Hacker News Reader

Comment by lsc | Hacker News Reader

>There is real desperation in this country. That's why Trump is President. People didn't vote for him because they are racist. They voted for him because they worry about putting food on their tables. They worry about being left behind in a world that has fewer and fewer ways for the average Joe to dream about a future. They're angry, rightfully so, and in Trump, they found someone willing to listen

How do you square the poverty story above with the fact that trump ran on a fiscally conservative platform, within a fiscally conservative party that promises to reduce the safety net?

View on HN

Not everyone believes that the solution to poverty is welfare. I imagine many of his voters believe the solution looks more like protectionism. Which is basically what his plan is.

I'm not claiming they're right. I'm just claiming that you can be a fiscal conservative and still think you have the solution to poverty.

But isn't protectionism a lot like inflation, in that it can stimulate labor demand while making things more expensive? (And is often called a hidden redistributive tax)

My impression is that this party is as much against inflation as it is against handouts, while inflation occupies the same niche as trade protectionism in that it can stimulate job growth without seeming like a handout.

This is the first I've ever heard of protectionism as a form of inflation; I doubt that the average Trump voter would believe what you're saying here. I mean, I don't believe it, and I voted for McMullin.

Well, technically it's a tax, but it doesn't matter to the consumer if it's a tax, especially one this upstream, that makes a commodity more expensive.

I have to assume that many don't want a safety net; they want to be able to be able to support themselves.

Which is fine... but personally, I don't see that much difference between charging a tax that makes my imported goods more expensive (in an effort to subsidize American workers) and, say, just setting up some sort of reverse income tax, or strengthening the Earned Income Credit or what have you so that you directly tax me and directly give those dollars to people who don't have competitive job skills. If anything, I bet the latter would be more 'efficient' in that I'd have to pay fewer dollars to keep those folks fed and housed, just 'cause if you make imports more expensive, sure, more stuff will be manufactured here, but most of that manufacturing is going to be done by robots, so it seems to me you'd mostly be making me pay more for stuff I buy, then turning around and increasing the demand for labor from people with my sorts of skills.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com