One point I haven't seen made about Trump's tariffs is that some of the markups on products that are branded in the US but made in Asia are extreme. When Trump talks about Americans being ripped off, he may be right, but it's actually other Americans who are the guilty parties, so the effect of tariffs could be neutral for consumers while hitting some people who have it coming.
That’s how corporate America has boomed. For example, Apple’s assemblers in China make 5% margins, which enable Apple’s 40% margins. That’s not untypical.
What you’re arguing for is a US economy which is worth dramatically less than it was last year.
I'm arguing for a US economy where the benefits of globalisation are shared more equally instead of creamed off by the rich.
But that isn't Trumps policy.
He is bringing in tariffs as a tax on American consumers in order to fund tax cuts for the super-rich.
Not a co£ding to Scott Bessent. The tariffs are to fund tax cuts for the man and woman in the street. Their view is Wall Street has benefitted the wealthy and now its main streets time. Watch the interview RCS linked, it’s interesting.
Having read that article, it seems dubious to me, as it is talking about output, not thought. Unless I've misread/misunderstood in my sleep-deprived state, much depends on what is actually meant by 'thought'. As the article says, we are bombarded by massive amounts of sensory information, from which we get very little work output. They are talking about the latter: the output. But there's a heck of a lot of processing that goes on in the background to siphon off the useful input. I'd argue that's 'thought'.
As an example, as I'm thinking about this post, one of the cats jumped on an inflatable fish, making a noise. I turned to look for the source of the noise. Useful work was done in my brain: there was an unusual sound, and my mind decided that it was worth looking for the source of it, so an interrupt fired and I turned to look. This was not the desired output, but I'd argue it was thought, and work.
Reporter: You said there would be no pause and now there’s a pause
Trump: You have to have flexibility. I could say here’s a wall and I’m going to go through it and you can’t go through the wall. Sometimes you have to be able to go under the wall or around the wall or over the wall... https://x.com/Acyn/status/1910050567927505084
I'm not sure why the markets are celebrating in quite so exuberant a manner the total breakdown of trade between the world's two largest economies ?
The markets still haven’t fully recovered. Perhaps they’re assuming a deal will be done.
I think it unlikely this will not be resolved soon.
It's a good day to cash out of the equity markets.
Trump is mad enough to do it all again, and the tariff war on China, Mexico and Canada continues as before. It's just the RoW that gets some breathing space.
Trumps ego and feebbe minded henchmen are going to be very sore after yesterday's humiliation. Just like Truss, they were convinced that they were right and the markets wrong.
"The ex-partner of a millionaire horse racing tipster who "tortured" women and filmed the abuse has warned someone could die if he is not stopped.
Kevin Booth was given a worldwide travel ban after a Scottish civil court heard how he attacked his victims in an underground chamber at his remote Highland home and in foreign hotel rooms."
“Bandwidth economics” as a driver of social structure. We usually talk about economics in terms of money, resources, or incentives. But what if a major limiting factor in how societies develop—especially in group size, complexity, and norms—is cognitive and emotional bandwidth?
IIRC W. L. Gore (inventors of Goretex) empirically discovered something along those lines, and the whole company is organised into small groups. If any one group needs to expand, it is split into multiple groups
At a couple of companies I worked at, I was involved with a sort of 'tiger team'. If something was going majorly wrong on a project, or there is a time-critical problem, a very small group would be formed from outside that project and sent in to take a look and help solve the problem. Fresh eyes, as it were. It's surprising how well this can work.
But tiger teams are not everything: when they have sorted out a problem, you need larger teams to actually make the thing work. I've also heard of companies where the small teams philosophy has failed disastrously, as it is hard on the members of the team, and some tasks just require resource. There can also e massive duplication of work, and the management teams managing the groups swell in size.
My longest working day was from Friday morning to Sunday lunchtime, working continuously on a time-critical demo. The last 24 hours were no coding, but writing a script for the demo that avoided known bugs in the software. I lived on pizza and coffee. It was the sort of thing where adding another engineer would just have delayed things, although I did use the security guard to sound ideas out to.
"The ex-partner of a millionaire horse racing tipster who "tortured" women and filmed the abuse has warned someone could die if he is not stopped.
Kevin Booth was given a worldwide travel ban after a Scottish civil court heard how he attacked his victims in an underground chamber at his remote Highland home and in foreign hotel rooms."
One point I haven't seen made about Trump's tariffs is that some of the markups on products that are branded in the US but made in Asia are extreme. When Trump talks about Americans being ripped off, he may be right, but it's actually other Americans who are the guilty parties, so the effect of tariffs could be neutral for consumers while hitting some people who have it coming.
