6 ms·

U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

50 points by sky_nox 7y ago

munk-a 7y ago
That's some particularly hilarious timing giving boeing's recent "unsafe to fly our plans" headline news. As someone in Canada it's been disappointing to watch the massive internal subsidies given to Boeing (from the US government) help sink Bombardier - though the company also did under-perform.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  Doesn't every country do the same thing— albeit perhaps not at the same scale? When Embraer complained about Bombardier's subsidies from the Canadian government, the WTO decided that they were illegal. Then Bombardier complained about Embraer's subsidies from the Brazilian government and the WTO decided that those are illegal too.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Yea, but the WTO hasn't gone after the blatant US protectionism - that's the issue. Most other countries are kept relatively in check in terms of trade fairness, but the US is riding their golden chariot.
    - Rebelgecko 7y ago
      I'm assuming the justification for the EU tariffs was the WTO's decision last month that the state of Washington is giving Boeing an illegal subsidy in the form of tax breaks.
  - matt4077 7y ago
    It's probably somewhat rare in industrialised democracies these days. Many trade deals limit subsidies (hence this WTO ruling). It is also difficult to give one-off subsidies in diversified markets, because (domestic) competitors would complain/sue. The EU has especially stringent rules against this, making (for example) shenanigans such as Amazon's HQ2 race-to-the-bottom impossible. That's also what got Apple and Ireland into trouble. It's effectively a cartel of countries pooling power to counter multinationals' ability to offshore profits to the cheapest jurisdiction. The are exemptions: The EU and US massively support agriculture with direct payments. Canada does the same with milk quotas. (These two systems are somewhat incompatible: allowing subsidised US milk to be sold for Canada's protected high prices would amount to double dipping. Hence some disagreements across that particular border). Aircrafts are a rather special beast: there's a national security angle, they are objects of national pride, and both the EU and US have one large manufacturer. Airbus is also diversified across many EU countries, assuring them wide political support.
  - village-idiot 7y ago
    Subsidy of “national champion” companies is pretty common but not universal. Sweden allowing Saab to fail without opening up the national purse comes to mind. Defense related industries are typically pretty pretty high on the subsidy list though, for all the obvious reasons.
Thorncorona 7y ago
The irony of Boeing complaining about favorable treatment by the government is palpable.
- olliej 7y ago
  Other countries are going to start ignoring FAA safety rulings now, so meaning that in exchange for a short term monetary gain a bunch of politicians and executives will probably cause significant long term costs - although the people who made those decisions and took those bribes won't have to pay for those consequences, they've already got there's :-/
  - dmix 7y ago
    This is some weak logic. So a super-high capital business like an Airline is going to flaunt aircraft safety rules, potentially risking hundreds of lives of their customers and employees... to what exactly? Buy some cheaper uncertified Chinese(?) aircrafts or fly other certified aircrafts unsafely...to make a little extra money? And then run away when the lawsuits and families of the dead come chasing you?
    - village-idiot 7y ago
      There’s already evidence that the FAA had internal pressure to devolve regulation authority to Boeing in order to speed up certification and release to compete with the A320neo. That’s part of the reason why the MCAS system was allowed to listen to a single AoA sensor instead of two, and possibly why Boeing was able to get away with not training pilots on the new MCAS system. Cutting regulatory corners is a lot more complicated than “buying cheaper uncertified Chinese aircrafts”, and it’s completely invisible to the general public until an incident occurs.
    - olliej 7y ago
      No, it was explicitly because Boeing wanted to be able to short circuit the normal safety analysis in order to get a poorly designed product to market to compete with the airbus a320neo. The level of trust in the US aeronautic safety agencies can be summed up in other countries explicitly requiring non-US investigators. That is the long term impact I'm talking about - it seems entirely plausible that this will become the norm rather than the exception it is now.
marcrosoft 7y ago
Good! In the past few years the E.U has passed absolutely ridiculous laws and taxed U.S. based companies through these ridiculous laws because they want a slice of the pie too. Edit: They are getting tax through fines by said ridiculous laws not by direct tax.
- oneplane 7y ago
  Such as? As far as I know the EU has had a rather positive position regarding the US for the last decades, and still does, even after the most recent election. According to this page: https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/european-union https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe... it's rather balanced. Whoever upsets that balance might need to reconsider, but the US would definitely have a problem if less stuff comes in from the EU. For the EU, however, it's less of an issue: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_122530.pdf http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_...
