ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

1,554

Joined

2 yr. ago

Dude, go reread my first comment. I specifically mention tarrif as a counter to restore market balance after manipulation. These aren't being used to counteract an anticompetitive subsidy. Raising prices to restore equilibrium and raising prices to disrupt it are very different things.

I know you want this to be something that works, but there's a reason why reputable economists think this is just the worst idea.

So do either of those strategies apply to the manufacturing of physical goods as are being tarifed?

Do you think that Ford is going to sell cars at a loss to make money on service contracts now that their costs are rising because some parts are fabricated in Detroit, assembled in Windsor, and then shipped back for installation in Flint? If it didn't make sense to sell at a loss before, why would it make sense to do so now?

Do you think that there's money to be made on getting people hooked on buying wheat perks?

We're not talking videogame DLC, we're talking about food, manufacturing materials, electrical power, and physical goods. The price of these things are going up, just like they went up with previous tariffs. This is a super easy case, because he did it to a lesser extent before, and it didn't do what he's saying it will. There's no reason to believe that making the bad choice more vigorously will make it suddenly have a different outcome.

Video game consoles are sold at a loss on occasion because the marginal cost of game sales is extremely high. There's no associated product to pair with cement that would drive you to sell it at a loss.

My point was that yes, it will drive people to local businesses, because they will be cheaper. Local businesses have no reason to keep their prices the same if the competition just got more expensive however.

I'm glad you found my comment informative. I'd hate to think I was talking to someone who wanted to say their opinion and then got defensive if someone disagreed with them. It's a sign of someone with at least a wrinkle or two that they're open to discussing their thoughts.

For more insight from people even more knowledgeable than me:

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-are-tariffs

https://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-trump-tariffs-immigration-deportation-grocery-prices-wealth-taxes-policy-2025-1

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-end-of-north-america

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

The way you increase productivity is via exports, not artificially increasing the cost of goods. A sin tax is when you want to stop people from doing things so you make it more expensive. If you want to increase American cement production, you subsidize production.
Adding a tarrif to Canadian cement imports increases cost for imported cement, and encourages domestic producers to increase costs to match. If the competition just got 15% more expensive, there's no reason for me to not raise my prices 14%.
If the government comes in and says they'll pay me $15/ton of cement I produce, that encourages me to produce more cement and lower the price to sell it. Now I'm producing more, and I need to hire another machine operator and the economy grows because the lowered cost of cement makes people more willing to do things that need cement.

Tariffs are really only good for counteracting other countries subsidies. If Canada were paying manufacturers $20 a ton to produce cement, then applying a $20/ton tarrif makes the prices unbiased.

It's why our agricultural subsidies are viewed poorly by food scarce nations: we lower the overall market cost for food, and they can't afford to subsidize their own production, and returning equilibrium on imports would starve people, so they're trapped in a cycle of being dependent on imported subsidized food while living next to fallow farms.

Canada and Mexico aren't subsidizing their export industries, and a lot of what we're trading is in things we can't or don't want to handle. You can't increase American uranium production, off the top of my head.

We had a position of trade strength, which meant that we could afford to import more than we produced because our intangibles were worth more, and what we exported was worth more. Import steel and export tractors. Now we're saying we want to stop importing steel, making it harder to export tractors, so that we can bring back low paying dangerous jobs.

If you want to see productivity grow trumps way, go get a job as a farmhand picking spinach. Because his policy is basically that we need less engineers and more farm hands.

Wow, you're just determined to hear "you need popular support" as "do nothing" aren't you?

You said protests never work, that they never work in the US, when they work in the US the effects don't last, and now "it can last but it's not enough".

Outside of a coup, small groups of people just don't overthrow or take over governments. You need a lot of people, and happy people don't join the angry mob.

If you want to change the system, you need people who currently like the system to stop liking it, and the more you want them to participate in changing it, the more you need them to dislike it.

Wow. You went from silly to an absolute abrasive prick in no time. Have a day, fuckwad.

This will not last super long unfortunately, since it's not pasteurized. Your best bet is to treat it like fresh orange juice.

Using it for cereal, you'll want to get the brewer enzymes. Oats have a carbohydrate in them that gets gloopy after a not long time without them. In coffee or tea it's less noticeable because of the stiring, but cereal I fear might be lessened.

I'm not personally vegan, but lactose is mean to me. Trying to make a lactose free ice cream led me to find that the vegan community has suitable ice creams, but a lot of them feel like a compromise, so the challenge of it became the focus of the science-ing I went down.
As a result it's best suited to making ice cream and popsicles (needs tweaking for that purpose), and alone is more of a cream consistency. For a usable quantity for cereal, you might cut the oats in half-ish (5-7% of water weight), reduce the oil to no more than 10g/1% and keep the gums the same. The recipe scales well, so you can make a half liter just as well. Although with how cheap oats are it's almost not worth it to bother.

It's called oat milk because English has called any white liquid milk longer than we've had the notion that milk only comes from mammals. In some recipes from the 12th century dairy milk is actually the poor man's substitute for almond milk.

I'm confused about your obsession with the oil content. Do you only use skim or non-fat milk?
Most people like some fat in their milk because it makes it have a better mouth feel and to be less watery. But, as you mentioned, your tastes are different from other people's and you sometimes don't like things that other people do, so it's fine if you don't like fatty milk.

It never occurred to you that people buy and consume a beverage because they like it? What an interesting world you live in.

all coffee is black coffee before you add "creamer".

You don't say. What wonders will they think of next.

First, who was talking about peaceful protesting? You don't go from nothing to full on revolution in one step.

