domain:philippelemoine.com
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
20m ago
Oren Cass is the guy to watch right now. Trump's plan is basically what Cass has been begging for the past couple of years (though Cass understandably feels like Trump's implementation could use some work.) Below are all from Oren Cass-run outlets:
Policy Brief: The Global Tariff: https://americancompass.org/policy-brief-the-global-tariff/
O Canada! Time to Talk Tariffs: https://www.understandingamerica.co/p/o-canada-time-to-talk-tariffs
The One Word that Explains Globalization's Failure, and Trump's Response: https://www.understandingamerica.co/p/the-one-word-that-explains-globalizations
America's Three Demands https://www.understandingamerica.co/p/americas-three-demands
No Pain, No Gain On Canada and Mexico Tariffs: https://commonplace.org/2025/03/25/no-pain-no-gain-on-canada-and-mexico-tariffs/
How to Think About Liberation Day: https://commonplace.org/2025/04/04/how-to-think-about-liberation-day/
And bonus essay: China’s Tariff-Dodging Move to Mexico Looks Doomed" https://archive.is/m7a9L
2rafa
21m ago
Since 2000 the Democrats and Republicans have been in power for the same amount of time.
Lewis2
36m ago
Last year, and so far this year, I avoided putting anything into an IRA, expecting a stock market decline sooner or later. I still have a week to make contributions for 2024. Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether now would be a good time to buy, or whether I should just forgo any IRA contributions for 2024? (I did put money aside in my now decimated 401k.)
Potato
1hr ago
Easy to say with hindsight. What do you think looks good in the next 10 years?
Markets are pretty efficient. We as individuals are significantly less efficient.
mrvanillasky
1hr ago
That explains why you see both being used side by side.
How helpful is it to have these trademarks for things though? Beyond the benefits that people in the geographical region of champagne
Lizzardspawn
1hr ago
Anyone here tried doing DDR/Stepmania for cardio? I am thinking about it because it get the hardest part of cardio - total and utter boredom out.
2rafa
2hr ago
We are in the present situation because the system was not working well, even relatively. Likewise, the previous system was absolutely chockablock with liars, morons, grifters and cranks of all stripes.
It provided a better quality of life for the median American than for almost anyone else on earth, so yeah, it was working objectively pretty well.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3hr ago
I figured I'd better ask because, well, it's not like Trump can't order a nuclear test, and it probably wouldn't even be the most shocking thing he's done this year (though ordering a nuke used in anger would). Hell, I'm not even sure it'd be a bad idea, if only to check that they still work.
OliveTapenade
3hr ago
"You're Catholic" is absolutely a valid criticism of someone trying to convince you that some piece of information proves that Catholicism is true. The piece of information truly might prove that Catholicism is true, but an already-believing Catholic can't be trusted to make that judgment call.
I'm ambivalent on how reasonable this is.
On the one hand, a Catholic would seem to have a natural bias towards the truth of Catholicism. If we are evaluating some novel piece of information that may or may not bear on the truth of Catholicism, we should expect the Catholic to be predisposed to interpreting that evidence in ways that support the truth of Catholicism. In that sense knowing that the person is Catholic should make us more skeptical of any Catholicism-supporting conclusions they draw.
On the other hand... I would expect people who encounter evidence that Catholicism is true to be disproportionately Catholic, because factual beliefs can be motivating. Suppose there's an argument that, if correct, shows that Catholicism is true. Obviously people who think that the argument is correct are going to convert to Catholicism - I'd question anybody who didn't. To say that we can't trust Catholics on the subject of Catholicism is to stack the deck. People who find Catholicism convincing become Catholics. If by doing so they remove themselves from the community of people with whom we can have reasonable discussion about Catholicism, well, then we would seem to have an arbitrary prejudice against Catholicism. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, for any belief or ideology.
For instance - you can't trust evolutionary biologists on the subject of whether evolution is true. They're evolutionary biologists! We should immediately distrust the testimony of people who believe evolution is true on the subject of evolution. That seems absurd. So too with everything else.
The problem is that both these points seem compelling to me, to an extent, especially because for an overarching ideology like Catholicism, people are likely to adopt Catholicism for reasons unrelated to the merits of any given argument. This is less the case for a specific theory like evolution, though ideologies like rationalism, conservatism, socialism, etc., are more like Catholicism than they are like evolution. I think where I end up is that we should not rule partisans of a particular ideology out of discussions of that ideology, though we should be aware of their biases and take them into account. Thus, say, Catholics can and should be consulted on the subject of whether or not Catholicism is true (we can hardly expect anybody else to make the case for Catholicism!), but we should be more critical than usual of their assessments of new information.
On Hanania specifically:
Now, it's possible that it is factually not the case that it's his schtick, but rather that he genuinely takes a skeptical look at each new piece of evidence and is helplessly forced to conclude, despite his best efforts to prove otherwise, that his narrative is shown to be correct yet again.
