Boutique Pedal Manufacturers Are Feeling the Tariff Pinch
- Thread starter Chuck D. Bones
- Start date
Chuck D. Bones
Circuit Wizard
This country is full of stupid people. Well that, and a Democratic Party that has lost the recipe.
Cybercow
Well-known member
TBH, I get the impression we're all Bozos on this bus.
As for tariffs, (my opinion is mine and mine alone), I suspect our president is playing the long game. He even said at different points that it might hurt certain businesses in the beginning, but they would eventually level the playing field in the long run. And really, when have prices for anything EVER gone down? Put LED lighting in your homes and your electric bill will go down. That turned to dust in a heartbeat. Gas is still over $3/gal. Do consumer goods ever go down? And taxes? Let's just not go there.
Yeah, I feel the tariff pinch too. But I'm more interested just living my life, not bothering others for how they live theirs, and building some decent pedals to make some player's day. Political discussions have grown too personal in the attacks. There was a time when most people were able to agree to disagree and move on while buying the next round.
As for tariffs, (my opinion is mine and mine alone), I suspect our president is playing the long game. He even said at different points that it might hurt certain businesses in the beginning, but they would eventually level the playing field in the long run. And really, when have prices for anything EVER gone down? Put LED lighting in your homes and your electric bill will go down. That turned to dust in a heartbeat. Gas is still over $3/gal. Do consumer goods ever go down? And taxes? Let's just not go there.
Yeah, I feel the tariff pinch too. But I'm more interested just living my life, not bothering others for how they live theirs, and building some decent pedals to make some player's day. Political discussions have grown too personal in the attacks. There was a time when most people were able to agree to disagree and move on while buying the next round.
owlexifry
Well-known member
there was also a time when the divide between the asset class, and the have-nots depending on their next paycheck, wasn't so massive.There was a time when most people were able to agree to disagree and move on while buying the next round.
many are not so fortunate to be as insulated against the radical changes and escalating costs as some of us may be.
when it gets to a point where these things have a direct effect on your quality of life, or your rights as a human, well yes - it's gonna get personal.
having said that, i don't recall seeing any personal attacks on this thread or other threads with similar themes. just differences of opinion.
Stickman393
Well-known member
There was a time when most people were able to agree to disagree and move on while buying the next round.
See...this is the thing.
Yeah, it's gotten ridiculous. It's become a spectacle: the sort of thing where each team has a firmly held conviction that their team is right and good and won't hear a damned thing about their guy that is unbecoming or brings their character or judgement into question.
And while that is eminently true: it's also the case that this has gotten this way in part because that's how the current resident of the white house plays it.
Granted: he didn't invent the style. But he's certainly made his opinion about folks with beliefs like me pretty clear.
In that, I'm a radical. A lunatic. A supporter of terrorism. A Leftist.
Some of those descriptors I don't object to: after all, to paraphrase Angela Davis: to be radical means to grasp at the root.
But, yeah, it sure was nice back in the day when we didn't have a president that lumps everybody who disagrees with him into a single camp that is worthy only of death and possibly deportation.
But I digress:
I don't particularly have a dog in this fight. I am, in fact, something of a leftist, and I find both parties to be ill-equipped to solve the problems of our time. I'll accept anybody, regardless of political views, except for explicit white nationalists and foaming-at-the-mouth anticommunists like the JBS (you know, the guys that thought Ike Eisenhower was a secret communist).
As to the long game well...that's the rub. If you ask me, we subsidize our living standards through the reduced living standards of places that are not here. And, shoot, sometimes that results in us doing things like a Guatamala and overthrowing a democratically elected leader.
So I'm torn, honestly. Because I don't believe that we should be doing that: that such a practice incentivizes our government to take action around the world that *keeps* living standards low in certain areas of the world. I do believe that we should be more self-reliant: not only because it will provide gainful employment for folks who might need such a thing, but because local production doesn't rely on shipping endless containers all across the world.
But as to the long game...I'm afraid I can't agree. Cause I really don't believe this guy has a "long game". He's a creature of his id, and sincerely I do believe that this militarizing DC and renewed tarriff talk is just an attempt to distract from the fact that he and Jeffery Epstein were great pals for a very long time and for some reason everybody kinda woke up one day and remembered that.
I don't think tarriffs are bad policy. Overall. But the dude isn't a 5d chess mastermind. He's a gambler.
Last edited:
Chuck D. Bones
Circuit Wizard
Unless & until Robert tells me otherwise, this is a free and open forum. That means you can agree or disagree and if you don't like what you read here, you're free to not read it.