  - stale2002 7y ago
    Well, one recent example is that of article 13, which is a massive expansion of copyright law. Yeah, no thanks. I do not at all what expansive intellectual property laws to be spreading all over the world, and hurting creators like that. Creators benefit way more when it is easy to share and use and modify other people's content.
    - oneplane 7y ago
      I don't think that has anything even remotely to do with tariffs or trade. But if it did: those lows are for the EU, not the rest of the world. Same goes for GDPR. Nobody is required to trade with the EU, or sell to the EU or buy from the EU. But if you do, the rules of the agreements that are made apply. This is nothing new, and works the same way for trade or interaction with pretty much any country. Imagine trying to sell stuff to China with Taiwanese flags...
      - 7y ago
ulfw 7y ago
(deleted)
- munk-a 7y ago
  I mean, the current administration was elected on a platform of "America First" so, what did you think would happen? I think the US has been self-centered for quite some time, and there was a hilarious thread in a different article that went into the idea that America is the world-policeman that everyone wants but... yea, for equal treatment and to avoid regulatory capture - one needs to avoid that dying empire.
  - ulfw 7y ago
    It's always been America First. It's becoming a mindset of "America Only". That's the problem.
  - gumby 7y ago
    The so-called "America first" policy works against the interests of the United States though. Or is it "destroy America first, screw up the rest later?"
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Protectionism (in this form) has never been a good policy, but it's always quite appealing to the protected companies - and when companies have the ability to sway elections (money in politics) then you can reasonably expect quite a lot of it to be going on.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      >> works against the interests of the United States though That's just, like, your opinion, man, especially after the trade deal with China is finalized. About time someone actually raised a stink about what's going on with China and Europe in terms of foreign trade. It's unpleasant work, but it has to be done, moreso with China than with the EU. FTA: "“Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the E.U. to end all W.T.O.-inconsistent subsidies to large civil aircraft,” Mr. Lighthizer said." As a US citizen I don't see anything controversial about this stance.
gumby 7y ago
More subsidies to that callous killer Boeing, from a government of the megacorps, by the people, for the megacorps.
- dmix 7y ago
  That's what almost always the outcome of gov economic policies. Help a few large companies who are friends with the gov, whether it's giant food producers producing corn no one wanted in the first place, pharma companies competing against generics, banks making a killing on low-end mortgages, etc, while increasing costs and other burdens on regular citizens (or pushing unneeded externalities on to other countries). We're experiencing that in Canada too with the dairy cartel getting cross-party support from both liberal and (mainstream) conservative parties because it helps a few local farmers stay moderately-wealthy while 100% of the population has to pay more for dairy products.
- PHGamer 7y ago
  you cant kill boeing. if shit hits the fan theyre pretty much our only airline manufacturer. i mean what happens if the eu tells the us to fuck off. we don't get any more airbuses and if boeing is dead no way to make our own planes.
  - gumby 7y ago
    They are hardly the only aircraft manufacturer, though decades of neglect of antitrust has allowed them to become he only remaining US manufacturer of civilian aircraft. But if they are allowed to let them die we can still get large passenger aircraft from Airbus, smaller ones from Brazil or China. Not to mention from new entrants that will start up when the big gorilla goes away?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jorblumesea 7y ago
Sickening that we're cozying up to authoritarian Russia and China while alienating Western democracies. When did the enemy become our friends?
- alanpetrel 7y ago
  And when did your friends become your enemy?
  - jorblumesea 7y ago
    When we started destroying alliances, throwing around tariffs and undermining US geopolitical power? Decades of diplomatic relations are being destroyed in just a few years. Putin must be laughing all the way to the bank by splitting the US/Euro alliance.
    - Bendingo 7y ago
      I'm sure Russia will take advantage of any split in US/EURO alliance, but if you think it's Russia that is doing the splitting, then you haven't been paying attention. The split is entirely due to US inability to cooperate or maintain an agreement with other nations, and some of those nations are finally pushing back. The Russian word for this is недоговороспособный (not agreement capable).
      - ahartmetz 7y ago
        Well, there's the alleged Trump-Russia connection.
        ahartmetz 7y ago
        Hey downvoters, I don't think there is doubt that Russia interfered. The only questions is with or without Trump's knowledge and / or approval. According to Mueller's report, without. But still, Russia supported Trump and it's not hard to see why: He is dividing the West. https://www.wired.com/story/russian-facebook-ads-targeted-us-voters-before-2016-election/ https://www.wired.com/story/russian-facebook-ads-targeted-us...
