Why else do Republicans love to defund education? Conservatism requires people to be ignorant about reality in order to have any chance at succeeding.
The OP is battling against what Faux Newz, Dipshit Donnie, and other right-wing propagandist shitrags are telling his employee, all which the employee takes as indesputable truth. If he can override that much brainwashing he can convince anyone of anything.
How does the saying about selling a lie go?
Well, a lie can be half around the world before the truth even has its boots on.
That’s because the lie’s boots have already been licked clean.
Three liars makes a tiger
But the guys in OP, they don’t turn on daddy Trump. It can’t be that they were lied to, then they’d have to do something alien to them like introspection. No, it must be…an honest mistake? Honestly have no idea how they’d justify it internally.
Because to these people, being ‘bad’ isn’t something you do, it’s something you are. You may thank certain types of Christianity for this nonsense.
So the thinking goes something like: ‘I’m a Good Person. And as a Good Person, I only vote for/support Good People, because I am Good. So the people I voted for are Good, because only a Bad Person would vote for Bad People, and I’m not Bad, I’m Good. So Trump can’t be Bad; he must have just made a mistake.’
This is also why they favor punitive jailing instead of trying to reform criminals; criminals are Bad, and so they will always do Bad Things. It’s also why they do stuff like try to get rid of abortion. If a woman got pregnant from ‘sleeping around’ then she’s a Bad Person and deserves to be punished by carrying the child to term.
“The Big Lie” is what Sanders is calling it.
How many “big lies” are we up to now?
To be fair, economics is not intuitive. Half of it is built out of unicorn dust and human imagination. How else would bitcoin even exist? For those of you who are economists and love the money side, vs the behavioral side, that’s great, we need people like you to explain it to the rest of us.
I work with a real system that will still exist no matter what happens with politics or money, so it takes work, for me. That said, tariffs and inflation are not difficult concepts provided you simply take the time to learn.
I know someone who lost their job in December due to tariffs anticipation, and they were not alone in that group of layoffs. The effects are there even if you fail to learn the reasons.
For extra sad - what is economical is more intuitive bcs it’s not just a human skill, it’s a skill nature forces all species into in one way or the other.
‘Economics’ (the human science) however adds so many extra steps, scales, and logistics that is def not immediately intuitive (even in the simple cases when it is).In both cases there is a certain element of future uncertainty so risk management is essential.
I’m of average intelligence so if I can understand it, so can they.
Honestly I’m dumb as hell, and when I didn’t understand something I just trust my friends who I know share my values. MAGAs seem to have decided they trust Trump over their children, for the most part.
He probably shares more of their values, to be fair…
It’s not that complicated that when a company with thin margins has to pay a tax, they have to pay it on to consumers.
Your finance department doesn’t care about the difference between a more expensive part due to scarcity vs a more expensive part due to a tax.
Half of it is built out of unicorn dust and human imagination.
Economics is applied psychology at scale hiding behind the idea of math and using “businesses” and “markets” to depersonalize their findings and play pretend at describing natural laws. All it’s really describing is the behavior of people, and a wildly nonrepresentative subset of people at that.
I don’t understand how they think this works
A lot of them think that the country with the tarrifs levied against them needs to pay the country they are exporting to to sell the goods there like a “If you want to do business here” tax on the country exporting.
But in all honesty even if it did work that way, the exporting country would just jack the prices up to cover it. The end result for US citizens would be the same.
But in all honesty even if it did work that way, the exporting country would just jack the prices up to cover it. The end result for US citizens would be the same.
This. It doesn’t matter whether the exporter or importer is payign the tariff, the result is the same - it increases the cost of goods, and that cost is going to get passed down the line, plus margin.
I think it actually can’t work that way at all if he does that. Theoretically, it’ll work upto 100% tarrifs but it’s way worse.
Imagine mr T says 100% tarrifs on product X, that costs $20.
If consumers pay it then it just costs $40 and it’s over. If the original country pays it then they have to pay $20 to sell $20 product, which is not profitable at all. But if they jack the price to $40, then they have to pay $40, again not profitable. So this system only works for smaller % tarrifs so that they can raise the price to cover that.
Suppose you have $2 profit (10%) on $20 item, and 20% ($4) tariffs. You can’t pay more than your profit, so you increase the price from 20 to 26, now you have 30% ($8) profit, you pay 20% ($5) tarrifs and get total 10% profit. So you see with 20% tariff you get 30% increase in cost. So this would work worse than consumers directly paying 20% tariffs.
