101 karma · joined August 14, 2016
If China is discounting their goods, and consumers are paying for the tariff as taxes, then there is additional strain on China's ability to compete, which might bring back industry here, but more likely to Mexico, which is now getting the same treatment.
US taxpayers are basically now paying a more efficient form of taxes, since it's a tax on behavior we want to reduce, and it's largely offloaded from the consumer by the Chinese price reduction.
On the other hand, I only like tariffs to offset anti-competitive tactics. Given a little time, government will get hooked on the revenue source and US manufacturers will get soft from having hobbled competition.
I see a very different picture of why he does what he does. In this case, I think he's trying to pressure House Democrats into signing the USMCA, which would remove the tariff and give Pelosi the ability to claim she stopped him. If they don't, then he still meets his goals of renegotiating trade to reduce deficits.
He also isn't negotiating this in a vacuum. It sends a message to China and everyone else that deals will be renegotiated, whether they come to the table or not. One of his primary skills is forcing people into situations where if they try to ignore him, it hurts them greatly. He maintains his constant press coverage by saying something terrible about an issue he thinks he can win. He takes the hit and then fights his way up the resulting maelstrom.
My question is, if photosynthetic carbon capture is nutrient limited, what happens when we are adding both CO2 and phosphorus to the environment? Does everything grow better? And what's the next limiting nutrient?
There's a nearly inevitable lack of conscience within deeply established institutions where people, in committee, are paid to seek an outcome.
I agree with other comments that things like his fight with the diver was unhelpful. I don't know what was really behind the threat to take things private. Hopefully he learned something and will focus again on what he does best.
Sometimes, established industry needs someone from outside to threaten do do something even if it isn't the most profitable thing to do. I remember when iphones were charging for ringtones and wallpaper. Google's decision to make an open source OS, and threat to build a phone for it if no one else would, changed the whole game.
I'd rather invest time or money in Musk, despite the risk, just because he built the car, landed the rocket, and I want him to be able to do it again. I can respect an investor who just wants a safe return, but they should invest elsewhere and good riddance. He doesn't need that kind of investor always threatening to pull their money if he doesn't play it safer. Maybe instead of going public, he should start the world's largest Kickstarter.
Invest in Musk if you believe the future won't happen fast enough if you don't. A corporate board making all the decisions would have been long ago crushed by big oil or bigger manufacturers, or their patents bought and buried to continue the status-quo.
Obviously, it's just one factor among many, but I think heavy social safety nets and regulations make a lot more sense to people in very populated locations and a lot of interactions and anonymity than they do out in the countryside, who would prefer to be left to themselves with no one else's hand in their wallet.
It looks like your data is by county. I wonder to what extent it would be clearer if it were down to the city level. A large, mostly empty county with a dense city in it is going to skew the data differently than a small county with city.
I'm not sure genetic mapping is really the core of the issue anyway. What we need is the equivalent of a reverse vaccination, since celiac is essentially an immunity to wheat. Such a concept might do for chronic disease what vaccination did for acute.