Tariffs

[tggzzz]

The race card doesn't work any more. It's just a way to shut down debate.

Another way is to use phrases such as "MSM".

Hesitate to show how clean my mind is.. what does that stand for?

Main-stream media. In other words the old media which had the habit of checking their sources before publishing. That's inconvenient for the rabble rousers, so they convince their followers that it is better to "open your eyes" and only read their "truth".

In the old Soviet Union there were two main newspapers: Pravda (Truth) and Izvestia (News). Soviet citizens used to joke 'There's no news in "Truth", and there's no truth in "News"' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes

A good rule of thumb is that if you have to say you are X (or it is X) then you aren't X. Examples: "Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t" - Margaret Thatcher. "Truth Social"

[tggzzz]

I don't think most people are opposed to the idea,

Care to give us a hint about which idea? The quote button is there for a reason.

[coppercone2]

social activist stuff of any kind that ends up on resume sorting, for technical jobs

[Zero999]

It seems quite some people who don’t even understand how tariffs work (but do find them necessary) are actually racists.

Yes, that does seem to be the case, but why?

I don't have a decent answer, but I suspect part of it is a combination of narrow experience, feeling downtrodden, simple ignorance, chips on shoulder, upbringing/memes, and simple personality. Some of those potential causes might be reduced if someone is willing to listen and understand and change their mind, but that doesn't happen often.

A useful technique is to demonstrate that you understand the other person's viewpoint, then to ask them what would be necessary for them to change their mind. If the answer is "nothing", then there's no point talking to them.

I think it’s all of this.
Morons is another word for them.

Yes and no.

In some cases the source of their discontent is actual and valid, e.g. the UK's broken housing market where young people find it very difficult to find a stable home. However, the cause of that source can be much more difficult to determine - and that gives malicious parties an easy way to deflect attention and to direct anger. The classic technique - which has proven successful many times - is to deflect the blame onto the poor and immigrants.

Consider that many many hard statistics across the western world quantitatively (numbers, not adjectives ) demonstrate that over the past 40 years the very rich have become richer, while the poor and middle class have become relatively poorer. Why is that, and what are the consequences?

Thomas Piketty has, famously, charted how that phenomenon has occurred many times in the past in different places. It makes fascinating reading. His definitive book is very long and detailed, so it is better to read the various "study guides" that have been written.

One important thing to note is that many who are against mass immigration are angry with politicians, not immigrants themselves. It's important to take note of that.

Yes, immigration is partly to blame for the high house prices in the UK. The population has increased by over 10 million in the last 25 years and that's entirely down to immigration alone. Basic economics state that it will increase demand for housing, which will push up prices, because supply has not kept up.

Mass immigration is a policy which benefits the rich elites, at the expense of the poor. People should be angry with those in power, not the immigrants.

[Sorama]

Consider that many many hard statistics across the western world quantitatively (numbers, not adjectives ) demonstrate that over the past 40 years the very rich have become richer, while the poor and middle class have become relatively poorer. Why is that, and what are the consequences?

Having the age of 56, in the “old” days it was sufficient to work hard to earn good money.
Nowadays, it’s not the case anymore.
Without money today, you can’t make more money, you can only loose more as everything is crappy expensive.

On the other hand, even young people tend to go on trip 3 times a year and consider that normal.
I have no clue how they can pay that.

[tggzzz]

In the UK my understanding is that year 1 is brushing up on maths and getting a start in the subjects. Year 2 is studying some of the areas in more detail but doing little bits all over the place. Year 3 is a group project where 1 maybe 2 of the group actually do the work and the rest sail through. That is my understanding of UK university, correct me if I am wrong.

It has long been partly the case that year 1 is about getting everybody to the same standard, year 2 is about teaching the core, and year 3 is specialising and allowing you to demonstrate what you can do.

That description of a group project sounds like the real world; do you think that is undesirable?

At university students should learn that (unlike at school) in life you won't be spoon-fed and told everything that is required, but it is up to the individual to find out how to make the most of the course, lecturers, materials, etc. Students can't be taught that!

I did electronics to HND level. There were lots of modules that were utterly useless, I suspect that the university was aimed more at people that needed skills to work on oil rigs so higher level understanding of various bits.

When I was looking at universities I was very careful to check the syllabus and options. I carefully weeded out universities where you had to choose a specialism before entering university! (Telecoms engineering, University of Strathclyde, IIRC).

But in the UK even the man that comes to repair the vending machine calls himself an engineer while he phones home for instructions on what to do to fix the machine.

That is a separate vexation

"Thermal Insulation Engineer" == "lagger", "Rodent Eradication Engineer" == "rat catcher", etc.

