Tariffs on Chips

by **Octavious** » Wed Jun 04, 2025 6:23 am

It's an interesting and well expressed answer, although I can honestly say that I've never met a single person who has ever got mixed up over the use of the word diplomacy

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jun 03, 2025 6:05 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 02, 2025 5:47 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:03 pm
What you call "semantic word play crap" is, at least here, the precise use of terms to accurately reflect their meaning. Democracy is a rule by the majority. It has, in the last, oh, about 100 or so years, had its original definition played with by those who want it to seem more favorable and has been skewed in most people's minds to mean any sort of representation in government
For the last few thousand years or so democracy has meant rule by the people. Demos meaning the people, kratia meaning power/rule. The question of whether or not a country is a democracy is simply one of whether or not political power is granted by the people. In the US it clearly is. I'm not sure where your confusion regarding this comes from.

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:03 pm
'Democracy' and 'Republic' do, in fact, mean different things
As someone who has lived in a democracy that is not a republic for my entire life I assure you I'm aware of this . A republic is a flawed democracy typically born of the frustrations of left wing malcontents. Humanity's efforts to find a type of democracy without flaws has thus far proved unsuccessful.

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:03 pm
Also... I'm curious where you get the notion that it's an American thing to say that America isn't a democracy.
Because literally the only people I have ever heard doing so are certain types of American right wingers, and it is a fashion that seems to have grown out of nowhere over the last decade or so. America is a democracy, is very obviously a democracy, and that is using the definition of democracy that has been pretty constant since before Jesus. You could argue that to be a pure democracy then Congress or Parliament or whatever should be made up of people drawn by lottery from the population and all major decisions put to referendum, but that is typically only a topic of historians. That form of democracy was also flawed, which is presumably why it didn't last.

After a bit more research, I think I found my mistake. I was referring here to a direct democracy, rather than what people usually mean when they say democracy, which is representative democracy (which is totally different, despite the similarity in names).

The United States falls best under the category of a Republic, still, but it can be defined pretty well using the term representative democracy. It certainly doesn't fall under the definition of a direct democracy, which, from said research, was the common use of the word democracy back in the late 1700s - early 1800s (see, for example, the federalist papers and their apparent disdain for democracy as a system of government). One definition that corroborates this is Webster's 1828 dictionary, which defines Republic as follows:

A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

Also, interestingly enough, I found a U.S. Army training manual from 1928 which is strongly against democracy, and which obviously is referring to direct democracy.

Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of " direct " expression. Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate; whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Turning to a non-American source, from Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary:

Democracy
One of the three forms of government; that in which the sovereign power is neither lodged in one man, nor in the nobles, but in the collective body of the people.

Interestingly, from the same dictionary, here is the definition of Republic:

Commonwealth; state in which the power is lodged in more than one.

Interesting to see these definitions, as it shows how the use of democracy and republic have shifted in common use.

So, then, I would hold that it is accurate to refer to the United States as a representative democracy, being a more recent term made to describe governments such as ours, but it is ambiguous to simply refer to us as a democracy, as one gets mixed up in the historical use and meaning of that term.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:23 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 02, 2025 10:31 pm
In Canada this gets even more confusing.

The country is a "constitutional monarchy" even though we didn't have an independent constitution until the 1980s and the monarchy's role is totally symbolic at this point. "Parliamentary democracy" is a much more apt description for Canada's government. Occasionally one may need to trot out "constitutional monarchy" if they're trying to explain the role of the governor general or other historical oddities in our system.

You've had a constitution since 1867, it just didn't contain anything resembling a Bill of Rights until 1982.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Mon Jun 02, 2025 10:31 pm

In Canada this gets even more confusing.

The country is a "constitutional monarchy" even though we didn't have an independent constitution until the 1980s and the monarchy's role is totally symbolic at this point. "Parliamentary democracy" is a much more apt description for Canada's government. Occasionally one may need to trot out "constitutional monarchy" if they're trying to explain the role of the governor general or other historical oddities in our system.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Mon Jun 02, 2025 5:10 pm

Fritz, you said quite a bit without actually explaining why this distinction matters.

It seems obvious to me that the United States is a constitutional republic that operates as a representative democracy. Leaving out either term misses part of the picture.

