this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
377 points (99.0% liked)

politics

22705 readers
3536 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 70 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Almost everything Mr. Trump said this week—on history, economics and the technicalities of trade—was utterly deluded. His reading of history is upside down. He has long glorified the high-tariff, low-income-tax era of the late-19th century. In fact, the best scholarship shows that tariffs impeded the economy back then. He has now added the bizarre claim that lifting tariffs caused the Depression of the 1930s and that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were too late to rescue the situation. The reality is that tariffs made the Depression much worse, just as they will harm all economies today. It was the painstaking rounds of trade talks in the subsequent 80 years that lowered tariffs and helped increase prosperity.

On economics Mr. Trump’s assertions are flat-out nonsense. The president says tariffs are needed to close America’s trade deficit, which he sees as a transfer of wealth to foreigners. Yet as any of the president’s economists could have told him, this overall deficit arises because Americans choose to save less than their country invests—and, crucially, this long-running reality has not stopped its economy from outpacing the rest of the G7 for over three decades. There is no reason why his extra tariffs should eliminate the deficit. Insisting on balanced trade with every trading partner individually is bonkers—like suggesting that Texas would be richer if it insisted on balanced trade with each of the other 49 states, or asking a company to ensure that each of its suppliers is also a customer.

👊🇺🇸🔥🤡

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Money is fungible so that we don't need perfectly balanced trade. It's a feature.

[–] Englishgrinn@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

In before MAGAs are on your case wondering what mushrooms have to do with anything.

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 52 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It's a shame Trump supporters won't consume anything that doesn't feed their confirmation bias.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 3 days ago (3 children)

To be fair, the economist is shit.

They cheer welfare cuts that are projected to put tens of thousands of children into poverty and complain about tiny tax increases on the rich.

The economist is the magazine of the upper class. They may be neo-liberal instead of straight up facist, but they are morally bankrupt.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 58 minutes ago* (last edited 52 minutes ago)

The Economist's journalism is some of the best anywhere, and clearly declares its bias when it's relevant to do so. It has to be that way because its readers make investment decisions based on its coverage, like its sister paper the Financial Times.

Its opinions section, on the other hand, can be odious, and they sometimes lean towards the Tories even when the Tories have policies in direct opposition towards the Economist's declared principles. There's a direct pipeline from writing for the Economist and being selected as a Tory MP. I think that's what you're reacting to.

Having said that, I wouldn't characterize even their leader writers as neoliberal. They have robustly criticized the Chicago School's many shortcomings and have ridiculed the Austrians (the economic cult, not the nationality).

I think of them similarly to Al-Jazeera: their coverage is often good, but not in areas of interest to the Qatari rulers. The same with the Economist-- its foreign coverage can be excellent (considering their point of view) but they are too ensnared in UK politics to show the same objectivity. The quality of their US correspondents is also quite variable.

And I don't see anything in their criticism of Trump's idiocy that is incorrect, though I'd go farther and note that his probable motivation is economic sabotage of the US and its trading partners, because he is Putin's stooge. There might be some Shock Doctrine smash-and-grab as a secondary goal.

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's why I canceled. They have good news reporting but they personally view countries (notably the USA) as nothing but an economic engine. They don't honestly care about the lives of the people who live there. Kind of like how they think the USA needs to cut "red tape" with DOGE but can't specify what or precisely why. But it's crickets on usable healthcare..

Same. I used to be an avid reader as a young adult but I couldn’t bear them anymore with how little they care about people. It’s all money money money, not people.

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 days ago

That's a good point, I really can't argue.

[–] hypna@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I dunno pretty sure they consume groceries

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

They've been told to stop talking about grocery prices.

[–] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago
[–] pleasegoaway@lemm.ee 42 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The trump regime was designed to TANK the US economy so that stocks, businesses, and industries can be bought by billionaires at rock bottom prices.

All is going according to plan.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That plan assumes an eventual recovery... That is looking less and less likely or feasible

[–] Frjttr@lemm.ee 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The eventual recovery is part of the plan, but you won’t be the one recovering.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Are they inmortal? Ir doing it for their great grandkids?

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This will just confirm to the MAGGAots that they're doing the right thing,.if the orthodox liberal elite are agaist it theyre in the rigth track as far as they are. .concerned.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

And if it all goes to shit they'll come up with conspiracy theories to help them avoid facing the reality of having made a mistake.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The Economist: [Endlessly promotes fascism]

...

The Economist: What's with this fascism!??!?!

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 28 points 3 days ago (2 children)

They haven't encouraged this, they've been pretty critical of trump.

They're openly capitalist and liberal.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 45 minutes ago

Liberal in the British 19th-century sense: in favor of free trade abroad and rule of law at home-- the kind of political philosophy that would suit a Manchester factory owner.

The Guardian had similar origins, but has drifted slightly leftward since its founding. It's still more sympathetic to the LibDems than towards Labour, and its discomfort with socialism could be seen in their vitriolic hatred of Corbyn.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Scratch a neoliberal...

In all seriousness, capitalism is exactly why we're here right now. (That said, technocrit is an idiot with some of the dumbest takes on this site. They blanket basically everything as fascist/fascism-adjacent, and I'm not going to say The Economist promoted this, because they didn't.)

[–] rocket_dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Like it or not, in the US the liberals were the primary opposition to fascists.

Conservative and Russian created propoganda managed to convince a lot of leftists that it was more important to fight liberals than fascists.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Like it or not, in the US the liberals were the primary opposition to fascists.

And they were ineffectual opposition that did more to help fascism than hurt it.

[–] rocket_dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 days ago (8 children)

Ineffectual, yes. As for helping fascism, the ones who helped were the ones too busy fighting liberals to fights the fascists.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] MoonManKipper@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (4 children)

I don’t think you know what fascism is? Liberal, capitalist, sure, pro Trump? Definitely not, pro fascism? definitely not…. That’s even true for the very woolly definition of fascism as most people use it today

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 4 points 3 days ago

If it's not Mao-era China, it's fascist.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

A good example of why "literally fascism!!!" Didn't get people to the polls last year.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

“LiBz!11”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TIN@feddit.uk 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Hang on, more of an unnecessary economic error than Liz Truss?! That's impressive "hold my beer" territory

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

He’s the most incompetent, demented rapist to hold the office. Many people are saying it. People are calling him Mr. Brexit. Bigly.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Here's the list - Who can find The Country Not On The List!

*timer theme*

[–] kat_angstrom@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I didn't look, but it's Russia, isn't it?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] kat_angstrom@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Eh, me too. But you get a copy of the home game!

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The actual Economist editorial is here (paywalled but archived).

[–] Hayduke@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It’s almost like he doesn’t know what the fuck he is doing. Almost like someone is telling him what to do. Someone who greatly benefits from this sort of chaos on our former allies.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

If only they had left a clue, like being passed over for the tariffs. Who could it be?

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Getting closer...

Error makes it sound like an honest mistake instead of an intentional, economic attack on the nation. Sure, Trump will probably sue for such language but on what grounds? The US government is not a business so how could it be slandered or libeled?

[–] pleasegoaway@lemm.ee 4 points 3 days ago

The trump regime was designed to TANK the US economy so that stocks, businesses, and industries can be bought by billionaires at rock bottom prices.

All is going according to plan.

[–] Geetnerd@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

"But don't I make it look easy, don't I make it look good? Eat it, peasants!"

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

A real shame he wasn’t aborted.

load more comments
view more: next ›