• Ok, I see the problem; you’re not reading my replies.

    I have been bending over backwards to make it clear I’m not advocating anything in general, and that I don’t support trump or his suggestion in specific.

    You keep saying that you’ve explained tariffs in general, but most of what you’ve done is just assert they’re bad and then claim that you’ve explained it, but if you haven’t been reading my replies then of course you wouldn’t have read the questions I’ve asked about the explanations you did provided

    • @FiniteBanjo
      link
      113 days ago

      You think tariffs aren’t that bad. That’s your stance. I’ve explained to you that tariffs are bad, albeit sometimes necessary. There is no confusion here. You can’t explain it, because you’re wrong.

      • @PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        11 days ago

        No, again.

        I didn’t make a stance, I didn’t say they’re not that bad. I asked why everyone immediately shit on them, and then I asked for more information when your examination seemed contradictory in one area.

        You keep putting words in my mouth and getting angry at me for them.

        You gave me a reasonable explanation at first, and then when I asked for clarification about a part that seemed contradictory to me, I was immediately met with anger, accusations, and a repeated claim that all my questions had been answered.

        Someone else actually gave me a pretty decent answer, but then they deleted their reply before I could follow up with them 😢. It was more about posturing than about economics (although when governments posture, economics are always impacted)