Re: Switching to a higher price

On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 19:33:49 -0500, .../v]andrak|?...
<jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
 

Rin Stowleigh wrote:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 07:54:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>

On 4/3/2025 5:59 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:

On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:35:03 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>

On 4/3/2025 3:03 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:

On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:54:55 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>

On 4/3/2025 7:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>
There's a lot of news about the imminent (give or take a few months)
release of Nintendo's Switch 2 portable console. Now, generally I
couldn't give a damn about the Switch --I've little interest in
consoles, portable gaming or Nintendo games-- but one factoid did
pique my interest: apparently all future first-party games for the
Switch 2 are expected to retail at least for $70 USD.
>

Does that include the tariff for us Trump World slaves?

>
I know Trump is kind of a cartoonish,
orange-with-road-kill-on-his-head sort of douche and all, but isn't he
kind of right about the inequity that's been going on with regard to
tariffs?
>

No, actually he isn't.  It isn't simple to explain why he is wrong though.

>
It kind of is actually as long as you're not opposed to explaining
what he's wrong about.  The calculated numbers presented as if they
are actual foreign tariffs are really kind of "bottom line" numbers
that take into consideration real world trade deficit inequity.  Sort
of like if you buy a house and the mortage company sells you a 2.5%
interest rate, but then you realize with all the terms of the loan
that the real world APR is like 8% assuming you pay it off in 10 years
and grows exponentially if you can't.
>
So the "fictitious tariff" numbers are just measuring the relative
impact from countries that keep selling but not buying (doesn't sound
like free trade, does it?).  That's the source of the trade deficit he
is trying to solve.
>
It's actually a good idea if you want the US to prosper, it's just (in
his usual form) not delivered very well.  And probably not of much
interest to those who don't understand any of it.

>
And those numbers don't include a lot of non-physical services.  When
those get included the US actually has a trade surplus.

>
Are your own numbers including 600,000 or so H1B workers that come to
this country each year, most of which are writing shit/substandard
code, and not out of actual talent or demand deficit but simply as a
way to hold down costs of large scale contracts (which overcharge the
client for substandard work that will need more repair than the
initial quoted cost)?
>
When "services" like Netflix or whatever are consumed in other
countries, they are done so at a much lower rate.  A full scope
account on Netflix account in Thailand costs about $3 the last time I
was there.  So the tariff math mentioned earlier still applies.
>
>

The tariffs are here to stay.  They even the playing field.  Let's hope
all this crying doesn't convince Trump to back down.
>
Life's tough.

 They are necessary to start reeling the bullshit in.  All of these
cities with shit tons of people living in fucking tents because
snowflakism told them they have the right to opioid themselves into
oblivion and make a youtube channel about it to pay for the habit. And
once it gets to the point that gender confusion becomes part of the
educational curriculum, then you know a country is headed to hell in a
handbasket and needs correction. DEI is collapsing because stupidity
always caves in on itself.