As Oct pointed out, basically no “democracy” is a “democracy” if you exclude representative democracies.

by **Octavious** » Mon Jun 02, 2025 5:47 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:03 pm
What you call "semantic word play crap" is, at least here, the precise use of terms to accurately reflect their meaning. Democracy is a rule by the majority. It has, in the last, oh, about 100 or so years, had its original definition played with by those who want it to seem more favorable and has been skewed in most people's minds to mean any sort of representation in government

For the last few thousand years or so democracy has meant rule by the people. Demos meaning the people, kratia meaning power/rule. The question of whether or not a country is a democracy is simply one of whether or not political power is granted by the people. In the US it clearly is. I'm not sure where your confusion regarding this comes from.

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:03 pm
'Democracy' and 'Republic' do, in fact, mean different things

As someone who has lived in a democracy that is not a republic for my entire life I assure you I'm aware of this

. A republic is a flawed democracy typically born of the frustrations of left wing malcontents. Humanity's efforts to find a type of democracy without flaws has thus far proved unsuccessful.

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:03 pm
Also... I'm curious where you get the notion that it's an American thing to say that America isn't a democracy.

Because literally the only people I have ever heard doing so are certain types of American right wingers, and it is a fashion that seems to have grown out of nowhere over the last decade or so. America is a democracy, is very obviously a democracy, and that is using the definition of democracy that has been pretty constant since before Jesus. You could argue that to be a pure democracy then Congress or Parliament or whatever should be made up of people drawn by lottery from the population and all major decisions put to referendum, but that is typically only a topic of historians. That form of democracy was also flawed, which is presumably why it didn't last.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:03 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:54 am
I don't understand the obsession of the American right to try and change the definition of democracy so that America isn't one. Leave semantic word play crap to the left where it belongs. America is a democracy, is very obviously a democracy, and has been one for a very long time

What you call "semantic word play crap" is, at least here, the precise use of terms to accurately reflect their meaning. Democracy is a rule by the majority. It has, in the last, oh, about 100 or so years, had its original definition played with by those who want it to seem more favorable and has been skewed in most people's minds to mean any sort of representation in government. Parts of our government have democracy-like form, such as the electing of representatives to the house and senate, but it was neither originally designed to be a democracy nor is it directly such now. I'll concede that it is becoming more and more like a democracy all the time, as unfortunate as that is. Sometimes representative government is a democracy, sometimes not. In America's case, due to things like the Constitution, Supreme Court, and Electoral College, it is not.

You could cite any modern dictionary and disagree with me, arguing that definitions change. I say that's crap, words have meaning and to discredit that meaning and change definitions just because a majority of society wants to call it something else is ridiculous. I don't believe in the commonly held principle that the use of a word determines its meaning. That makes language entirely relativistic and rather useless when it comes to actual communication. Contrarily, I think that meaning should determine use.

'Democracy' and 'Republic' do, in fact, mean different things. To say that they mean exactly the same thing makes them redundant and useless as separate terms. If you must hold that they are essentially the same, then Republic is at least a more historically accurate term for America's government and is better used.

I didn't make my original reply to Jamie for a "gotcha" or to show how stupid he must be to mistake America for a democracy because that would be stupid to do myself, and it's a very common misconception anyways. Call me a grammar Nazi (or if you're Jamie just call me a Nazi), but I think that the use of terms ought to mirror their actual meaning. Otherwise words lose their meaning and you can define things however you like.

Also... I'm curious where you get the notion that it's an American thing to say that America isn't a democracy. In America, almost every politician on both sides refers to us as one, and most everyone else does too. I am representative of a very small minority of people, a minority among people that share most of my political views even, that prefer to use it in its original sense, as it would've been used by those who formed our government.

by **Octavious** » Sun Jun 01, 2025 9:01 pm

Again, what's with all the "you seem to want to excuse it" rhetoric? You seem determined to view everything I say in a pro-Trump light even when you're saying that we agree completely

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:12 pm

Sounds like we agree completely. The admin forced its flagship economic policy through an emergency provision because it would never be proactively supported in the Senate, which has left its "success" up to a coin toss in the judiciary.

And the policy is not actually aimed at earnestly improving the US economy, but rather serves as a totem for the Trump admin to create political theater about the "swamp" and kiss-the-ring-style displays from the business community and some foreign leaders. You seem to want to excuse this as a normal part of politics — and indeed it is, but people should be upset by it.

by **Octavious** » Sun Jun 01, 2025 6:18 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:10 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:52 am
If your analysis of the enemy only makes sense if you assume that the enemy is stupid, the overwhelming likelihood is that you've missed something.

This is true of Diplomacy and real life
Ah yes, the genius strategy of predicating one's entire nonsense economic agenda on the false declaration of an emergency such that it is extremely vulnerable to being reversed by the courts lol.