citilife 7y ago
In 2016 the US imported $416B and exported $270B to the EU. Although $11B is a large number, it's a 2.6% tax on the total. More interestingly, is what they are taxing. Personally, I'd rather have tariffs than income tax. At least then I can choose what to buy.
- ganeshkrishnan 7y ago
  I sell in US and I also support ecommerce sellers in US. Most of us have raised the prices of products to counter the tariffs. You are actually paying income tax as these tariffs. Some products which can be produced in US will benefit from tariffs. But the whole point of not having tariffs is to buy cheap labour from outside and move your own country up the value chain. Also, no one is going to start manufacturing these products because the next President is going to remove the tariffs and destroy the advantages, if any. Just my 2 cents.
- latch 7y ago
  Maybe this is naive, but don't tariffs, like subsidies, risk encouraging local inefficiencies? So your point of view seems shortsighted? I understand that in theory they can be used to capture externalities to level the playing field, but I find it hard to believe anyone can really figure anything close to the real amount of "unfairness" (for lack of a better word)
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Consumption taxes are regressive, income taxes are progressive. The poor are disproportionately impacted by tariffs and sales/consumption taxes. The administration is taking money out of the hands of Americans under a truly misguided idea of what a trade deficit is.
  - pmorici 7y ago
    I don't think that is a given. If you put the consumption tax only on luxury goods it could be progressive. I doubt the poor are buying Rolex watches and if they are taxes aren't the problem.
h3throw 7y ago
It seems most posters didn't really read the article as the tariffs appear to be in compliance with a WTO ruling on something illegal the EU is doing wrt subsidies to Airbus. Unsurprising that the NYT and HN goes with the lead that Trump is unilaterally fucking up world order yet again but in this case it doesn't seem so deserved. I really wish both groups (the NYT and HN) would be more nuanced when it comes to Trump. Otherwise, we all end up justifying Trump's and other Alt-Righties' claims of bias.
- matt4077 7y ago
  Every word of the article's headline is true, and the facts it contains (subject, object, action, and magnitude) are the most important facts of this story. The reasoning you want to see in the headline is in the first paragraph. If you're interpreting the headline as "Trump is unilaterally fucking up the world order yet again" then that is something that happens entirely in your head. It's somewhat bold to fault others for an error that is entirely yours.
  - h3throw 7y ago
    It's all in my head? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 (now deleted) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995 I think wrt NYT, the facts are all true but purpose should also clearly be a part of it. Imagine a headline which said "Trump kills man on White House lawn with Colt .45" and the man was attacking him with a machete. When many (most?) people are aware of the prior tariff tirade by Trump and not everyone reads the meat of an article, I think it's irresponsible to not include the _why_.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      The article goes on to point out that the WTO has ruled vast quantities of tax breaks to Boeing by Washington State and South Carolina also amount to illegal subsidies, the magnitude of which the EU is patiently waiting to obtain from the WTO before acting on. It’s a little rich to see Boeing, the recipient of tons of illegal subsidies, pointing the finger at Airbus, in a pot-meet-kettle kind of way. Then calling in goons in the form of a uniquely sympathetic administration. FWIW this absolutely backfired last time, when they tried to squash the Bombardier C-series. They were afraid of a strengthening Bombardier but forced their hand and they gifted the program to Airbus — a much bigger threat. The fact is the Trump administration is a fly-by-night operation of largely corrupt, authoritarian-leaning, nepotist, criminal actors (just by number of indictments). They literally tried to appoint a failed presidential candidate slash restaurant magnate with 30ish claims of sexual harassment against him who wants to return to the gold standard and is proud of his lack of knowledge of world leaders to man the Federal Reserve. This Week. That doesn't mean they're always wrong. It just means they've conditioned us to assume they are. Not really our fault, though, you know?
qilo 7y ago
Wanted to read the article, but instead got this: "You're in private mode. Log in or create a free New York Times account to continue reading in private mode." So headed for page source and stumbled onto this wtf: 
- propogandist 7y ago
  this appears to be a legit email, although I don't understand how this got into the page source. The URL posted in the email nytimes.com/privacy-project redirects to https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/opinion/internet-privacy-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/opinion/internet-pr... and there are articles that are published on 4/11/2019 whereas it's only 4/10 as of me writing this comment.
- tdhoot 7y ago
  Wow, how is this comment not getting more notice. This is a hilarious screw-up. Seems like the NYT is launching a new privacy initiative tomorrow.