I guess I don't see a valid criticism of Hanania here relatively to other pundits. Yes, I'm sure it's true that his positions are a combination of sincere assessment of new data and his best interpretation thereof and a retrofitting of that new data into his existing conceptual framework. He has an existing view or narrative of the world, he will think that narrative is correct or at least the best, most plausible one available, and when he obtains new information, he starts by trying to fit that information into that narrative.
But the last I checked that was how everybody thinks. Everybody has narratives or interpretative frameworks that they apply to experience, and first interpret new evidence in ways that fit with their existing categories. It's only when new evidence becomes overwhelming, or else so dramatically contradicts the existing framework as to be undeniable, that they are forced to reconsider.
I'd say that, by default, everyone should be presumed to be falling prey to confirmation bias all the time, doubly so if their preferred narrative is self aggrandizing, triply if that person is particularly intelligent and thus better able to fit evidence to narrative. It's only by credibly demonstrating that they are open to other narratives that they can earn any sort of credibility that their arguments have any relationship with reality. That's where showing oneself to be capable of undermining one's preferred narrative comes in, and there's no better way to demonstrate this capability than by doing it.
Can you think of any particular examples of this? The thing is, what this sounds like to me in practice is the idea that everybody should be presumed to be dishonest except for people who have radically changed their belief systems.
That seems like a heuristic that will easily lead one astray - it would imply, for a start, that inconsistent opportunists are more (intellectually) trustworthy than people who stick to their principles. Doesn't that seem bizarre?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
4hr ago
War deaths aren't a significant part of this, Russia hasn't lost even 1% of their population, let alone 99%.
If the Carnegie Foundation of all people is saying that 'the working class in Russia are doing well off the war and that's why they're supporting Putin' when they have every incentive to deny it, then the case in favour must be overwhelming.
octopus_eats_platypus
4hr ago
It's a pretty clear metaphor.
'Dropped a bomb' is an idiom that means delivering bad news. 'Dropped a nuke' is the former but much more impactful.
OliveTapenade
4hr ago
How can that be distinguished from any pundit who has a consistent worldview, though? Certainly we should take all pundits with a grain of salt, but I can't see anything that makes Hanania worse or less trustworthy than any comparable pundit. Scott Alexander has a bunch of narratives that he's selling - rationalism, effective altruism, AI nonsense. Freddie deBoer has a bunch of narratives he's selling - Marxism, socialism, education reform. Matt Yglesias has a bunch of narratives he's selling - YIMBYism, economic centrism. It feels to me like you're holding Hanania to a higher standard that every other Substack bloviator out there.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4hr ago
Not always. Yudkowsky's example of "if the world will end in ten years, and you know this, this won't help you make money" holds water. Things shaped similarly to this also tend to be hard to make money from, due to difficulty collecting winnings and/or spending them; being a nuclear doomer might mean that I'm unusually well-equipped to survive a nuclear war, but I haven't figured out a way to actively profit from it.
There's also the famous (or perhaps infamous) saying, "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent". Frauds tend to go up and up and up before they come down; knowing they're fraudulent without knowing the exact timing of said fraud's discovery means you might not be able to hold out against the margin calls.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
4hr ago
tequilas or agaves (for copyright reasons)
This is closer to trademark, not copyright.
-
Copyright = creative work
-
Patent = useful innovation
-
Trademark = identity
mrvanillasky
4hr ago
Toddies are great even without liquor. I had it once with some Danish tourists in during polo and ended up drinking 5 glasses. Warm milk with brandy? What's that like
Beer here in India is terrible. The best sparkling beverage I've had has to be shoju or whatever the sparkling Korean flavored liquor is?
I had a few of those on the night I met those two Danish chicks that later unfortunately passed away in Laos. There were some people in our group and we downed that and some whiskey in front of the liquor shop in Pai. Sweet memory.
mrvanillasky
5hr ago
Literally me. I never liked the bitter taste, so I drink for the effect, if it cane be sweet, it'll be sweet.
One exception would be tequilas or agaves (for copyright reasons) where they taste pretty good with just some water or clubs soda.
Sugars in liquor fuck you up so if I do pick up liquor, I'll have to either stick to that or use artificial sweeteners in my beverages.
One wierd thing I really enjoyed but never could try again was a popcorn margarita or some beverage made with popcorn syrup, best tasting thing I had that year.
TowardsPanna
5hr ago
Development runs mainly before vs after GFC + OWS being dismantled with identity politics... Is that pure coincidence?
curious_straight_ca
5hr ago
They really aren't. You could predict AI being a big deal much better by reading blogposts than looking at stock prices.
curious_straight_ca
5hr ago
Universal tariffs are words that fail the antagonism rule not a good policy fit for any reasonable goal. If you want a muscular government to intervene in the economy, actually do that. if you want to encourage manufacturing and defense production, if you want to downsize the parasitic financial economy, if you want good jobs for poor white Americans, if you want America to produce steel and ships (for shipping or the navy) and toasters and drones and nuclear power plants ... then actually do that. Subsidize specific industries. Do huge advance market commitments. Partner with a red state, eminent domain some land, rubber-stamp all the regulatory hurdles, and build those nuclear plants. Pick some startup CEO and replace the slow defense procurement process with "that guy decides". Ban imported Chinese products that infringe on domestic IP. Implement a 50% tax on hedge fund profits. Do the Yarvin where you just ban mass-produced shoes and clothing. Whatever. Those are the kind of policies that could, in principle, do the thing you want them to. One of them might even actually be a good idea. But there's an actual connection between the goal and the action, unlike with universal tariffs.
