Apologies for misremembering!

If there is the ability to have sanctions, to freeze assets, why not this then? If there's no law specifically against it. — ssu

14th amendment precludes it. It puts into question the validity of my claim compared to your claim either because of the identity of the holder or the type of instrument. But also, it would breach the terms of the issuance itself and therefore result in a contractual breach.

Selective default could be an option. As now China has raised it's tariff's to 84% to US exports, another issue could be that it starts selling it's 1 trillion holdings of US treasuries. — ssu

As a lawyer with experience with government bond issuance I don't see how this is possible under US law. There are no laws that provide for prioritsing or selectively paying only some holders or issues.

Good questions. @Ciceronianus@Hanover@Maw any view on this as US based lawyers? Because I don't.

Finally got around to working out a post on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), the US dollar’s role as global reserve currency, and trade deficits. These three are tightly linked, yet they somehow remain a mystery to Trump and the economist Ron Vara, also known as Peter Navarro’s sock puppet.

Trump’s April 2, 2025 tariffs are yet another monument to his economic illiteracy. The idea, if you can call it that, is that because the US imports more than it exports, the country is somehow losing, and tariffs will solve everything. This is not just wrong. It is the kind of blunt, caveman logic that treats global finance like a rigged Monopoly game.

Here is what is actually happening. The US runs persistent trade deficits because global investors funnel capital into the country. They trust US institutions, they want American bonds, real estate and tech companies. They build factories here. That is Foreign Direct Investment, and it is part of a broader capital account surplus. When foreigners pour in money to acquire US assets, those dollars have to come from somewhere. They get them from selling things to the US. That is not an ideological position, it is basic accounting. The other side of that surplus is the current account deficit, which includes the trade deficit.

Another issues (already mentioned by others). Because the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, there is enormous global demand for it. Central banks, companies and investors across the planet use the dollar for trade, savings and investment. That demand for dollars drives up the value of the dollar and keeps capital flowing into US markets. In this context, the trade deficit is not a sign of weakness but a reflection of global trust in the US economy.

So what happens when you slap tariffs on everything in sight? You do not fix the trade deficit. For the most part you will shuffle import sources. Maybe the US will import less from China and more from Vietnam. Maybe a handful of domestic producers benefit. But unless capital inflows decrease, the overall deficit remains. It might even worsen due to retaliation or inflationary effects. The idea that tariffs can cure a trade imbalance without touching capital flows is pure fantasy.

As warned by everyone tariffs increase costs for American consumers and businesses. They disrupt supply chains. They provoke retaliation from trade partners - just watch how US companies will be starved from rare earth metals resulting from China's export licensing requirements affecting samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium. This in turn threatens electronics manufacturing, defence systems and clean energy technology.

Of course, capital flows may very well decrease but only as a result of a loss in trust in the US and its economy and that will fix the trade deficit. But at what cost? As capital begins to flow eslewhere, the capital account surplus will shrink and the trade deficit can not be financed, that puts downward pressure on the dollar which is likely to lead to inflation on top of the effect of tariffs. The trade deficit is "cured" in the worst possible way: falling imports, shrinking consumption and potentially a recession. The final step could well be the loss of the dollar as a serve currency.

The US losing that status for its currency will result in more expensive imports, cheaper exports, less capital inflows and therefore increased costs of financing debt. Considering the debt the US has, it is not clear how it can sustain its debt in such an event.

In the long run, this will at the very least stop the erosion of US industrial capacity but questions remain how much of an industry you can have while retaliatory tariffs and export licenses frustrate your supply chains. The problem here is the downsides are very predictable but the upsides are less apparent. An industrial rennaissance in the US is not likely when acquiring resources and goods to make industrial activities possible is made prohibitively expensive.

Long story short, Trump's brainfart masquerading as policy reflects a zero-sum mentality where surpluses are strength and deficits are weakness. That is simply wrong. The US runs a trade deficit because the world wants its assets. That is not a problem. It is a privilege. Killing that system with tariffs is not just dumb, it is destructive.