50 points by sky_nox 7y ago

That's some particularly hilarious timing giving boeing's recent "unsafe to fly our plans" headline news. As someone in Canada it's been disappointing to watch the massive internal subsidies given to Boeing (from the US government) help sink Bombardier - though the company also did under-perform.

Rebelgecko 7y ago
Doesn't every country do the same thing— albeit perhaps not at the same scale? When Embraer complained about Bombardier's subsidies from the Canadian government, the WTO decided that they were illegal. Then Bombardier complained about Embraer's subsidies from the Brazilian government and the WTO decided that those are illegal too.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Yea, but the WTO hasn't gone after the blatant US protectionism - that's the issue. Most other countries are kept relatively in check in terms of trade fairness, but the US is riding their golden chariot.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    I'm assuming the justification for the EU tariffs was the WTO's decision last month that the state of Washington is giving Boeing an illegal subsidy in the form of tax breaks.
- matt4077 7y ago
  It's probably somewhat rare in industrialised democracies these days. Many trade deals limit subsidies (hence this WTO ruling). It is also difficult to give one-off subsidies in diversified markets, because (domestic) competitors would complain/sue. The EU has especially stringent rules against this, making (for example) shenanigans such as Amazon's HQ2 race-to-the-bottom impossible. That's also what got Apple and Ireland into trouble. It's effectively a cartel of countries pooling power to counter multinationals' ability to offshore profits to the cheapest jurisdiction. The are exemptions: The EU and US massively support agriculture with direct payments. Canada does the same with milk quotas. (These two systems are somewhat incompatible: allowing subsidised US milk to be sold for Canada's protected high prices would amount to double dipping. Hence some disagreements across that particular border). Aircrafts are a rather special beast: there's a national security angle, they are objects of national pride, and both the EU and US have one large manufacturer. Airbus is also diversified across many EU countries, assuring them wide political support.
- village-idiot 7y ago
  Subsidy of “national champion” companies is pretty common but not universal. Sweden allowing Saab to fail without opening up the national purse comes to mind. Defense related industries are typically pretty pretty high on the subsidy list though, for all the obvious reasons.

Thorncorona 7y ago

The irony of Boeing complaining about favorable treatment by the government is palpable.

olliej 7y ago
Other countries are going to start ignoring FAA safety rulings now, so meaning that in exchange for a short term monetary gain a bunch of politicians and executives will probably cause significant long term costs - although the people who made those decisions and took those bribes won't have to pay for those consequences, they've already got there's :-/
- dmix 7y ago
  This is some weak logic. So a super-high capital business like an Airline is going to flaunt aircraft safety rules, potentially risking hundreds of lives of their customers and employees... to what exactly? Buy some cheaper uncertified Chinese(?) aircrafts or fly other certified aircrafts unsafely...to make a little extra money? And then run away when the lawsuits and families of the dead come chasing you?
  - village-idiot 7y ago
    There’s already evidence that the FAA had internal pressure to devolve regulation authority to Boeing in order to speed up certification and release to compete with the A320neo. That’s part of the reason why the MCAS system was allowed to listen to a single AoA sensor instead of two, and possibly why Boeing was able to get away with not training pilots on the new MCAS system. Cutting regulatory corners is a lot more complicated than “buying cheaper uncertified Chinese aircrafts”, and it’s completely invisible to the general public until an incident occurs.
  - olliej 7y ago
    No, it was explicitly because Boeing wanted to be able to short circuit the normal safety analysis in order to get a poorly designed product to market to compete with the airbus a320neo. The level of trust in the US aeronautic safety agencies can be summed up in other countries explicitly requiring non-US investigators. That is the long term impact I'm talking about - it seems entirely plausible that this will become the norm rather than the exception it is now.

marcrosoft 7y ago

Good! In the past few years the E.U has passed absolutely ridiculous laws and taxed U.S. based companies through these ridiculous laws because they want a slice of the pie too. Edit: They are getting tax through fines by said ridiculous laws not by direct tax.

