this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
117 points (96.8% liked)

World News

39151 readers
3533 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Trump’s proposed tariff hikes on Chinese imports, potentially reaching 60%, could accelerate China’s shift to alternative markets and offshore production.

Exporters in Yiwu, a hub for small goods, report declining U.S. sales and are increasingly targeting regions like Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

Trump also plans to close tariff loopholes, such as the $800 duty-free exemption, which would heavily impact low-cost exporters and American consumers.

Many Chinese manufacturers are relocating production to countries like Vietnam and Mexico to evade tariffs, but further restrictions could disrupt these strategies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If we were spending that much on education, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

[–] Kvoth@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Usually they say "save x amount" but neglect to say over what time period we would save it. 10 years is common but not universal. It's more about "sticker shock" than the actual truth

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Even 100B/y would be shocking.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Why?

We should be spending an incredible amount on education. The entirety of our advancement as a species relies, fully, on our ability to train and educate our generations. A country's advantage on the global stage, it's ability to make good decisions, it's stability, quality of life....etc All hinge on education.

The "return on investment" is massive.

Just to mainain requires incredible effort, nevermind get better.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

I could not agree more, it might be the thing I'm most angry at. Our education system has been purposely fucked for decades and it's the biggest tragedy I've seen.

What I'm saying is, it would surprise me very much if we actually even spent 100B a year on education, the previous comments estimate on how the 1T amount was broken down for "savings."