I'm reminded of Biden's student loan forgiveness program: a bad idea that the president also didn't have the authority to do, which wasted an awful lot of political capital before being shot down by the courts.

Except that as it stands it hasn't been reversed by the courts, and I have no idea how vulnerable it is to being so. Seriously, 50-50? 80-20? 20-80? I haven't got a clue and would be surprised if you did either. I also don't know how easy or difficult it would be for Trump to implement tariffs by other methods if the legal challenge is ultimately successful.

But what does seem to be the case is that it is doing Trump no harm to his "fighting the establishment" narrative. Much like the Tories were rather keen on prolonging the fight against the Unions because it gave them a purpose

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:10 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:52 am
If your analysis of the enemy only makes sense if you assume that the enemy is stupid, the overwhelming likelihood is that you've missed something.

This is true of Diplomacy and real life

Ah yes, the genius strategy of predicating one's entire nonsense economic agenda on the false declaration of an emergency such that it is extremely vulnerable to being reversed by the courts lol.

I'm reminded of Biden's student loan forgiveness program: a bad idea that the president also didn't have the authority to do, which wasted an awful lot of political capital before being shot down by the courts.

by **Octavious** » Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:54 am

I don't understand the obsession of the American right to try and change the definition of democracy so that America isn't one. Leave semantic word play crap to the left where it belongs. America is a democracy, is very obviously a democracy, and has been one for a very long time

by **CaptainFritz28** » Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:24 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:13 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 09, 2025 9:47 pm
I'm ranting now but what a fucking grift. The President of the US just did a reverse pump-and-dump on the entirety of US equities. How many times can he do that before the US becomes un-investible? Turkey under Erdogan is becoming a very appropriate comparison.
I have said this already but HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL and America isn't a democracy.

America never was a democracy. Wasn't designed to be, shouldn't be, isn't.

by **Octavious** » Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:52 am

If your analysis of the enemy only makes sense if you assume that the enemy is stupid, the overwhelming likelihood is that you've missed something.

This is true of Diplomacy and real life

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Thu May 29, 2025 10:31 pm

Yesterday, a US court suspended most of Trump's tariffs, arguing he lacked the legal authority to impose them. That decision was overturned today by a superior court on appeal, but will likely be appealed further.

Legal machinations around policy aren't new. But between Trump's flip flopping and these court decisions, tariff policy is being turned on and off more than a light switch in a haunted house with ADHD ghosts. What a supremely stupid way to manage the world's largest and most important economy. How could anyone invest under these circumstances?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:13 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 09, 2025 9:47 pm
I'm ranting now but what a fucking grift. The President of the US just did a reverse pump-and-dump on the entirety of US equities. How many times can he do that before the US becomes un-investible? Turkey under Erdogan is becoming a very appropriate comparison.

I have said this already but HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL and America isn't a democracy.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Wed Apr 09, 2025 9:47 pm

I'm ranting now but what a fucking grift. The President of the US just did a reverse pump-and-dump on the entirety of US equities. How many times can he do that before the US becomes un-investible? Turkey under Erdogan is becoming a very appropriate comparison.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Wed Apr 09, 2025 8:47 pm

Jesus, Trump told all his Truth Social supporters this morning "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT".

Now he's openly manipulating the market to enrich his most diehard fans in order to defray the political consequences of *his* policies which tanked the market in the first place.

Absolute piece of shit.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Wed Apr 09, 2025 7:47 pm

I imagine the big bump in Treasury yields this morning was the straw that broke the camel's back. China proved it can totally fuck the US government by dumping treasuries if the US is also alienating anyone else who might consider buying them (they certainly seem like a much riskier asset today than they did mere weeks ago).

Trump and company can weather equity market fluctuations - most Americans don't have savings and administration insiders stood to make money from the volatility over the medium- to long-run. But rising bond yields, simultaneous to rising recession risk, is a flashing red light for a very deep and hard-to-abate downturn, not to mention the impacts on the debt and deficit.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Wed Apr 09, 2025 7:39 pm

Oct will surely disagree with this, but I think even that imputes more strategic thinking than what has been on display in the past few weeks on the trade file. There were simpler and less damaging ways to fool the ignorant about trade policy if that were the goal lol. I strongly suspect they thought China would roll over, in which case they would have continued on with the previous "reciprocal" tariff approach on everyone else.

Tariffs on Chips

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Everything

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips

Re: Tariffs on Chips