zlacker

>>herber+(OP)
It's pretty hard as an indicator to miss this, considering that it's one of the very rare times a government loudly and proudly declares it's going to intentionally cause a recession.

>>former+o3
A lot of supporters of the trade restrictions don't care. They're working people who don't own a lot of stocks and all they've seen is their jobs sent overseas.

To them, it doesn't even matter if things get "worse" for a while. Their life is already meeting every economic headwind imaginable.

>>bill_j+W5
Agreed, Glenn Greenwald of all people had it pegged 8.5 years ago when Trump first won and with Brexit:

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-... https://archive.ph/tfd39

I guess Vincent Bevins has the money quote:

> Los Angeles Times’s Vincent Bevins, who wrote that “both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years.” Bevins went on: “Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt.”

>>fullsh+28
The problem is that the actual solution is taxes and redistribution but if you try that, they’ll lynch you (the very people who would benefit most from it). Better to have weird Trumponomics than that.

>>kubb+7a
I don't know - we had more equitable taxes in the mid 20th century, and now that time is thought of as the golden age of America.

>>slante+5m
I don't think it's that simple. First, the US economy was supercharged by virtue of being the only economy left humming along after WW2.

Also, in the mid 20th century, the top income tax rate was 91%. Now it's 37%. Capital gains taxes were also much higher. The wealthy were taxed much more heavily during our economic boom times than now. It's not hard to think that having a more equitable distribution of wealth, not taxes, might have something to do with it.