In my view, unless the US is willing to give up the dollar’s reserve currency status and slam the door on global investment, the trade deficit will continue.

So since this led us to this point, let's assume for a moment that this is the goal; getting rid of the dollar's reserve currency status. If that's what you'd want, we can think of the following reasons because the status:

• distorts the US economy and hollows out industry
• is ultimately unsustainable and vulnerable to collapse
• destabilizes emerging markets
• reinforces global inequality
• props up a deeply asymmetric power structure

I don't buy any of the last three points are a consideration but the first two could be. Yet, the only way to get rid of it, seems to be to destroy trust. Then why do it through tariffs? Why not simply default on debt?

In the end, everywhere I look, I only see inconsistencies, which means this has not been thought through. It creates exactly the circumstances to undermine US leadership and take advantage of it, which is entirely the opposite from what Trump claims he wants to accomplish. Here's a few ways countries can do it:

1. Undermine the dollar by creating alternatives to settle in non-USD currencies;
2. Countries less affected by low-tariffs are more likely to increase market share selling to the US than US manufacturing increasing;
3. China ets every room to present itself as a stable, cooperative partner whil the US fucks over its allies;
4. The immediate devaluing of US assets means we can acquire interests in them on the cheap;
5. Countries can challenge US leadership at global institutions thereby strengthening their onw legitimacy.

Countries that do understand the system—and most major ones do—now have every incentive to:

• Wait for the US to isolate itself
• Exploit the gaps it leaves behind
• Slowly weaken the dollar-centric system from the edges

Pfew. Done. Economics 101!

On topic, Trump just slammed China with an additional 50% tariff. How many dropshippers will go bankrupt in the next month? What does it do to Amazon?

I'm noticing a slight uptick in the temperature in this thread. If you feel agitated please refrain from posting until it has passed. Thank you.

I get to finally spout vitriol about dumb philosophers without causing a flame war... I'm totally game. My first draft is on 5800 words though. Now I have to cut text... which I hate doing.

Are footnotes mandatory?

Plus, your pugnacious response to criticism is annoying. — T Clark

What criticism? Again, your point is not clear at all. Also note that I moved the thread out of the lounge instead of into it. So your first complaint missed the mark. I explained that in more detail in my reply to NOS4A2 before that but maybe you didn't read the comments in thread.

You agree the quality has gone down but also

a system that’s worked pretty well so far — T Clark

?

So which is it?

Then you complain about

the way you've gone about it — T Clark

But you don't want

to do more than just complain — T Clark

Which is precisely what you're doing. So seriously, what do you want?

I just wonder how an issue like Donald Trump and what he is doing could be, as you said " substantive, evidence-based discussion on Donald Trump, - Here, we aim for clarity, rigour and engagement grounded in fact." Because I assume he will, as he has done all of his political career, raise emotions, a lot of critique. And I hope that those who support him can also have a say. — ssu

Sorry, missed this earlier.I think the reality is that much less can be said about the man than we've been doing if there's to be meaningful discussion. I think that's in principle fine.

To tell the truth, I don't give a ding dong about the Trump thread and I'm only a bit irritated by the social media change. What bothers me is the way you've gone about it. You start a thread telling us you've already made the change and don't intend to remove it. Then, when there is criticism, you say "buzz off fuzz nuts." It doesn't make sense. Don't ask our opinion - it's insulting. Alternatively, ask our opinion before you make the change. Then you can pretend to listen to us before you implement. — T Clark

It's not a democracy and I never asked for anyone's opinion.

I informed people about the social media change.

And when people started to give feedback in the new Trump thread, I deleted the comments and created a feedback thread to give room for those comments. As far as I'm aware there's been hardly any criticism since most people here joined because it's a philosophy forum and prefer higher quality over lower quality.

