It’s not just math, but economic theory. There’s a lot of historical context here, going back to mercantalism in the 1600s, where countries were obsessed with trying to maximize exports. You may remember this from history class, and how they figured out it was, ultimately, not the best idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

Anyway, ignore the greek letters. The Trump administration is using trade deficit (how much other countries buy from us vs. how much we buy from them) as the number for how how much to tax those imports, with the idea being to this tax will “punish” and incentivize countries to not have such a big trade deficit with the US. Per mercantalism, buying more than we sell from someone is a “loss,” as we are losing money to them. And US manufacturers will take up the slack.

…In practice, that’s not how it works, as Europe learned in the 1600s/1700s and the US learned in the great depression, among many other times. There are a lot of fallacies, including:

• “the popular folly of confusing wealth with money,” aka assuming the trade deficit is unprofitable “loss.”

• Overestimating the US’s importance. It’s a big world with a lot of easy shipping, and countries have many other places to ship stuff if the US gives them a big enough middle finger.

• Ramping up manufacturing locally is hard, depending on the industry. Could take years and billions, and in some cases is not practical at all. That’s why we buy stuff from other countries, where it’s easier to make. It’s like the core tenant of free trade.

• Other factors are not static. Slap a gigantic tarrif on something, and the supply/demand/pricing is not going to stay the same.

• It’s also ignoring how being the world’s #1 consumer cemented the US’s power across the world, and arguable stabilized a lot of geopolitics (with some unsavory complications, though). This was largely the idea behind the post-WWII world order.

My impression of Newsom is that he’s slippery as a snake.

I dunno why folks around here want him to run for president.

It is for warning in this format. Mind as well post it on a private chat.

Pfft, just watch, it will be an excuse to fire people in droves/cut wages while executives either get raises for “bold” responses or golden parachutes. Day traders will adore the volatility at the expense of retirement funds. Under duress, companies will merge like crazy since the only barrier now seems to be complying with government ethos. Reduced capital gains will juice the market. The masses will shoulder tariffs.

The response, so far, seems to be licking boots, unfortunately.

Irony is oldschool MAGA, like the kind bred from 4chan, is accelerationist too, but it doesn’t seem as prominent anymore.

Yeah, I never thought I’d say it, but I hope the entire world shuns America and fucks us over.

I doubt even that will fix us, though. We are past some kind of disinformation event horizon, where most of us will never see much reality outside their local life, including leaders who are drinking the kool-aid. Even Idiocracy is kinda idyllic because at least Kamancho was relatively open minded.

To who? Republican voters who will never see this in their feed, or already hate scientists as elites out to get them? Government leaders who openly hate them, either for personal gain or real pseudoscientific beliefs? Opposition who can’t do anything about it, and might not if they could anyway? Profit-obsessed news outlets who would never feature something as boring as this unless it’s already something their audience wants to hear?

It’s too late.

I swear, organizations like this are communicating like it’s 1950 as the entire country sleepwalks into an information dystopia. They need to be loud, sensationalist if not outright propagandist, get on podcasts and Fox, game commercial social media and otherwise shun it if they want to change any minds.

Oh he does, he just doesn’t care.

The line goes up, then you sell out to some anticompetitive behemoth to eat before it implodes. That’s how it works.

It’s a feature.

I think it’s about respect as much as convenience.

If security guys told Biden, or Bush, or maybe even 2016 Trump he had so do something, he’d nod his head and do it.

Now? They don’t trust them. They actively rejected protocols and norms when transitioning because they didn’t trust the Biden government. They very explicitly don’t trust the US Intelligence community. They don’t trust scientific institutions or other parties in their own government.

That’s different than being corrupt. That’s drinking the kool aid of a very toxic information environment, and I think that’s even more dangerous, as it compromises their own incentives for survival.

This is just a small example of that.

Yes of course. Trying to dig up people’s skeletons before spies do has been happening way before the internet, and I would have assumed the government would have tried to “sweep” their personal accounts for vulnerabilities.

But… well, there were some warning signs of resistance to this just after the election:

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/26/trump-transition-white-house

They don’t trust the institutions they run.

They’re human. All sorts of people have personal accounts compromised, they don’t need flak for that.

What’s bonkers is that they are using at least some of it, casually, for sensitive professional talk. If you are anyone close to this position, you do whatever the heck security tells you without question, and it’s not over public signal or Dropbox accounts.

An analogy is trying not to get sick. Sure, people try their best in their personal lives. No one is perfect. But you would act very different in, say, a CDC lab working on Ebola. This would be like someone walking out with a Petri dish splattered all over their suit, and shrugging when someone with an accent scrapes it off your suit. It just screams “I have no regard for this institution’s protocol or the consequences.”

…But it’s worse than that. Like, I cannot describe the billions spent on even slightly influencing or penetrating these people’s spaces, and it turns out they are operating like your boomer grandparents, apparently ignoring the direct instructions of the largest security institution on the planet like they know better.

This will get shot down faster than there can even be controversy. Founding fathers would be rolling in their graves, and there‘s no way the Supreme Court can squeeze that kind of interpretation out of the Constitution.

That being said, it may give some state legislators cover to go with it.

And now I feel old.

It’s like this in corporate world too. They’re trying to get people to resign so they don’t get severance or bad PR for technically firing people

…And Americans.

China too, right?

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-turns-to-well-honed-playbook-cut-rates-hide-data-bcfdd02

The Supreme Court doesn’t have a propaganda machine behind it.

That’s the point, the whole chain is extremely unlikely.