[Sorama]

Floor manager … the cleaning lady.

[tggzzz]

It seems quite some people who don’t even understand how tariffs work (but do find them necessary) are actually racists.

Yes, that does seem to be the case, but why?

I don't have a decent answer, but I suspect part of it is a combination of narrow experience, feeling downtrodden, simple ignorance, chips on shoulder, upbringing/memes, and simple personality. Some of those potential causes might be reduced if someone is willing to listen and understand and change their mind, but that doesn't happen often.

A useful technique is to demonstrate that you understand the other person's viewpoint, then to ask them what would be necessary for them to change their mind. If the answer is "nothing", then there's no point talking to them.

I think it’s all of this.
Morons is another word for them.

Yes and no.

In some cases the source of their discontent is actual and valid, e.g. the UK's broken housing market where young people find it very difficult to find a stable home. However, the cause of that source can be much more difficult to determine - and that gives malicious parties an easy way to deflect attention and to direct anger. The classic technique - which has proven successful many times - is to deflect the blame onto the poor and immigrants.

Consider that many many hard statistics across the western world quantitatively (numbers, not adjectives ) demonstrate that over the past 40 years the very rich have become richer, while the poor and middle class have become relatively poorer. Why is that, and what are the consequences?

Thomas Piketty has, famously, charted how that phenomenon has occurred many times in the past in different places. It makes fascinating reading. His definitive book is very long and detailed, so it is better to read the various "study guides" that have been written.

One important thing to note is that many who are against mass immigration are angry with politicians, not immigrants themselves. It's important to take note of that.

Yes, immigration is partly to blame for the high house prices in the UK. The population has increased by over 10 million in the last 25 years and that's entirely down to immigration alone. Basic economics state that it will increase demand for housing, which will push up prices, because supply has not kept up.

Mass immigration is a policy which benefits the rich elites, at the expense of the poor. People should be angry with those in power, not the immigrants.

It is much more nuanced than that, and other causes are more significant. Read Piketty; his thesis has been lauded by everybody from all walks of life. The only other comparable book is "Without Hot Air", about energy.

The rich elites are very adept at getting the naive to believe that immigrants are the cause of relative poverty, and to ignore who "trickle down economics" impoverishes and benefits. Not difficult to see why!

It is much easier to get people to hate those they can see and who look "different", than it is to get them to hate people they can't see.

[tggzzz]

Consider that many many hard statistics across the western world quantitatively (numbers, not adjectives ) demonstrate that over the past 40 years the very rich have become richer, while the poor and middle class have become relatively poorer. Why is that, and what are the consequences?

Having the age of 56, in the “old” days it was sufficient to work hard to earn good money.
Nowadays, it’s not the case anymore.
Without money today, you can’t make more money, you can only loose more as everything is crappy expensive.

Read Piketty to understand the causes, as shown many times over history

On the other hand, even young people tend to go on trip 3 times a year and consider that normal.
I have no clue how they can pay that.

Two intertwined reasons:

• they have come to value experiences more than possessions. Good.
• they have come to see that no matter what they do they won't be able to do things we regarded as normal, e.g. own a house. There's no point saving for the unattainable. Rational, but bad.

Again, Piketty uses history to predict the consequences as the wheel turns again. Not pretty.

[Sorama]

You can’t blame only the rich: if you are sensitive to their POV then it says a lot of the (in) competence of the activists and those we are talking about.
It takes two to tango.

That’s why I call them morons: if you have a bit of brains, you should be able to distinguish the rubbish they tell you from reality and to respect all people , colored, poor,immigrant and maybe yes, the illegal too.

Be human instead of violent and destructive.

[Sorama]

Consider that many many hard statistics across the western world quantitatively (numbers, not adjectives ) demonstrate that over the past 40 years the very rich have become richer, while the poor and middle class have become relatively poorer. Why is that, and what are the consequences?

Having the age of 56, in the “old” days it was sufficient to work hard to earn good money.
Nowadays, it’s not the case anymore.
Without money today, you can’t make more money, you can only loose more as everything is crappy expensive.

Read Piketty to understand the causes, as shown many times over history

On the other hand, even young people tend to go on trip 3 times a year and consider that normal.
I have no clue how they can pay that.

Two intertwined reasons:

• they have come to value experiences more than possessions. Good.
• they have come to see that no matter what they do they won't be able to do things we regarded as normal, e.g. own a house. There's no point saving for the unattainable. Rational, but bad.

Again, Piketty uses history to predict the consequences as the wheel turns again. Not pretty.

But where do they get the money from?
Born rich?

[tggzzz]

Consider that many many hard statistics across the western world quantitatively (numbers, not adjectives ) demonstrate that over the past 40 years the very rich have become richer, while the poor and middle class have become relatively poorer. Why is that, and what are the consequences?

