this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
13 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2244 readers
31 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 14 points 5 months ago

Wow, the libertarian magazine doesn't like tariffs??

[–] DdCno1@beehaw.org 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As expected, the article doesn't even mention China's own extremely restrictive tariffs, including those on foreign-made cars.

[–] InevitableList@beehaw.org 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why would it? Reason has never targeted a Chinese audience.

[–] DdCno1@beehaw.org 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Because context matters. In the same vein, the hidden and thereby illegal state subsidies Chinese electric car makers are receiving should also be mentioned. Biden's tariffs aren't happening in a vacuum.

[–] drwho@beehaw.org 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"Illegal state subsidies?" From whom?

[–] DdCno1@beehaw.org 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'll let you figure out where Chinese car makers are getting their subsidies from.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I think their point is legality is relative ... surely what China is doing is legal in China. "Unreasonable" would be a better term than illegal.

[–] drwho@beehaw.org 2 points 5 months ago

Got it in one.

[–] DdCno1@beehaw.org 2 points 5 months ago

It's not relative. The moment a Chinese good is being sold outside of China, it has to follow local laws, which includes laws against market manipulation. Chinese manufacturers and sellers have been ignoring them for a long time, but there is finally some pushback.

[–] leetnewb@beehaw.org 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not all that convincing, particularly when it draws quotes from other libertarian sources.

[–] Amoxtli@thelemmy.club 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Did you want communist sources?

[–] off_brand_@beehaw.org 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wait what source would you consider Communist outside of relevant state medias?

[–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 4 points 5 months ago

anyone left of NewsMax

[–] leetnewb@beehaw.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Strangely, no notification of your response on my screen like I normally get from post responses.

Anyway, I'm just saying that an article from an expressively libertarian education platform citing an outwardly libertarian think tank is a double whammy of credibility degradation. A communist source would generally be bad, a communist source citing a communist source would be double bad. I just don't think publications with a proud ideological bent make for reliable sources, but that charge is less meaningful if they draw on information and content that is unaligned with their core beliefs.