You’re right on the math front, what I’m saying is that the exporting company/country isnt going to take a loss to sell their goods.
The question is “How do they think it works?”
Some people are just dumb. It doesn’t help that our education system is designed to produce worker bees and not educated citizens.
Worker bees don’t even get to have sex with the queen-president!! :‘’'(
Are the male bee drones the cabinet circle?
Male bees have sex once mid flight and die.
Isn’t this the same debate as to how one country can (or cannot) force another country to pay for a random construction project that isn’t in anyones interest (that wall)?
It’s not like the concept is beyond (basically, 99.9+%) anyones cognitive abilities. It’s just how ads (the science behind it is plentiful, it’s a giant business sector) work on human brains.
Man, this isn’t even “doing your research” it’s just knowing what very basic words mean.
It’s anti-intellectualism.
You don’t need to understand any of it, you can just ask people who spend their lives researching this stuff.
I bet a coworker $20 that “tariff” and “tax” were synonyms. Motherfucker refused to pay up, calling merriam-webster.com, thesauraus.com, wikipedia etc. “fake news”.
A tariff is a tax or custom duty on an imported good.
Tariffs can lead to a reduction and higher prices on foreign imported goods.[1] Like the corporate income tax, domestic consumers ultimately pay the tax in higher prices.I would’ve made you pay him. Every tariff is a tax but not every tax is a tariff. Of course your actual point still stands.
According to Merriam-Webster, “income tax” is a synonym of “value-added tax” and “property tax”. And it can be, depending on context, but few people would argue that they are always synonymous. It’s the same with “tariff” and “tax”. Whether or not they are synonymous depends on context.
That’s not what a synonym is.
My point exactly. The bet was about whether “tariff” and “tax” are synonymous. They aren’t synonymous if they describe different things, even if one of those things is a subset of the other. (This is complicated a bit by the fact that synonymity is context-dependent so in some contexts they can be synonymous. I’m assuming a general context.)
To give a different example, every iPhone is a smartphone but not every smartphone is an iPhone. The two terms aren’t synonymous except in specific contexts like when discussing the inventory of an Apple store.
In a general context, I would argue that the bet is lost – tariffs are taxes but taxes encompass more than just tariffs. The definition of synonymity is not fulfilled.
The actual point of the bet, namely to illustrate that tariffs are paid by people in the country that raised them (because they are taxes on imported goods and services), remains valid.
thesauris.com, merriam-webster, and collins all disagree with you.
They aren’t synonymous if they describe different things
This is clearly false. Obviously the degree of difference determines whether terms are synonymous. You’re correct that not all taxes are tariffs. Apparently however that doesn’t mean they’re not synonyms.
Additionally one term being a subset of the other evidently does not preclude being a synonym.
If you have a bet, and every dictionary says that you’re wrong, then you should just graciously pay up.
There are various definitions of synonymity with varying degrees of strictness. Whether something is considered synonymous depends both on how strictly one defines synonymity and on which context one operates in.
I assumed a relatively strict definition: Two terms are synonymous if and only if they can be used interchangeably in most contexts, e.g. “bigger” and “larger”. Under that definition, “tax” and “tariff” are not synonymous; “tariff” usually implies something crossing a border while “tax” doesn’t.
However, an equally correct definition is that two terms are synonymous if they have similar or related meanings within a context. Under this definition, “tax” and “tariff” are synonymous since they describe similar things – even if they aren’t interchangeable. This definition is usually used by synonym lists because it makes it a lot easier to write those lists. Annoyingly, this means that two words that are listed as synonymous in such a list aren’t necessarily synonymous in the context you’re using them in.
For example, Collins lists “tariff” and “tithe” as synonymous. Do you know anyone who pays a tariff to a church? The synonym list for “tithe” doesn’t even mention a church-specific reading; it just assumes that a tithe is some kind of tax and that’s close enough. You can write like that but your style would be seen as very flowery and wouldn’t be suitable e.g. in a scientific context.
Another correct definition, by the way, is that the two words must have exactly the same meaning in all possible readings. That one is so strict it’s practically useless for natural languages but can be use in different contexts.