I agree about the growing gulf between the upper class and the rest of us. When the CEO of a corporation can earn more than all of his employees combined, that's not a good sign. And it's not just Musk, although he is a prime example. When our children have little chance of owning their own home without a hefty inheritance, that's also not a good sign. Nixon and the congress sold us all down the river when they made the US dollar a fiat currency. From that point onward, inflation was a permanent fact of life and those of us that are not lords are serfs.
When the media makes it their business to divide us, they are pandering to the politicians and the wealthy, because they are the ones who benefit. When people vote for a rapist, insurrectionist, lying sociopath, how would you characterize them? I believe that some of the stuff Trump is doing might be good for the country, but that is only a byproduct of him doing something that benefits himself and his wealthy donors. Let's see how the 2nd Amendment crowd feels when Trump deploys the military in their town to "keep the peace."
Think about how wealthy you could become if you knew 24 hrs in advance what Trump's next tweet would be. Then think about which people actually enjoy that privilege.
OK, rant mode off. I'm going back to watching "Wanted: Dead or Alive."
I agree about the growing gulf between the upper class and the rest of us. When the CEO of a corporation can earn more than all of his employees combined, that's not a good sign. And it's not just Musk, although he is a prime example. When our children have little chance of owning their own home without a hefty inheritance, that's also not a good sign. Nixon and the congress sold us all down the river when they made the US dollar a fiat currency. From that point onward, inflation was a permanent fact of life and those of us that are not lords are serfs.
When the media makes it their business to divide us, they are pandering to the politicians and the wealthy, because they are the ones who benefit. When people vote for a rapist, insurrectionist, lying sociopath, how would you characterize them? I believe that some of the stuff Trump is doing might be good for the country, but that is only a byproduct of him doing something that benefits himself and his wealthy donors. Let's see how the 2nd Amendment crowd feels when Trump deploys the military in their town to "keep the peace."
Think about how wealthy you could become if you knew 24 hrs in advance what Trump's next tweet would be. Then think about which people actually enjoy that privilege.
OK, rant mode off. I'm going back to watching "Wanted: Dead or Alive."
You can disagree when you all agree upon the rules of democracy.
I am not sure If I am on the same bus. I am sure I am a bozzo though. A Dutch bozzo that is.
For a long time, us Dutchies congratulated ourselves on our tolerance. It was indifference actually. And that might be good, until you have reached a point that you have to admit you stood there doing nothing, while everything of actual value was destroyed or hurt.
I am not sure If I am on the same bus. I am sure I am a bozzo though. A Dutch bozzo that is.
For a long time, us Dutchies congratulated ourselves on our tolerance. It was indifference actually. And that might be good, until you have reached a point that you have to admit you stood there doing nothing, while everything of actual value was destroyed or hurt.
Last edited:
szukalski
Well-known member
History has shown us slavery evolves as each form is eroded by the education of the public.
Slavery through force, religion, feudalism, indebted servitude, capitalism.. it's all the same in a different form. It all comes to an inflection point when those in power push too far for having mode. Are we there yet?
What I find interesting is that nobody talks about tariffs as a mechanism for taking over a new revenue stream. Each totalitarian government needs money, and tariffs are a convenient way to create a new revenue stream which can be take over with little resistance.
Slavery through force, religion, feudalism, indebted servitude, capitalism.. it's all the same in a different form. It all comes to an inflection point when those in power push too far for having mode. Are we there yet?
What I find interesting is that nobody talks about tariffs as a mechanism for taking over a new revenue stream. Each totalitarian government needs money, and tariffs are a convenient way to create a new revenue stream which can be take over with little resistance.
Cybercow
Well-known member
T'was a general reference. Not seen any real personal attacks here in this forum. Pointing and laughing is still OK; right?
Stickman393
Well-known member
We're generally pretty good here at keeping the politics talk at a slight simmer. Sometimes it boils over. Which, again, is a result of the fires that are stoked by those that benefit from the flames.
Politicians do this because it makes politics easy: you never have to worry about the impact of what you do if you're always fighting against some great "evil". It's also a much more effective electoral strategy than hoping people connect the dots between the policies you fought for and a material improvement in their lives.
But the real beneficiaries are those who already have power, in whatever form it takes. Wealth is power. Control is power. Influence is power. I, personally, believe that authority (in the sense of "power over others") in and of itself is a corrosive force on humankind, and that we need to re-evaluate our relationship with authority.
The system that we operate under is designed to use one's money to make more money. Not all can play; one must have disposable income in order to participate. It can turn out reasonably well for folks that make the right decisions or who get lucky, but it can also lead to edge cases where individuals and organizations accumulate so much capital (and therefore, power) that they can begin acting as de-facto governments in and of themselves.
Monopolies increase costs to the end user: we all know how this works. But an oft unexamined piece of this puzzle is that monopolies also do that on the labor side: when there is only one major employer in your town, after all, where can you go? What power do you have to negotiate terms? This is what happened during the time of company towns: something that specific folks nowadays are looking to bring back.