Having the age of 56, in the “old” days it was sufficient to work hard to earn good money.
Nowadays, it’s not the case anymore.
Without money today, you can’t make more money, you can only loose more as everything is crappy expensive.

Read Piketty to understand the causes, as shown many times over history

On the other hand, even young people tend to go on trip 3 times a year and consider that normal.
I have no clue how they can pay that.

Two intertwined reasons:

• they have come to value experiences more than possessions. Good.
• they have come to see that no matter what they do they won't be able to do things we regarded as normal, e.g. own a house. There's no point saving for the unattainable. Rational, but bad.

Again, Piketty uses history to predict the consequences as the wheel turns again. Not pretty.

But where do they get the money from?
Born rich?

In the UK it is called "old money", i.e. inherited directly or indirectly.

[tggzzz]

You can’t blame only the rich: if you are sensitive to their POV then it says a lot of the (in) competence of the activists and those we are talking about.
It takes two to tango.

That’s why I call them morons: if you have a bit of brains, you should be able to distinguish the rubbish they tell you from reality and to respect all people , colored, poor,immigrant and maybe yes, the illegal too.

Be human instead of violent and destructive.

I don't disagree.

People who are sufficiently ill-educated that they are deceived by such prestidigitation are also likely to believe that China will pay the tariffs and Mexico will build the wall.

Note that the current US administration has launched an extremely serious and damaging assault on higher education and research. That's what their fanbase and backers want.

[Sorama]

It is the same as isis does:
Keep children ( women) from getting educated because they might see the propaganda is full of shit.
That orange guy is probably not the most educated either

This is the result.
Stupidity is self destructive.

[Simon]

In the UK my understanding is that year 1 is brushing up on maths and getting a start in the subjects. Year 2 is studying some of the areas in more detail but doing little bits all over the place. Year 3 is a group project where 1 maybe 2 of the group actually do the work and the rest sail through. That is my understanding of UK university, correct me if I am wrong.

It has long been partly the case that year 1 is about getting everybody to the same standard, year 2 is about teaching the core, and year 3 is specialising and allowing you to demonstrate what you can do.

That description of a group project sounds like the real world; do you think that is undesirable?

At university students should learn that (unlike at school) in life you won't be spoon-fed and told everything that is required, but it is up to the individual to find out how to make the most of the course, lecturers, materials, etc. Students can't be taught that!

I did electronics to HND level. There were lots of modules that were utterly useless, I suspect that the university was aimed more at people that needed skills to work on oil rigs so higher level understanding of various bits.

When I was looking at universities I was very careful to check the syllabus and options. I carefully weeded out universities where you had to choose a specialism before entering university! (Telecoms engineering, University of Strathclyde, IIRC).

But in the UK even the man that comes to repair the vending machine calls himself an engineer while he phones home for instructions on what to do to fix the machine.

That is a separate vexation

"Thermal Insulation Engineer" == "lagger", "Rodent Eradication Engineer" == "rat catcher", etc.

Yes but universities are now companies, their ratings are largely driven by how much students liked them. So give students what they want and the next year will follow them in as they score the university highly.
So what do students want? good leisure facilities like a nice town to go shopping in and get pissed and to pass the course. A positive feedback loop of race to the bottom.

My course may have been particularly bad being distance learning as they were basically catering to foreign students. So now Indian students can get a British degree that is more highly regarded than an Indian one, but exactly equivalent! That is what this country has sunk to. There is no need for electronics engineers in the UK so the jobs are low paid and the ability to get the qualifications very limited unless you can attend the few courses left. I was left to choose between the one university that did electronics by taking it's oil rig oriented courses and swapping in a few electronic type modules or a private company that did courses but was not a university and was also oil rig oriented.

[EEVblog]

Is everyone looking to get this thread locked?
Stick to tarrif related things please.

[Zero999]

It is much more nuanced than that, and other causes are more significant. Read Piketty; his thesis has been lauded by everybody from all walks of life. The only other comparable book is "Without Hot Air", about energy.

The rich elites are very adept at getting the naive to believe that immigrants are the cause of relative poverty, and to ignore who "trickle down economics" impoverishes and benefits. Not difficult to see why!

It is much easier to get people to hate those they can see and who look "different", than it is to get them to hate people they can't see.

It depends on where the immigrants are from.

If people move to a rich country from a low wage economy, it drives down wages, making local people poorer. The migrants are willing to work for less then the locals and have less understanding of the law i.e. employment laws, so rich companies can take advantage of them. If they're there illegally, then even better: pay cash, no tax, national insurance or minimum wage to worry about!