Let’s look at how Merriam-Webster describes synonyms:
1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
2a: a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (such as a concept or quality)
“a tyrant whose name has become a synonym for oppression”2b: metonym
3: one of two or more scientific names used to designate the same taxonomic group
→ compare homonymAll three definitions I gave above match Merriam-Webster’s first definition, depending on whether one chooses “the same” vs. “nearly the same” and “some” vs. “all”.
Interestingly, Collins’s definition of “synonym” is very strict due to excessive brevity:
A synonym is a word or expression which means the same as another word or expression.
This doesn’t allow for similar meanings (which their own synonym lists heavily rely upon as illustrated above), which is probably not intended.
I didn’t check Thesauris since you messed up that link but so far one dictionary says “it depends” and the other one says “the meaning must be the same” (and then completely ignores its own definition). “It depends” is the best we can do.
Oh man. Do you really want to have a debate about the meaning of the word synonym?
Please, by all means, continue believing you’re right about everything.
Pretty sure everyone else will continue finding you insufferable.
Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.
Your mistake was referencing a woketionary.
That’s actually a huge problem I’ve had with a right winger.
Even though he was relatively reasonable, we got stuck because we could not agree on what fascism means.
I was good to use a dictionary or better yet Wikipedia. He said it can only mean what Mussolini meant when he came up with the term.
What was annoying is that all I wanted to do was say, group X does Y things, Y things are fascism and fascism is bad.
It’s just mental gymnastics because it doesn’t matter what we call it, group X is still doing bad things, but instead we got stuck on details.
Imo this is pretty much all right wing’s only play, dismantle the tools of logic so the conversation doesn’t even happen in the first place.
Mussolini also said that fascism was whatever it needed to be in the nation it was in, for future reference. There is only the pragmatic consolidation of power.
It does not even matter if is the state consolidating power, or the church, or corporations, only that the process is aimed at merging their powers in the end.
Hire smarter employees.
Those cost more, and with the tariffs I doubt he can afford it
deleted by creator
Of course the employee is wrong, but the OOP isn’t tackling the argument in a really productive way. There’s an opportunity to meet the employee where they are.
People caught in the right wing noise machine always seem to understand that businesses pass on business taxes to the consumer. So, if other countries were paying the tariffs, why wouldn’t they pass those costs on?
Did you read the post? It sounds like they explained it thoroughly to them prior to the tariffs going into effect and it went in one ear and out the other.
I read the post. I understood the post. Did you understand what I said?
You can be perfectly correct, or you can reach people who reject reality. You gotta decide on your goals, and understand that peacocking on the Internet isn’t useful.
You gotta decide on your goals, and understand that peacocking on the Internet isn’t useful.
Is that what I did?
You implied that they didn’t read the short post, when they clearly did.
I get what you’re saying but you’re reinforcing the belief that other countries are paying the tariffs. They’re not paying anything. A tariff is a direct tax on anyone importing products into the country.
I’m not reinforcing anything. I’m saying bypass that part entirely, and use the conservative talking points against taxes to discuss this. That the end consumer is ultimately the one that pays, no matter what.
Yeah, whenever people say “the other country pays” (well, before this election cycle) what they meant was that the higher price would encourage shoppers to buy domestic this the other country “pays” because they get less revenue. Prices would go up either way though because of the domestic goods were cheaper they would’ve already been the first pick. The thing about taxes is that it doesn’t really matter if it’s placed on the supply or demand side, the end effect is the same. Sure, it will feel different and there might be different short term effects, but it’s the same regardless. The price is higher and government gets a cut.
So I don’t really understand why people believe that even if the foreign country/company was paying the tariff why people would think prices stay the same. As if other countries are just going to get a 25% fee and not increase prices by ~25% to cover that.
The most charitable argument for Trump would be that foreign businesses reduce their prices such that the price paid by their US customers is the same as before the tariffs to remain competitive in the US market, but I think most MAGAs literally just never thought about it.
I wrote a comment explaining Tariffs on a Fox News YouTube video a few weeks back, and the entire reply chain was people arguing with eachother about how tariffs work because “Trump said it’s a tax on other countries, so that’s how they work”
It’s the problem that reality is more complicated than the simplified version trump gives his followers.
If you don’t know how something works and someone very confidently tells you how it works and it sorta maps onto familiar concepts, boy is that catnip.
Maybe all the countries are just sitting around like people and Canada is like a guy buying our stuff and we are just making that guy pay a tax. I’m a guy, I pay taxes, sucks to be that guy but probably rules to be the guy getting the tax revenue, and now trump made that us, awesome!!!