That’s how corporate America has boomed. For example, Apple’s assemblers in China make 5% margins, which enable Apple’s 40% margins. That’s not untypical.
What you’re arguing for is a US economy which is worth dramatically less than it was last year.
I'm arguing for a US economy where the benefits of globalisation are shared more equally instead of creamed off by the rich.
But that isn't Trumps policy.
He is bringing in tariffs as a tax on American consumers in order to fund tax cuts for the super-rich.
Not a co£ding to Scott Bessent. The tariffs are to fund tax cuts for the man and woman in the street. Their view is Wall Street has benefitted the wealthy and now its main streets time. Watch the interview RCS linked, it’s interesting.
Bessent isn’t a reliable source, obviously. The actual proposals in front of Congress represent a massive tax cut for the wealthy. The Trump team will say black is white.
One point I haven't seen made about Trump's tariffs is that some of the markups on products that are branded in the US but made in Asia are extreme. When Trump talks about Americans being ripped off, he may be right, but it's actually other Americans who are the guilty parties, so the effect of tariffs could be neutral for consumers while hitting some people who have it coming.
That’s how corporate America has boomed. For example, Apple’s assemblers in China make 5% margins, which enable Apple’s 40% margins. That’s not untypical.
What you’re arguing for is a US economy which is worth dramatically less than it was last year.
I'm arguing for a US economy where the benefits of globalisation are shared more equally instead of creamed off by the rich.
But that isn't Trumps policy.
He is bringing in tariffs as a tax on American consumers in order to fund tax cuts for the super-rich.
Not a co£ding to Scott Bessent. The tariffs are to fund tax cuts for the man and woman in the street. Their view is Wall Street has benefitted the wealthy and now its main streets time. Watch the interview RCS linked, it’s interesting.
But the tax cut going through is for billionaires, not the man in the street, while tariffs are a regressive tax paid mostly by the poor.
Don't listen to the rhetoric, look at what is actually being done. The rhetoric is just to fool the MAGA mugs.
There's even tariff exceptions for his business mates proposed. Don is just shaking people down in his same old way.
One point I haven't seen made about Trump's tariffs is that some of the markups on products that are branded in the US but made in Asia are extreme. When Trump talks about Americans being ripped off, he may be right, but it's actually other Americans who are the guilty parties, so the effect of tariffs could be neutral for consumers while hitting some people who have it coming.
That’s how corporate America has boomed. For example, Apple’s assemblers in China make 5% margins, which enable Apple’s 40% margins. That’s not untypical.
What you’re arguing for is a US economy which is worth dramatically less than it was last year.
I'm arguing for a US economy where the benefits of globalisation are shared more equally instead of creamed off by the rich.
But that isn't Trumps policy.
He is bringing in tariffs as a tax on American consumers in order to fund tax cuts for the super-rich.
Not a co£ding to Scott Bessent. The tariffs are to fund tax cuts for the man and woman in the street. Their view is Wall Street has benefitted the wealthy and now its main streets time. Watch the interview RCS linked, it’s interesting.
But the tax cut going through is for billionaires, not the man in the street, while tariffs are a regressive tax paid mostly by the poor.
Don't listen to the rhetoric, look at what is actually being done. The rhetoric is just to fool the MAGA mugs.
There's even tariff exceptions for his business mates proposed. Don is just shaking people down in his same old way.
From your second tweet: And unlike the two previous crashes of the past 20 years – the global financial crisis of 2008 and the pandemic of 2020 – this crisis would have been directly attributable to only one man.
One point I haven't seen made about Trump's tariffs is that some of the markups on products that are branded in the US but made in Asia are extreme. When Trump talks about Americans being ripped off, he may be right, but it's actually other Americans who are the guilty parties, so the effect of tariffs could be neutral for consumers while hitting some people who have it coming.
That’s how corporate America has boomed. For example, Apple’s assemblers in China make 5% margins, which enable Apple’s 40% margins. That’s not untypical.
What you’re arguing for is a US economy which is worth dramatically less than it was last year.
I'm arguing for a US economy where the benefits of globalisation are shared more equally instead of creamed off by the rich.
But that isn't Trumps policy.
He is bringing in tariffs as a tax on American consumers in order to fund tax cuts for the super-rich.
Not a co£ding to Scott Bessent. The tariffs are to fund tax cuts for the man and woman in the street. Their view is Wall Street has benefitted the wealthy and now its main streets time. Watch the interview RCS linked, it’s interesting.
But the tax cut going through is for billionaires, not the man in the street, while tariffs are a regressive tax paid mostly by the poor.
Don't listen to the rhetoric, look at what is actually being done. The rhetoric is just to fool the MAGA mugs.