What exactly is the problem then because it's not clear to me other than you thought things were fine. Noted. But I, and other moderators, didn't think things were fine so we started dealing with.

Decreased government spending and tax cuts will certainly offset the cost of tariffs to the American public. Whether they can pass the tax bills is the problem. — NOS4A2

What actual tax proposals are being submitted currently? Where can we find it?

The world is flipping out with retaliatory tariffs but the tariff is a tax on Americans. So it’s odd that they spin around and tax their own citizens, and in a Trumpian way. It’s astounding. — NOS4A2

That clearly lacks nuance. Trump is basically engaged in protectionism. Retaliatory tariffs serve as deterrents by raising the cost of protectionism for the instigating country and signaling strength in trade negotiations. By targeting politically sensitive industries and choosing goods with low domestic disruption, countries can create pressure while shielding their own economy.

These measures are also seen as proportionate responses that uphold balance in trade relations. However, they come with clear downsides: higher consumer prices, reduced competitiveness and GDP losses on both sides.

In short: retaliatory tariffs hurt but they’re meant to make protectionism hurt more.

Reading how far it goes in the US does make a backlash predictable. The level of detail is unnecessary. Here in the EU it's about awareness and trying to remove bias from hiring decisions. Only quota based rules are about gender in higher management and that's at least 1/3 should be women and then there still is a "comply or explain" exception possible.

Reviewing how your work-force looks like (age, gender, religion, cultural background etc.) can result in an indication of bias and could be reason to look at hiring practises or training within the organisation. At the same time, we're in essence a software developer and women are still underrepresented. But that starts in bloody university so there's only so much that you can do.

No, for the reasons outlined I don't expect that. If A produces and sells 100 widgets with a cost base of 10 EUR with a profit margin of 5% and B produces and sells 100 widgets with a cost base of 50 EUR with a profit margin of 5%, then A will have 1/5th of the profit despite producing half of the total number of widgets.

This is the imbalance that needs correcting.
— Punshhh
Is it?

Wouldn't you expect half of the world's population to produce half of the stuff and get half of the profits? — Banno

This ignores labour conditions, EH&S regulations, environmental regulations, etc. that are at the basis of the absence of a level playing field. On the other hand, colonialism and economic neoliberal policy has screwed over most other countries now in a position to produce cheaply but mostly through exploitation of people or the environment. If they make half the stuff in accordance with the regulations that apply to local firms they absolutely deserve half of the profits.

Personally, I'm in favour of a principled based tariff system:

1. Not a full democracy? 10%
2. Authoritarion? 25%
3. Work week not limited to 40 hours? 10%
4. No unions allowed? 10%
5. No EH&S rules at EU level? 25%
6. No environmental standards at EU level? 25%

Then we allow companies to voluntarily meet EU obligations to the extent they can, to make their products exempt from most tariffs through an accreditation process and ban any company to sell to the EU for 10 years if they falsely obtain such accreditation.

But this has fuck all to do with Trump so let's stop the discussion here.

The quality of the forum is lower than it used to. Instead of leaving I decided to do something about it.

People can do what I do, just avoid the thread. — T Clark

Which demonstrates the problem. You shouldn't be disengaging.

It was a deciding factor in me finally making the effort to do something about it. It was never meant to be in the lounge, it started as a politics thread and simply derailed and was then pushed into the lounge to get it off the main page because it made the forum look bad. I'm trying to get it back on track and hopefully at a standard that it makes sense to keep it in the politics category.

I'm closing this thread for now and unpinning it.

If you are fine with spending a looooot of time deleting posts and warning users, cool. — javi2541997

Not fine but willing to take the responsibility.

If you continue reading you'll notice the move was supported by other moderators.your complaint is filed under: can't read, misrepresents or is lazy.