oneplane 7y ago
Such as? As far as I know the EU has had a rather positive position regarding the US for the last decades, and still does, even after the most recent election. According to this page: https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/european-union https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe... it's rather balanced. Whoever upsets that balance might need to reconsider, but the US would definitely have a problem if less stuff comes in from the EU. For the EU, however, it's less of an issue: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_122530.pdf http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_...
- stale2002 7y ago
  Well, one recent example is that of article 13, which is a massive expansion of copyright law. Yeah, no thanks. I do not at all what expansive intellectual property laws to be spreading all over the world, and hurting creators like that. Creators benefit way more when it is easy to share and use and modify other people's content.
  - oneplane 7y ago
    I don't think that has anything even remotely to do with tariffs or trade. But if it did: those lows are for the EU, not the rest of the world. Same goes for GDPR. Nobody is required to trade with the EU, or sell to the EU or buy from the EU. But if you do, the rules of the agreements that are made apply. This is nothing new, and works the same way for trade or interaction with pretty much any country. Imagine trying to sell stuff to China with Taiwanese flags...
    - 7y ago

ulfw 7y ago

(deleted)

munk-a 7y ago
I mean, the current administration was elected on a platform of "America First" so, what did you think would happen? I think the US has been self-centered for quite some time, and there was a hilarious thread in a different article that went into the idea that America is the world-policeman that everyone wants but... yea, for equal treatment and to avoid regulatory capture - one needs to avoid that dying empire.
- ulfw 7y ago
  It's always been America First. It's becoming a mindset of "America Only". That's the problem.
- gumby 7y ago
  The so-called "America first" policy works against the interests of the United States though. Or is it "destroy America first, screw up the rest later?"
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Protectionism (in this form) has never been a good policy, but it's always quite appealing to the protected companies - and when companies have the ability to sway elections (money in politics) then you can reasonably expect quite a lot of it to be going on.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    >> works against the interests of the United States though That's just, like, your opinion, man, especially after the trade deal with China is finalized. About time someone actually raised a stink about what's going on with China and Europe in terms of foreign trade. It's unpleasant work, but it has to be done, moreso with China than with the EU. FTA: "“Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the E.U. to end all W.T.O.-inconsistent subsidies to large civil aircraft,” Mr. Lighthizer said." As a US citizen I don't see anything controversial about this stance.

gumby 7y ago

More subsidies to that callous killer Boeing, from a government of the megacorps, by the people, for the megacorps.

dmix 7y ago
That's what almost always the outcome of gov economic policies. Help a few large companies who are friends with the gov, whether it's giant food producers producing corn no one wanted in the first place, pharma companies competing against generics, banks making a killing on low-end mortgages, etc, while increasing costs and other burdens on regular citizens (or pushing unneeded externalities on to other countries). We're experiencing that in Canada too with the dairy cartel getting cross-party support from both liberal and (mainstream) conservative parties because it helps a few local farmers stay moderately-wealthy while 100% of the population has to pay more for dairy products.
PHGamer 7y ago
you cant kill boeing. if shit hits the fan theyre pretty much our only airline manufacturer. i mean what happens if the eu tells the us to fuck off. we don't get any more airbuses and if boeing is dead no way to make our own planes.
- gumby 7y ago
  They are hardly the only aircraft manufacturer, though decades of neglect of antitrust has allowed them to become he only remaining US manufacturer of civilian aircraft. But if they are allowed to let them die we can still get large passenger aircraft from Airbus, smaller ones from Brazil or China. Not to mention from new entrants that will start up when the big gorilla goes away?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jorblumesea 7y ago

Sickening that we're cozying up to authoritarian Russia and China while alienating Western democracies. When did the enemy become our friends?

alanpetrel 7y ago
And when did your friends become your enemy?
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  When we started destroying alliances, throwing around tariffs and undermining US geopolitical power? Decades of diplomatic relations are being destroyed in just a few years. Putin must be laughing all the way to the bank by splitting the US/Euro alliance.
  - Bendingo 7y ago
    I'm sure Russia will take advantage of any split in US/EURO alliance, but if you think it's Russia that is doing the splitting, then you haven't been paying attention. The split is entirely due to US inability to cooperate or maintain an agreement with other nations, and some of those nations are finally pushing back. The Russian word for this is недоговороспособный (not agreement capable).
    - ahartmetz 7y ago
      Well, there's the alleged Trump-Russia connection.
      - ahartmetz 7y ago
        Hey downvoters, I don't think there is doubt that Russia interfered. The only questions is with or without Trump's knowledge and / or approval. According to Mueller's report, without. But still, Russia supported Trump and it's not hard to see why: He is dividing the West. https://www.wired.com/story/russian-facebook-ads-targeted-us-voters-before-2016-election/ https://www.wired.com/story/russian-facebook-ads-targeted-us...

