site banner
PaperclipPerfector  30d ago (text post)   33444 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 31, 2025

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This will be a dry post: I'm laying out my thoughts over the tariff discussions of the last few days as succinctly as I can.

Dangers to tariffs:

  • Tariffs that are higher than other countries can incentivize domestic companies to move abroad to gain access to cheaper inputs. It has similar negative incentives to a high corporate income tax (the latter of which was reduced in 45's term to be more in line with the rest of the world).
  • Danger of a trade war loss. If you don't have market power (attractive consumer base or exports) then a trade war is likely to end in a loss. Costs will be passed to citizens. The US is rather unique in having outsized market power.
  • Protectionism can lead to complacency in the citizenry. Lack of competition breeds inefficiency and lethargy. The workforce and economy needs to be sufficiently diverse to maintain competition.
  • Less efficient global distribution of resources.
  • Tariffs are distortionary in a way that (flat) income tax and universal sales tax are not.
  • Less foreign investment (assuming trade deficit shrinks). A trade deficit means US dollars go abroad: those dollars have to come back somehow, usually in the form of investment. Losing this foreign injection of capital is a double edged sword: a benefit is that it will make investments cheaper for domestic savers (cheaper stocks, cheaper housing). This will benefit younger generations who are buying the cheaper stocks and housing at the expense of retirees.

Economic/Political Benefits to tariffs:

  • If you are in a position of strength, it can distort the global economy in your favor. Companies may wish to domicile in your country (especially if you have low corporate income tax rates) in order to access your consumers and/or workforce.
  • Supply chains will become more intra-national, improving national security.
  • If you are in a position of strength, it is a useful foreign policy tool.
  • If everyone else is doing tariffs except you, then the economy is already distorted; and implementing reciprocal tariffs may "un-distort" the global economy.
  • If you want to raise revenue and you don't fear a trade war, tariffs may have less of an impact on GDP as other methods of taxation (eg, income tax).

Ideological benefits to tariffs:

  • Less interconnected global economy leads to less systemic risk (anti-fragile). The revealed fragility of supply chains during Covid shocked me, and made me realize we have traded efficiency for instability. I wrestle with this on a more local level here: https://pyotrverkhovensky.substack.com/p/texas-roadhouse.
  • Destruction of the Bretton-Woods post-war hegemony.
  • Reciprocal tariffs punishes other nations for constantly hitting "defect" in an iterative "trade" game. It could force the world towards a better equilibrium.
  • Tariffs are explicitly allowed in the Constitution, income tax had to have an amendment.

Other thoughts:

If you are going to do protectionism, tariffs are better than subsidies.

Tariffs will change the relative cost of goods, but being a tax they should be net deflationary rather than inflationary.

Sanctions are like extreme "reverse" tariffs; if Russia and Iran are any example energy-rich countries seem to weather sanctions well.

Speaking of tarriffs, can someone help me with the economics/math I've seen? How does a price level rise of by 2.3% in the short-run, the equivalent of an average per household consumer loss of $3,800 work? Is it saying that the average household spends over $150k per year (and that thosr at the bottom, losing $1,700, spend almost $80k)? What am I missing? I've seen these numbers floating around (sometimes as much as "$5,000 per household"), and I cannot seem to figure out that math.

Responding to myself: I've found the source of the $5,000 claim I've seen floating around: The average tariff burden is estimated by dividing the total expected tariff revenue per year, $600 billion, by the total number of U.S. households in 2024, 132 million

I'm assuming, as has been said elsewhere, that this sort of math is not done with sales/corporate taxes or any other sort of tax increase. At least not by the same people.

That estimate shows zero understanding of economics. The actual tariff burden will be the deadweight loss caused by relative price changes as imported goods become more expensive. Relative price changes and imports becoming more expensive are driven by the elasticity of consumer demand for imports and the price pressure that US companies (such as Walmart) can put on their global suppliers, respectively.

The 600 billion is only tangentially related to the actual tariff burden, and, being government revenue, is actually a benefit to US households (the money can be returned to US households via tax breaks, spending, or debt servicing).

I suppose the assumption is that companies will raise prices on imported goods dollar-for-dollar with the tariff increases.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats