So the fix for 2 wolves and a sheep sitting down to decide what's for dinner is to have 1 wolf with 3 votes and 2 sheep with one vote each to sit down and decide what's for dinner.
        I think that might even be more of a recipe for civil war as the majority are being oppressed.
        The real problem is how political tribalism has been increasing, which results in a lack of compromise. No compromise and one side is going to be very pissed instead of both sides being mildly pissed.

        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday January 17 2020, @04:04AM (1 child)

          by hemocyanin (186) on Friday January 17 2020, @04:04AM (#944406) Journal

          People only compromise when they have to. When they don't have to, you get a tyranny of the majority. This tyranny is being played out in a number of states right now, and it will lead to chaos.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by dry on Friday January 17 2020, @04:16AM

            by dry (223) on Friday January 17 2020, @04:16AM (#944414) Journal

            Mostly agree except the majority part where tyranny of the minority also happens, big example is Trump, who won with a minority of votes. Lots of examples of gerrymandering too where district borders are carefully written to give a minority power.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by dry on Friday January 17 2020, @03:30AM

      by dry (223) on Friday January 17 2020, @03:30AM (#944384) Journal

      prefer sortilege. (i=I.e., selecting the officials by lottery from an extremely large pool of candidates. My preference is that the pool include everyone legally qualified to vote and hold office.)

      Yep, be like winning the lottery to be chosen. Hookers and blow while serving and a guaranteed good paying job afterwards to replace the one you lost while serving and all you have to do is vote the way you're told.