There's even tariff exceptions for his business mates proposed. Don is just shaking people down in his same old way.
"The ex-partner of a millionaire horse racing tipster who "tortured" women and filmed the abuse has warned someone could die if he is not stopped.
Kevin Booth was given a worldwide travel ban after a Scottish civil court heard how he attacked his victims in an underground chamber at his remote Highland home and in foreign hotel rooms."
That's - has anybody ever read 'tiny stations' by Dixe Wills? That's the weird bloke from Altnabreac!
It's an old story. Everyone in racing has heard of Isiris and knows Booth is sadistic and has been convicted. There will be threads on the Betfair forum going back years.
One point I haven't seen made about Trump's tariffs is that some of the markups on products that are branded in the US but made in Asia are extreme. When Trump talks about Americans being ripped off, he may be right, but it's actually other Americans who are the guilty parties, so the effect of tariffs could be neutral for consumers while hitting some people who have it coming.
That’s how corporate America has boomed. For example, Apple’s assemblers in China make 5% margins, which enable Apple’s 40% margins. That’s not untypical.
What you’re arguing for is a US economy which is worth dramatically less than it was last year.
I'm arguing for a US economy where the benefits of globalisation are shared more equally instead of creamed off by the rich.
But that isn't Trumps policy.
He is bringing in tariffs as a tax on American consumers in order to fund tax cuts for the super-rich.
Not a co£ding to Scott Bessent. The tariffs are to fund tax cuts for the man and woman in the street. Their view is Wall Street has benefitted the wealthy and now its main streets time. Watch the interview RCS linked, it’s interesting.
But the tax cut going through is for billionaires, not the man in the street, while tariffs are a regressive tax paid mostly by the poor.
Don't listen to the rhetoric, look at what is actually being done. The rhetoric is just to fool the MAGA mugs.
There's even tariff exceptions for his business mates proposed. Don is just shaking people down in his same old way.
For example, the Republicans are planning to abolish inheritance tax. They had in Trump’s first term already raised the allowance to ~$14M. This not a tax cut that benefits the average man in the street.
"The ex-partner of a millionaire horse racing tipster who "tortured" women and filmed the abuse has warned someone could die if he is not stopped.
Kevin Booth was given a worldwide travel ban after a Scottish civil court heard how he attacked his victims in an underground chamber at his remote Highland home and in foreign hotel rooms."
One point I haven't seen made about Trump's tariffs is that some of the markups on products that are branded in the US but made in Asia are extreme. When Trump talks about Americans being ripped off, he may be right, but it's actually other Americans who are the guilty parties, so the effect of tariffs could be neutral for consumers while hitting some people who have it coming.
That’s how corporate America has boomed. For example, Apple’s assemblers in China make 5% margins, which enable Apple’s 40% margins. That’s not untypical.
What you’re arguing for is a US economy which is worth dramatically less than it was last year.
I'm arguing for a US economy where the benefits of globalisation are shared more equally instead of creamed off by the rich.
But that isn't Trumps policy.
He is bringing in tariffs as a tax on American consumers in order to fund tax cuts for the super-rich.
Not a co£ding to Scott Bessent. The tariffs are to fund tax cuts for the man and woman in the street. Their view is Wall Street has benefitted the wealthy and now its main streets time. Watch the interview RCS linked, it’s interesting.
But the tax cut going through is for billionaires, not the man in the street, while tariffs are a regressive tax paid mostly by the poor.
Don't listen to the rhetoric, look at what is actually being done. The rhetoric is just to fool the MAGA mugs.
There's even tariff exceptions for his business mates proposed. Don is just shaking people down in his same old way.
Reporter: You said there would be no pause and now there’s a pause
Trump: You have to have flexibility. I could say here’s a wall and I’m going to go through it and you can’t go through the wall. Sometimes you have to be able to go under the wall or around the wall or over the wall... https://x.com/Acyn/status/1910050567927505084
I'm not sure why the markets are celebrating in quite so exuberant a manner the total breakdown of trade between the world's two largest economies ?
The markets still haven’t fully recovered. Perhaps they’re assuming a deal will be done.
I think it unlikely this will not be resolved soon.
So who backs down, China or the US ?
Frankly I don't see either doing so particularly quickly.
The US is trying to enlist its allies in the trade war with China. There's nothing in it for them, and Trump has spent the last couple of months crapping on every ally the US has.
He's tried to extort the entire planet at once, and I'm not sure he fully appreciates that he's overreached.
"The ex-partner of a millionaire horse racing tipster who "tortured" women and filmed the abuse has warned someone could die if he is not stopped.