Second, if the only thing that matters is that it worked in the US, then protest has driven far more change than violence. The civil rights movement ended segregation. The labor movement won numerous labor victories, but when they fought they were largely just shot. Last I checked, we still have weekends and segregation never came back. Those are the two I can think of without looking in the US.

On the flip side, every attempt at abrupt violent change has failed. Without widespread popular support they just don't even get off the ground.

No problem! I've been lactose intolerant for a while but over the past several years it's gotten a bit more ... Dramatic. The lactose free ice cream always seems to have a funny taste to me, but I tried a oat milk ice cream and was really surprised how creamy it was.
I have an ice cream maker so I started doing some science at making my own. There are worse hobbies, since even the failures are almost always edible. (I did make one with the "fun" property of being nearly identical in texture at every temperature. Scooping some into a hot pan and having it crisp but remain soft is... Unnerving)

If you make some, feel free to let me know how it goes! I'd be happy to give pointers to push it in a direction you prefer, or just have another data point for what works. :)

The "point" is that it's a tasty beverage.
Why on earth would you measure the quality of a beverage by how diluted the solids are, or how much filler gets strained out?

"Milk is just watered down cheese! It's 87% water! What's the point of it?"
Coffee hardly has any coffee in it, you throw away most of the bean.
Don't even get me started on broth.

The fat content is equal to or lower than the fat content of typical dairy based creamers, which is also where the sugar content comes from. A mild quantity of fat is required for the creamer to have a good mouth feel and have a degree of "coating" effect. The gums help keep the fat in suspension since I lack a homogenizer like they use on milk, as well as increasing the viscosity in a way that's imparted by protein in milk.

If you want to you can just eat the result without filtering. It's called oatmeal. It's still watered down though, so I might recommend toasting them and having a nice dry oat bar to go with your puck of dehydrated milk.

In general, I'd recommend against putting any sort of creamer in your black coffee. It tends to make it no longer black coffee.
I don't personally find issue with any of the emulsifies doing anything to coffee I don't like, but if you're exploring there are plenty of others. I've had good luck with konjac in a blend with guar, xanthan, and methylcellulose, but two of those are less likely to be in the baking aisle at the store. The more you use the smaller the proportional quantity you need, since they have a synergistic effect. Less than a gram total combined weight of the four previous ones makes a consistency like heavy cream. Great for ice cream base.

An oil without a flavor. Olive oil is an example of a not neutral oil since it imparts a flavor to the dish.

Corn, vegetable, soybean, canola and peanut are good examples. No one would drizzle a little corn oil on a plate to dip bread in. :)

They also can tolerate higher temperatures, so you can use them in cooking a bit easier.

Depending on your patience, you can make your own for super cheap. It's roughly 100g oats to 1000g water, with 20-50g neutral oil, and a tiny bit of guar and xanthan gums. Blend the oats and water for a minute, strain, then add the gums and oil and blend again. Sweeten to taste. Maybe ten minutes max.

If you can get it easily, adding amylase enzymes (blend of alpha, beta and gamma works best) after blending, warming to around 140, let sit for 30 minutes and then raise to 180 for 5 will increase the sweetness and keep it from getting gloopy. You can get them pretty cheap from a brewing supply store. It's how they make commercial oat milk, and it's how they can say "no added sugar" and still have it be sweet.

I just don't think that history aligns with that view. Arab spring is an example just from the past decade of a series of protest movements that escalated into armed rebellion.
Actually going and looking at the handy list of revolutions shows that it's pretty easy to find protest movements that escalate like that.

This article in particular has the preamble that kind of sums it up: ”This article is about the nonviolent protests. For the ongoing civil war, see Myanmar civil war (2021–present)."

People in the US don't currently connect protestors to the problem because they're not angry. At some point you don't see protesters as "them" yelling and making noise, and you join them because you're also angry.

Revolution and rebellion aren't polite and orderly. Thinking you can scare fascists in power into behaving isn't going to work. Part of their entire "thing" is that people are a danger and they need to crack down on dangerous elements to keep society functioning. If society stops functioning and gets materially worse without a balaclava wearing gang of insurgents throwing cartoon spherical black powder bombs, people see the people in charge as the problem and are more willing to do a Mussolini.

Unfortunately, "making life hell for people" is part of how you stop any government from working. Reduce efficiency, increase disorder and confusion, and make people angry enough to actually want to tear down the system.

Governments where everyone is chipper and basically have their needs met don't collapse, and people don't fight to collapse them.

It's like the people who say that protests shouldn't inconvenience anyone. The inconvenience is the point.

Happy people don't kneel cops in the Dunkin donuts parking lot.

They're not pro-fascism any more than they're anti-fascism. They're extremely pro-doing-what-we-fucking-tell-you, and anti-not-furthering-US-interests.

Fascists are typically good at doing what someone stronger than them orders, so they're easy to work with. Anyone who's willing to ignore what needs to be done in favor of someone else's agenda and their own personal ends is viable though.

my definition givenwas too narrow

Yes, that's what I said when you opted to take the first half of a sentence out of context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data

The common usage of open data is just that it's freely shareable.
Like I said in my initial comment, people frequently use "open source" to refer to it, but it's such a pervasive error that it hardly worth getting too caught up on and practically doesn't count as an error anymore.

Some open data can't be reproduced by anyone who has access to the data.

You assume there's a "real power" that exists to stop him.

The president is not some underdog fighting the power. "Deep state" isn't a shadowy cabal of people who secretly run the country, it's the career office workers who have experience working in their departments and make tiny decisions in the implementation of authority delegated to regulatory agencies.

They're not in smoke filled rooms they're in beige conference rooms on cspan looking at PowerPoints.