Is there anything in his ideology(any sense in it), or is it all about his narcissistic ego? — Punshhh

From what I can make of it, I don't think it's ideology but there seems to be consistency. I would say, he is first and foremost, transactional. There need to be personal or national "wins" and "losses". Loyalty, power dynamics and image outweigh strategy or principle. (And maybe loyality needs its separate point as well?)

Basic populism is a common thread as well; nationalist, anti-elitist, anti-immgrations and disdain for institutions, norms and the law.

If I would summarise it, I think it would be like this:

"The world is a zero-sum game. America is being ripped off. Only I can fix it. Loyalty to me is patriotism. Elites and institutions are your enemy. Winning is the only value that matters."

it's going off topic from this thread. I'm happy to take this further in PM if that's ok with you.

I need to think about it. Reported facts, especially after a few years, tend to cristalize in what we understand is the truth. Almost all news is "wait and see" and then after months or years we are pretty confident on part of the facts.

But much "facts" in climate change literature are outcomes of models. I'm absolutely sympathetic that after model upon model being vindicated by measurements, we have been clearly moving in a direction where climate change denial is not a very rational position. It just seems to me that the denial of what scientifically speaking are still hypotheses and not facts should fundamentally be possible. It's just that when they do it's for shit reasons and other posters waste time pointing out the reasons are shit.

Feedback is welcome just not in thread. :-)

@fdrake the deciding factor was my personal annoyance as a person interested in politics but generally really disliking commenting on it as I get dragged down into the mud as well and then upon reflection dislike the thread even more by invoking my baser nature (as it seems to do with many). In addition, there was feedback from another poster on another thread about the deteriorating moderation standards. After mulling it over I decided I agreed with him and wanted to step up and do something about it. It happens to coincide with the change in Social Media use at this site, which by and large received a positive reaction that gave me an extra impulse. It looks like everyone wants better and higher quality and improving moderation and creating a framework for it is an important part of it. After a majority of moderators said to go for it, I did.

@javi2541997 while understandable, we obviously cannot cater to your personal dislike of a person who happens to be relevant at the moment.

@tim wood Glad you like it. Let's hope for a better quality of discussion going forward. I'm going to do my best to moderate stringently and stay out of the discussion itself as much as possible.

ALSO: please help by flagging posts or sending me a PM.

ALSO ALSO: I'm a lazy moderator and will be inclined to delete an entire post in breach of our posting guidelines instead of partial editing unless it's a quality contribution in every other way.

From tim wood:

Well done, done well!

From javi:

Err... fine, but I (and possibly others too) don't want to see anything related to him on the main page. It is a waste of time, as is everything that comes from U.S. politics. I guess it would be on the main page for just a few days to let the people know that the old thread is gone. I hope that this is put in The Lounge afterwards.

It bothers me that the name of the orange is the first thing I see when I log in.

I'm closing this thread as this dumpster fire has raged on for long enough. I will restart it in the Politics category with a new OP and from now on I will start moderating it stringently so it will befit a philosophy forum. No more flaming, no more crackpot theories, no more sharing of other people's opinions as a substitute for thinking for yourself and making an actual argument. I won't hesitate sinking that new thread into The Lounge again if it goes sideways. Please try to waste as little time of the moderators as possible.

@Ciceronianus @Hanover @Maw

Curious how you look at the Paul Weiss deal and the broader subject of the EEOC letters that have been sent. See for instance this revocable resignation letter from Rachel Cohen, the time period that will lapse tomorrow:

https://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2025/03/Rachel-Cohen-Skadden-Defense-of-the-Legal-Profession-Letter.pdf

So far Skadden hasn't reacted and disabled company wide e-mails, which in itself is an example of pathethically weak leadership if I ever saw it. Even if you disagree with Cohen's position, limiting employees to discuss what apparently a significant group of them finds important and not providing any transparancy on the company position is just asking for having a crappy work environment.

I've realised that an exception for the learning centre makes sense as well, to allow people to share online resources. I will update the guidelines accordingly.