If people move from a rich country, to a poorer one, they bring money with them, along with a rise in living standards for the local population. That doesn't happen very often though, because few people from rich countries want to live in poorer ones, but we see it more though tourism, although it's often temporary and more seasonal.

In the UK, the rich actively encouraged mass immigration from low wage economies because it benefits them. They don't care about the poor. This is why every government we've had since 1997 has has done the same and people who oppose mass immigration from poor countries are demonised by the mainstream media.

Like mass immigration, over-tourism tourism causes problems for the local population. People tend to bring their culture with them. Locals living near popular tourist destinations understandably get annoyed by rude, rowdy, drunk holiday makers who leave rubbish behind. Yes, they benefit the local economy, but there are locals who would rather be poorer and not have to deal with tourists.

[tggzzz]

It is much more nuanced than that, and other causes are more significant. Read Piketty; his thesis has been lauded by everybody from all walks of life. The only other comparable book is "Without Hot Air", about energy.

The rich elites are very adept at getting the naive to believe that immigrants are the cause of relative poverty, and to ignore who "trickle down economics" impoverishes and benefits. Not difficult to see why!

It is much easier to get people to hate those they can see and who look "different", than it is to get them to hate people they can't see.

It depends on where the immigrants are from.

If people move to a rich country from a low wage economy, it drives down wages, making local people poorer. The migrants are willing to work for less then the locals and have less understanding of the law i.e. employment laws, so rich companies can take advantage of them. If they're there illegally, then even better: pay cash, no tax, national insurance or minimum wage to worry about!

If people move from a rich country, to a poorer one, they bring money with them, along with a rise in living standards for the local population. That doesn't happen very often though, because few people from rich countries want to live in poorer ones, but we see it more though tourism, although it's often temporary and more seasonal.

In the UK, the rich actively encouraged mass immigration from low wage economies because it benefits them. They don't care about the poor. This is why every government we've had since 1997 has has done the same and people who oppose mass immigration from poor countries are demonised by the mainstream media.

Like mass immigration, over-tourism tourism causes problems for the local population. People tend to bring their culture with them. Locals living near popular tourist destinations understandably get annoyed by rude, rowdy, drunk holiday makers who leave rubbish behind. Yes, they benefit the local economy, but there are locals who would rather be poorer and not have to deal with tourists.

I've taken this conversation to PM.

[EEVblog]

One more off-topic post and I start deleting them (again). I'm not going to let this thread turn into the defacto politics thread.

[Analog Kid]

Pardon me for asking this, but I really do not understand:
What is so all-fired bad about discussing politics?
For one thing, lots of threads here are actually full of political discussions, some of which are actually worth following.

It's one thing if people start behaving really badly in a thread, insulting each other, filling the thread with toxicity: I get that.
But that could happen no matter what is being discussed, politics or something entirely different.

Is it all political discussions that rub you the wrong way? or just those political discussions that run counter to your own political beliefs? (I really, really do not want to get into the subject of what your political opinions are: those are your business and your business only).

Some subjects, like the one at hand, naturally tend towards discussing politics, as they're at least partly political in nature.

Now back to tariffs ...

[.RC.]

What is so all-fired bad about discussing politics?

People get very emotionally invested about it because for everyone it affects their wellbeing and livelihood.  It is extremely common for a political group to sacrifice and denigrate a minority group to curry favour with a much larger group. Fairness has nothing to do with it as I have come to the conclusion that most countries the societal groups within it are usually quite unfair to others outside their group.

I do not think societies have really matured much for millennia.  It is worse today because even though there is mass amounts of information at our fingertips people seldom use it.

[Analog Kid]

You've pretty well described tribalism, which indeed does what you say it does and is a huge problem in the world today.

I still don't see what's so wrong about having political discussions, provided they don't degenerate into wrestling matches. Who knows? we might learn something from such discussions, if folks post something thoughtful and not just knee-jerk political dogma.

[zapta]

Let's get back on topic about tariffs. As mentioned by other users, it's just getting to get locked otherwise.

Please don't lock this thread, it keeps the trolls busy and away from the threads that do matter.

[abeyer]

I really, really do not want to get into the subject of what your political opinions are: those are your business and your business only

I think you answered your own question right there.

[vad]

Is everyone looking to get this thread locked?
Stick to tarrif related things please.

Be patient, Dave. Give it a couple of days. There is a looming deadline, and I’d hate to start a new thread dedicated to the 90 beautiful tariff deals if this one gets locked.

And while we are waiting, does anyone dare to share their nation’s deal? I bet the deal between Australia and Trump, due this week, is being actively discussed in the local media. I’m sure it is a masterpiece of a deal. Any hint what it looks like?