citilife 7y ago

In 2016 the US imported $416B and exported $270B to the EU. Although $11B is a large number, it's a 2.6% tax on the total. More interestingly, is what they are taxing. Personally, I'd rather have tariffs than income tax. At least then I can choose what to buy.

ganeshkrishnan 7y ago
I sell in US and I also support ecommerce sellers in US. Most of us have raised the prices of products to counter the tariffs. You are actually paying income tax as these tariffs. Some products which can be produced in US will benefit from tariffs. But the whole point of not having tariffs is to buy cheap labour from outside and move your own country up the value chain. Also, no one is going to start manufacturing these products because the next President is going to remove the tariffs and destroy the advantages, if any. Just my 2 cents.
latch 7y ago
Maybe this is naive, but don't tariffs, like subsidies, risk encouraging local inefficiencies? So your point of view seems shortsighted? I understand that in theory they can be used to capture externalities to level the playing field, but I find it hard to believe anyone can really figure anything close to the real amount of "unfairness" (for lack of a better word)
arcticbull 7y ago
Consumption taxes are regressive, income taxes are progressive. The poor are disproportionately impacted by tariffs and sales/consumption taxes. The administration is taking money out of the hands of Americans under a truly misguided idea of what a trade deficit is.
- pmorici 7y ago
  I don't think that is a given. If you put the consumption tax only on luxury goods it could be progressive. I doubt the poor are buying Rolex watches and if they are taxes aren't the problem.

h3throw 7y ago

It seems most posters didn't really read the article as the tariffs appear to be in compliance with a WTO ruling on something illegal the EU is doing wrt subsidies to Airbus. Unsurprising that the NYT and HN goes with the lead that Trump is unilaterally fucking up world order yet again but in this case it doesn't seem so deserved. I really wish both groups (the NYT and HN) would be more nuanced when it comes to Trump. Otherwise, we all end up justifying Trump's and other Alt-Righties' claims of bias.

matt4077 7y ago
Every word of the article's headline is true, and the facts it contains (subject, object, action, and magnitude) are the most important facts of this story. The reasoning you want to see in the headline is in the first paragraph. If you're interpreting the headline as "Trump is unilaterally fucking up the world order yet again" then that is something that happens entirely in your head. It's somewhat bold to fault others for an error that is entirely yours.
- h3throw 7y ago
  It's all in my head? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 (now deleted) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995 I think wrt NYT, the facts are all true but purpose should also clearly be a part of it. Imagine a headline which said "Trump kills man on White House lawn with Colt .45" and the man was attacking him with a machete. When many (most?) people are aware of the prior tariff tirade by Trump and not everyone reads the meat of an article, I think it's irresponsible to not include the _why_.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    The article goes on to point out that the WTO has ruled vast quantities of tax breaks to Boeing by Washington State and South Carolina also amount to illegal subsidies, the magnitude of which the EU is patiently waiting to obtain from the WTO before acting on. It’s a little rich to see Boeing, the recipient of tons of illegal subsidies, pointing the finger at Airbus, in a pot-meet-kettle kind of way. Then calling in goons in the form of a uniquely sympathetic administration. FWIW this absolutely backfired last time, when they tried to squash the Bombardier C-series. They were afraid of a strengthening Bombardier but forced their hand and they gifted the program to Airbus — a much bigger threat. The fact is the Trump administration is a fly-by-night operation of largely corrupt, authoritarian-leaning, nepotist, criminal actors (just by number of indictments). They literally tried to appoint a failed presidential candidate slash restaurant magnate with 30ish claims of sexual harassment against him who wants to return to the gold standard and is proud of his lack of knowledge of world leaders to man the Federal Reserve. This Week. That doesn't mean they're always wrong. It just means they've conditioned us to assume they are. Not really our fault, though, you know?

qilo 7y ago

Wanted to read the article, but instead got this: "You're in private mode. Log in or create a free New York Times account to continue reading in private mode." So headed for page source and stumbled onto this wtf:

propogandist 7y ago
this appears to be a legit email, although I don't understand how this got into the page source. The URL posted in the email nytimes.com/privacy-project redirects to https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/opinion/internet-privacy-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/opinion/internet-pr... and there are articles that are published on 4/11/2019 whereas it's only 4/10 as of me writing this comment.
tdhoot 7y ago
Wow, how is this comment not getting more notice. This is a hilarious screw-up. Seems like the NYT is launching a new privacy initiative tomorrow.