Keep people fighting and at each other's throats, and you never have to worry that they're going to come after the people that are stoking the flames. Our media ecosystem engages with this culture war narrative because it's *what makes them money*. It keeps the people that fund them happy, because it's what we reward with our attention.
Keep in mind: I don't think of this as a highly coordinated conspiracy. It's just the inertia of greed sped along the path of least resistance. We are eat-sleep-murder-fuck primates, after all.
The path of least resistance is reliant on what systems we have in place to guide us. The system that we have chosen...our neoliberalism-pilled capitalist economy...has led to these outcomes.
So the question I want to know the answer to becomes "what does something different look like?"
Politicians do this because it makes politics easy: you never have to worry about the impact of what you do if you're always fighting against some great "evil". It's also a much more effective electoral strategy than hoping people connect the dots between the policies you fought for and a material improvement in their lives.
But the real beneficiaries are those who already have power, in whatever form it takes. Wealth is power. Control is power. Influence is power. I, personally, believe that authority (in the sense of "power over others") in and of itself is a corrosive force on humankind, and that we need to re-evaluate our relationship with authority.
The system that we operate under is designed to use one's money to make more money. Not all can play; one must have disposable income in order to participate. It can turn out reasonably well for folks that make the right decisions or who get lucky, but it can also lead to edge cases where individuals and organizations accumulate so much capital (and therefore, power) that they can begin acting as de-facto governments in and of themselves.
Monopolies increase costs to the end user: we all know how this works. But an oft unexamined piece of this puzzle is that monopolies also do that on the labor side: when there is only one major employer in your town, after all, where can you go? What power do you have to negotiate terms? This is what happened during the time of company towns: something that specific folks nowadays are looking to bring back.
Keep people fighting and at each other's throats, and you never have to worry that they're going to come after the people that are stoking the flames. Our media ecosystem engages with this culture war narrative because it's *what makes them money*. It keeps the people that fund them happy, because it's what we reward with our attention.
Keep in mind: I don't think of this as a highly coordinated conspiracy. It's just the inertia of greed sped along the path of least resistance. We are eat-sleep-murder-fuck primates, after all.
The path of least resistance is reliant on what systems we have in place to guide us. The system that we have chosen...our neoliberalism-pilled capitalist economy...has led to these outcomes.
So the question I want to know the answer to becomes "what does something different look like?"
Last edited:
Chuck D. Bones
Circuit Wizard
Indeed. It's laughable how some of us consider ourselves "civilized."
The consequences of the invention of the printing press changed our whole of civilisation and how we saw ourselves and understood society - The internet has made another big jump and will unleash consequences we don't know of yet.
But widening inequality is not sustainable. The way we deal with our climate is not sustainable, and politics both here in the UK and in the US is using 20th century forms to try and solve 21st century problems that are bigger than them, with the predicable disillusionment and attraction to the extremes on both side.
There's a current example of the problem - When people and our institutions do get together to try and do something good... like I dunno, stop children being able to view porn so easily ... and we have the digital safety bills in the UK and EU and put some of the responsibility onto the tech companies to stop algorythms pushing children more and more extreme content towards self harm or whatever.... well suddenly the big tech money starts moving and there's a culture war kick off about us europeans not valuing 'freedom of speech' in the way the American constitution would put it...
But the French Revolution, and then the American Revolution and the founding documents of both those counties were part of the shift in society that the printing press started - and maybe, for example the US constitutional idea of "freedom of speech" doesn't work in our digital connected world - because our idea of a citizen has to be different.
Big Monk
Well-known member
Part of the problem is the illusion that exists currently, whereby WAY more people than ever before truly believe they are correct if they can Google something.
Let me be clear: I LOVE the internet. For a relatively rational, measured person, can you imagine a greater resource?
But, we are subjected to more “authors” than ever before. Say what you want about the old Encyclopedia Brittanica, but at least you could point to WHERE the info came from.
I was involved in a discussion about the Egyptian pyramids at Giza not too long ago and it devolved into an archeology vs. everyone else spat.
One of the things I pointed out is the concept of “sources as a bludgeon”. The average person is NOT going to read sources or maybe they don’t have the patience for the many linked sources and sub-sources, etc. So what can happen sometimes is that smart, and very cunning, people will use sources to beat their opposition about the head with. Never mind that “cherry-picking” of sources and outright incorrect sources exist.
Add to that the fact that there is so much damn information, for good or ill, that it’s no wonder We break into factions. It’s less intellectually taxing that way.
Let me be clear: I LOVE the internet. For a relatively rational, measured person, can you imagine a greater resource?
