This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Even if you want that, the change in tariffs from one day to another is just staggering here. Say what you will about stupid, counterproductive left-wing economics (which I'm certainly not a fan of!), but they almost always make sure that they don't rock the boat too much in the short term at least (Corona aside).
Look I hate shocks as much as anyone. There's some discussion to be had about how gradual things like this can even be done, but my main annoyance is that people are acting like this is insane on the face of it when it's merely a dubious implementation of something that the people in power don't like.
Given a certain level of risk dubious implementations can be insane. Who Trump is and how he acts cannot help but color the whole thing.
I'll try out an experimental new vacuum cleaner from a sketchy salesman. I'd be significantly more skeptical if he offered me a revolutionary new surgery. It would be insane of him to even offer.
More options
Context Copy link
"People in power" here being "people who have a 401k and buy things."
I feel it might be useful here to remind you that only 30% of the US population actively participates in a 401k.
I understand that pretty much everyone is a stock holder one way or another these days, but you may be overestimating what the median person directly has to lose in a crash. And how that compares to people who own assets that aren't home equity.
In 2022 nearly 60% of American households had some stock market exposure, with a median of 50k and a mean of 480k invested. Tanking the S&P is well into the territory of materially hurting the median voter.
What do you think the word "directly" means? And why do you think I added it in that sentence?
I'm well aware most US retirement funds are invested in the S&P500.
If you acknowledge that the median American has stock market exposure, I'm not sure what there really is to argue about.
Only a minority of people are on defined benefit pension plans that are perhaps what you, as a European, envision when you think about retirement funds.
Most people are on defined contribution plans, whether that's a 401k, IRA, 403b, or some employer invested plan, are "directly" affected by the market tanking because they have no guaranteed payouts. The payouts are simply what the market provides. None of those people are gonna want to hear about how their positions taking a shit is OK because it's not "direct" exposure under some gerrymandered definition.
I understand all this. But I think you underestimate the psychological effect of holding investments yourself versus having somebody else do it for you.
People will setup these kinds of products and not even look at or understand the report sheets they get through the mail. Especially if we're talking about retirement plans, that kind of thing is always behind some boring layer of bureaucracy. And it's retirement so it's always far away in your mind until it isn't.
I distinctly remember that in 2009 when the market crashed, many people I talked to took an attitude of "fuck them rich fat cats" despite me knowing for a fact that they were invested in products like the ones you describe.
401ks and (especially) IRAs are held by you, though. I can log on to vanguard and see how much money I have there along with my brokerage account. I make investment decisions for that money, etc. No bureaucracy involved.
Your argument holds perhaps for company managed funds, but it's not clear to me how many people even have those these days.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Their job? Clearly America forgot their lesson from Smoot-Hawley and people will have to endure double digit unemployment again to remember it. If we're lucky this one might put Republicans out of power for twenty years again.
Well that probably won't happen but largely because Trump will probably climb part way down at some stage.
Smoot-Hawley was not the problem, the Fed was the problem. Smoot-Hawley didn't even get passed under the year after the great crash, and the slow recovery was due to deflation and monetary policy, not tariffs.
More options
Context Copy link
Well that and the fact that central banks have been so laser focused on making sure a depression never happens since the 30s that people don't even think it's possible anymore.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link