Transmitting this wrong idea is fast because it maps onto their lived experiences. It’s easy for them to conceptualize Canada as a single monolithic entity that is buying shit and having to pay a tax. So in one stroke they get a double dopamine hit.
- I’m not dumb, I get how this all works, and it was pretty easy!
- we get to collect these taxes instead of having to pay them, awesome!!!
So here you come to explain, “that’s not how any of this works” Canada isn’t one entity, it’s many. Sure the tariff is on their stuff, but it’s paid by the person buying it, us. And you can go on about all the ways they are wrong but you are threatening the fact that they are not dumb and they already understand this and their understanding means they are winning. So you want them to admit they are dumb and getting fucked and that’s a hard sale.
This is the real danger of hypernormalization, it allows people like trump to replace the complexity of reality with a fake but simpler version. And it’s so dangerous because the people that buy in to that fake but simpler version have this weird insane incentive to defend it.
You’re doing god’s work in the hellish trenches
That’s front line in “Trench Crusade” level of trenches.
Where was this posted?
Oh, Reddit! Thanks.
No problem. I remembered seeing the self.[subredditname] sometimes in the reddit is fun app, before they killed it.
deleted by creator
Important note - literacy isn’t simply about being able to recognize and pronounce letters and words. A person can sound out every word in English, and understand what each word says, and still be illiterate if they cannot comprehend the message the words express together.
That’s where this illiteracy arises - it’s a failure of reading comprehension. In this light, I imagine many of us have attempted conversation online with somebody functionally illiterate.
Literacy is also about English (at least as commonly reported in the US). About 1/3 of functionally illiterate adults in the US are foreign born. I have never seen literacy stats that measure “literate in any language”.
That’s still really bad. If 2/3 of illiterate people were born in America, that really highlights how inconsistent education is in America.
When I was a kid, I lived in a regular suburban neighborhood but the middle school and high schools that I was zoned for were so awful that my parents enrolled me into a charter school. (The elementary school was fine) Since then, some of the crappy schools in my city are now magnet schools and so my parents’ house appears to be zoned to different schools. There appears to be less public schools now. That’s probably not a good thing.
“Are you saying 1 fouth of Americans are removed?” “Yeah at least 1 fourth.”
Im still surprised by that , the quality of education in my country is low but holly fuck im stunned by the lack of education in the states
It is highly regional, too.
Despite the existence of the Department of Education (which Trump is trying to dismantle), there is no national standard for education in the US. In general, each state is free to decide upon its own policies and standards.
Some states, such as those in the northeast, have very high-performing school systems. So when that “1 in 5 are illiterate” statistic is mentioned (I actually have not verified that number, just quoting the prior claim as an example), it would be caused by low-performing states where the situation is much more dire dragging down the national average.
Here’s a general look at quality of education in the US by state, though recommend folks look up their own numbers because I haven’t validated the numbers pulled in the article I grabbed this from.
It’s not a perfect divide between red states and blue states (Florida appears good, California less so, as an example), but in general we see the lower performing states located mainly in the South where the Republicans have more support. Basically, a less educated populace is easier to manipulate.
I was reading into this recently and the reason Florida is so high on these lists is because post-secondary education is very cheap. Their K-12 education is on the garbage end of the spectrum.
For extra fun, look into where school districts allocate their funding and how it relates to their rankings. Some of the worst performing public schools spend a lot more on athletics than they spend on anything else. It’s like they want to be professional athlete mills instead of functioning adult mills.
It’s by design.
“He was told the other countries pay the tariffs”, by a bunch of liars and he believed the liars.
The real hard part is it’s a partial truth.
The sellers do pay the tariffs, they just don’t talk about what that does to the prices.
The other problem is it cuts both ways, and a number of the idiots will say as long as you’re hurting them too, fine.
And then we have retaliatory tariffs, which also cut both ways.
IMHO, our biggest issue is we’ve been using cheap Chinese products and labor as a crutch instead of increasing wages. They’ve been able to cut down wages because Amazon, Temu and Shein have been providing products WAY WAY under marketable US made prices.
There are people who don’t know how tariffs work?
If America is the sole buyer, then the tax would be shared between both countries. (Lower demand will lower the price that the foreign supplier can ask for, making up some of the extra tax cost). But since USA is doing these tariffs on so many countries, other countries will just lay new trading routes.
So yeah, USA will feel it.