Edit, it now reads:

Social media

We want to encourage thoughtful posts, not just share quote-tweet or viral clips with little to no substance. As a result, posts containing links and embeds to social media are deleted, shorts as well. Full feature videos, if relevant to the discussion and accompanied by original content of the posters, may be left standing. This is at moderator discretion.

Carve outs:

• In the Learning Centre and its subcategories, when sharing resources, original content is not required.
• The Shoutbox and The News Discussion are exempt from this new posting guideline.

Exactly. The point is, most his posts can be dismissed as contradictory nonsense. "He likes the shock" until people complain about it. That's like complaining there's a fire when you throw a Molotov cocktail. It happens all the time but it's a waste of time to keep pointing it out.

And I don't insist on anything, it's not and shouldn't be seen as a moderator comment. Just an observation that your time could be better spent.

They aren't strawmen, because they are actual behaviours of SOME leftists. — AmadeusD

Fixed it for you, which makes the statement uninteresting without any idea how to identify one from the next. Stop sharing your opinions. It's uninteresting.

@ssu can you please stop discussing with an idiot? I've counted 15 performative contradictions in his last two posts. There isn't even an argument there and you're engaging him substantively as if there is.

They aren't strawmen. They are how leftists behave, en masse, where their behaviour can be reviewed (interviews, — AmadeusD

Denial isn't an argument and the second sentence is a dumb strawman again. That you have zero grasp of what actual "leftist" thinkers have written about is your problem. Either you realise you're making dumb generalisations or you don't.

The idea is that when Mexican avocados become too expensive, Texan farmers will have a reason to devote some land to them. When the electronic thingy GE is presently making in Juarez becomes too expensive, GE will pull manufacturing of the item back within American borders. — frank

Or people will stop eating avocados. It's a foodstuff easily replaced by other foodstuffs unless you insist on reading guacamole. Eg, demand substitution.

And GE might find it more efficient to sell in other countries than the US. Instead of moving production they change their logistics.

Since the tariffs are aimed at countries, other suppliers may fill the gap.

In short, we cannot tell and we do not have viable models to predict what happens exactly (not in this site, I don't know if something exists). The only certainty is price increases as a structural adjustment to the market of products subject to tariffs. If it would've been feasible to produce locally at a competitive price, it would already be happening. It isn't. So to bridge the gap, consumers will always have to pay more.

Edit: note that the orange idiot has claimed tariffs will both increase government tax income (paid by the importer, who will jack up prices for consumers) and create local production. This is, however, mutually exclusive. Either people keep buying abroad and the importer pays more taxes (which consumers effectively pay through higher prices) or they start producing locally, which means nothing is imported and therefore no taxes are raised. You cannot have both.

That's not correct, at all. Violation of human rights, when you're grop thinks it's ok, is the MO of 'leftist' thinking (i don't put you in this category, btw). Murder, when the group think it's ok, is leftist thinking. Crime, when you think it's Ok, is leftist thinking. Fraud, when the group thinks its OK is leftist thinking. Authoritarian behaviour "under the right circumstances" if leftist thinking. Censorship, when the group agrees, is leftist thinking. — AmadeusD

That's entirely correct based on the quoted text on why the Guardian is "left" . Your straw men are irrelevant especially if you think they don't pertain to me.

funny how left-leaning coincides with favouring human rights, the rule of law and possibly not wanting foreign spies in government positions. If that's leftist, it's because the right is going insane.

Ah... The sweet performative contradiction of someone decrying statism and then to cheer on the orange buffoon ruling by decree.

That's only true for full length videos. We still don't care you have an original thought about Trump's latest social truth rant. It will be deleted. ;-)

Actually, we do, just without the link to truth social.

Not any longer indeed.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the poor Tesla owners and Musk.

Funny how every nutjob killing kids at a school shooting or if they go postal is a lone gun man. But these are terrorists.

I also pray for our local useful idiots that someday their one braincell will finally be triggered into cleavage.