The fundamental principle behind universal tariffs is "We need to do something. This is something [we can do]. Therefore, we need do this". Way in the past, when we didn't have computers or even telegraphs and governments were less powerful, tax collection was just a lot harder, and trade with foreign countries necessarily occurred at borders and especially ports, so tariffs were the government's biggest source of revenue, so the concept of tariffs got a lot of mindshare. Later, US Congress delegated tariff power to the President as a way to negotiate trade agreements after they passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and caused a trade war. So the right's thinking about it because we did it in the based old days, and Trump's thinking about it because it's a thing he can do without needing Congress. And, if you think about it a little, there are arguments for why it'd bring manufacturing back and increase lower class wages and such, it doesn't sound that implausible. (There are arguments for a lot of things.) So, in an intellectual environment where ideas aren't exactly rigorously scrutinized, "tariff everything" does very well.
(Or, Trump got a big beautiful red button that makes everyone, especially the libs, mad when he presses it. Of course he'll press it. Why reach for a more complicated explanation?)
The thing is, the 100 year old rusty tool you found in your grandfather's toolbox isn't the best choice to fix your Tesla, or your modern economy. If you're hoping the 50% tariffs on Vietnam will bring back those jobs for working class Americans, wages and gdp per capita there are less than a tenth of America's, and 1.5 is a lot less than 10. It'll make a difference on the margin, but it won't make Americans start buying clothing made of American cloth and put together by American hands. Universal tariffs are too blunt an instrument - tariffs large enough to actually bring all the jobs back would crush the economy, because it's currently deeply integrated with the outside world. And bringing back manufacturing wouldn't even bring back manufacturing employment. Americans don't want to work for Vietnam wages, but American robots will happily work at a total cost above Vietnam wages but below American wages.
"Yes-chad", I might say to all that. Yes, I want to destroy the degenerate, consumerist, metastasized economy. Yes, I don't want cheap garbage from foreign countries. America needs harsh medicine.
Even in that case, universal tariffs still aren't the right tool. If you want such radical change, you either need buy-in from the population because of the "democracy" thing, or something like regime change. In the former case, crashing the stock market and raising prices for the garbage everyone loves just doesn't sell! Peoples' jobs depend on particular economic arrangements, companies with specific suppliers and specific markets, and in current_year many of those suppliers and markets are in foreign countries, so huge universal tariffs that last for years means a lot of people will lose their jobs. People generally don't like that. Maybe with careful state management of a transition to something closer to autarky, people could be convinced. But universal tariffs don't do that, they're a sudden shock.
So, regime change. The thing about regime change is you need a lot more support than you do to do things through the normal democratic process. Often but not necessarily from the masses, but certainly from some people. Universal tariffs destroys elite buy-in, because you're nuking their stocks and businesses. It's the kind of thing you need to do after the coup, not before it. And once you get to absolute public policy, you can hopefully more directly pursue your desired outcome.
Targeted tariffs aren't as dumb as universal tariffs. America really should make chips, and ships, in America. But if even the Jones Act isn't enough to make America build American ships, moderate tariffs probably won't be either.
ControlsFreak
5hr ago
there is no more sacred political principle in Quebec than the belief that the French language must be protected by law. These laws would undoubtedly violate the first amendment.
Minor part of your broader point, but could you sketch out the argument here? I'm not sure whether I'm missing some portion of what these laws do or some portion of 1A precedent.
Doesn't seem to be much pro-tariff writing visible at the moment, presumably because the usual suspects hate Trump more than they love accusing "free trade" of being the libertarian equivalent of crystalline Lisp pyramids.
Here are a few pieces I found lying around:
Michael Pettis, Foreign Affairs
Matt Stoller, newsletter
Not necessarily endorsed. Though I don't necessarily regard global efficiency as desirable when it's under somebody else's control, long run.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5hr ago
They’re a net negative at present because most companies are tooled for a free-trade environment. They generally outsource the labor needed to produce goods by building factories overseas or importing goods or inputs. Depending on what happens, 5 years from now it might not be a problem at all.
Drinniol
5hr ago
Well, of course, those that have died in the war don't drag down the average standard of living, being dead.
But if you did still count them, how much would being dead when they otherwise would have been alive move the average?
If I take 100 people, kill 99, and give all their money to the last 1 alive, I suppose I've dramatically increased the average income and the average standard of living, haven't I?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6hr ago
I think gattsuru's response might have been meant for jkf's comment next to your's.
Core things like that in Quebec many things must be in French, from store signs to school classes.
More options
Context Copy link