Kevin Booth was given a worldwide travel ban after a Scottish civil court heard how he attacked his victims in an underground chamber at his remote Highland home and in foreign hotel rooms."
I used to work with/for racing tipsters and they’re a gamey lot, but Booth and his outfit Isiris were definitely at the lurid end. Didn’t realise Booth was quite such a weirdo, but doesn’t surprise me.
One point I haven't seen made about Trump's tariffs is that some of the markups on products that are branded in the US but made in Asia are extreme. When Trump talks about Americans being ripped off, he may be right, but it's actually other Americans who are the guilty parties, so the effect of tariffs could be neutral for consumers while hitting some people who have it coming.
That’s how corporate America has boomed. For example, Apple’s assemblers in China make 5% margins, which enable Apple’s 40% margins. That’s not untypical.
What you’re arguing for is a US economy which is worth dramatically less than it was last year.
I'm arguing for a US economy where the benefits of globalisation are shared more equally instead of creamed off by the rich.
But that isn't Trumps policy.
He is bringing in tariffs as a tax on American consumers in order to fund tax cuts for the super-rich.
Not a co£ding to Scott Bessent. The tariffs are to fund tax cuts for the man and woman in the street. Their view is Wall Street has benefitted the wealthy and now its main streets time. Watch the interview RCS linked, it’s interesting.
Bessent isn’t a reliable source, obviously. The actual proposals in front of Congress represent a massive tax cut for the wealthy. The Trump team will say black is white.
No, true, people on PB with an axe to grind and an agenda are clearly far more reliable.
I have to say that this episode and the Trussterfuck really do show that a country isn’t truly free while it has to refinance national debt on a regular basis. We really need to pay it down…
Yep, to be free, you need to be free of debt. It's true from individual to richest country.
One person's debt is another person's savings. You can't have one without the other.
Me living within my income doesn't require anyone to exceed theirs.
How do you think your money is created?
@rcs1000 's original statement was obviously far above my low-brow head. So if everybody blew their savings, everybody else's debt would be wiped out? That would be a very fine line to draw, given how easy it is to get into debt.
I always supposed money was invented to widen the possibilities of barter, so that any one person can benefit from things they can't grow for themselves.
A fascinating tale of the Russian/Bulgarian spy ring based in Great Yarmouth, recently on trial at the Old Bailey, and lost amongst the Trump psychodrama. A tale of high tech spying, false flag Russophobia, surveillance and even planting false stories of a Wuhan lab leak to discredit a journalist.
Comments
As an example, as I'm thinking about this post, one of the cats jumped on an inflatable fish, making a noise. I turned to look for the source of the noise. Useful work was done in my brain: there was an unusual sound, and my mind decided that it was worth looking for the source of it, so an interrupt fired and I turned to look. This was not the desired output, but I'd argue it was thought, and work.
As many of us can attest, work != output
Trump is mad enough to do it all again, and the tariff war on China, Mexico and Canada continues as before. It's just the RoW that gets some breathing space.
Trumps ego and feebbe minded henchmen are going to be very sore after yesterday's humiliation. Just like Truss, they were convinced that they were right and the markets wrong.
"America launched a trade war while begging for eggs"
Here's a article from decades ago in Acorn, when a small team developed a product fast.:
https://yoz.com/wired/2.09/features/acorn.html
But tiger teams are not everything: when they have sorted out a problem, you need larger teams to actually make the thing work. I've also heard of companies where the small teams philosophy has failed disastrously, as it is hard on the members of the team, and some tasks just require resource. There can also e massive duplication of work, and the management teams managing the groups swell in size.
My longest working day was from Friday morning to Sunday lunchtime, working continuously on a time-critical demo. The last 24 hours were no coding, but writing a script for the demo that avoided known bugs in the software. I lived on pizza and coffee. It was the sort of thing where adding another engineer would just have delayed things, although I did use the security guard to sound ideas out to.
Don't listen to the rhetoric, look at what is actually being done. The rhetoric is just to fool the MAGA mugs.
There's even tariff exceptions for his business mates proposed. Don is just shaking people down in his same old way.
https://bsky.app/profile/carlquintanilla.bsky.social/post/3lmghlih3qk2j
I knew it! It's bloody Gordon Brown again!
I would oppose increasing VAT to fund tax cuts on IHT for example.
NEW THREAD
Frankly I don't see either doing so particularly quickly.
The US is trying to enlist its allies in the trade war with China. There's nothing in it for them, and Trump has spent the last couple of months crapping on every ally the US has.
He's tried to extort the entire planet at once, and I'm not sure he fully appreciates that he's overreached.
I always supposed money was invented to widen the possibilities of barter, so that any one person can benefit from things they can't grow for themselves.
Good morning everybody.