But, we are subjected to more “authors” than ever before. Say what you want about the old Encyclopedia Brittanica, but at least you could point to WHERE the info came from.
I was involved in a discussion about the Egyptian pyramids at Giza not too long ago and it devolved into an archeology vs. everyone else spat.
One of the things I pointed out is the concept of “sources as a bludgeon”. The average person is NOT going to read sources or maybe they don’t have the patience for the many linked sources and sub-sources, etc. So what can happen sometimes is that smart, and very cunning, people will use sources to beat their opposition about the head with. Never mind that “cherry-picking” of sources and outright incorrect sources exist.
Add to that the fact that there is so much damn information, for good or ill, that it’s no wonder We break into factions. It’s less intellectually taxing that way.
Social media has a big part in this as well. Memeformation and echo chambers and the general thought that your voice and opinion matter because you got "likes"
Not even touching on the misinformation out there...
I really feel that social media has had and has extremely negative subconscious psychological effects on the masses.
Dopamine addicted delusional masses.
Big Monk
Well-known member
Agreed. I always make the distinction between the Internet and Social Media apps.
benny_profane
Well-known member
Why? There isn’t much left of Web 1.0 unless you’re specifically looking for it. In this context, social media and internet are basically the same thing.
Stickman393
Well-known member
Honestly: I think part of the problem is that humans are predictably irrational.
Advertisers and propogandists have known this for near on a century. Pluck the right strings and you can get the majority of folks to buy whatever it is that you're selling.
In that regard: human beings are individually smart. If they put their minds to something, they can dissect it, understand it, and build their ideas and theories on complex issues. If in an environment with folks who happen to be great teachers, they can accelerate their development and understanding of concepts.
The problem is one of bandwidth. Everything in this world must be done for the sake of income and profit, else it is seen as a waste by American society at large. We are told that only the worthy succeed, and therefore should you not succeed you are not worthy. And life is fucking brütal, so between every day survival and the general hostility of all things related to politics: folks just kinda don't engage with what our government does, because fuck it. Why bother with that nonsense?
And so, we go through our brütal lives, where we are increasingly alienated from one another. Community groups grow smaller, public spaces are sold for private use, there's very few places where people can build any sense of cohesion or support where you don't have to be subjected to some sort of dogmatic buy-in.
Propogandists and advertisers know this, and they target their rhetoric to fill that void. To give meaning. To replace the social and communal bonds that link people together with simplistic ideas on how we just need this one thing in order for the world to be better...typically surrounding some cult of personality or the other, and typically including throwing some out group under the bus.
Its not hard. It happens over and over again in our history. And the zeal with which folks take to the propogandist's message leads folks into an increasingly myopic worldview where if the truth does not align with your values, then the truth is at fault.
Individual people have the ability to shake off these ideas. To examine, find that "well, this is a load of bullshit!" And carry on with their days.
Others aren't so lucky. The need that these folks claim to fulfill is great, and their gravity is like a black hole.
Advertisers and propogandists have known this for near on a century. Pluck the right strings and you can get the majority of folks to buy whatever it is that you're selling.
In that regard: human beings are individually smart. If they put their minds to something, they can dissect it, understand it, and build their ideas and theories on complex issues. If in an environment with folks who happen to be great teachers, they can accelerate their development and understanding of concepts.
The problem is one of bandwidth. Everything in this world must be done for the sake of income and profit, else it is seen as a waste by American society at large. We are told that only the worthy succeed, and therefore should you not succeed you are not worthy. And life is fucking brütal, so between every day survival and the general hostility of all things related to politics: folks just kinda don't engage with what our government does, because fuck it. Why bother with that nonsense?
And so, we go through our brütal lives, where we are increasingly alienated from one another. Community groups grow smaller, public spaces are sold for private use, there's very few places where people can build any sense of cohesion or support where you don't have to be subjected to some sort of dogmatic buy-in.
Propogandists and advertisers know this, and they target their rhetoric to fill that void. To give meaning. To replace the social and communal bonds that link people together with simplistic ideas on how we just need this one thing in order for the world to be better...typically surrounding some cult of personality or the other, and typically including throwing some out group under the bus.
Its not hard. It happens over and over again in our history. And the zeal with which folks take to the propogandist's message leads folks into an increasingly myopic worldview where if the truth does not align with your values, then the truth is at fault.
Individual people have the ability to shake off these ideas. To examine, find that "well, this is a load of bullshit!" And carry on with their days.
Others aren't so lucky. The need that these folks claim to fulfill is great, and their gravity is like a black hole.
Big Monk
Well-known member
I guess it depends on your outlook. The Internet is still a resource.
Social media is an absolute waste of time. Worse than that, it’s an insidious, festering wound of an activity.
I don’t think the two can be considered one and the same.
The internet is an interplanetary network of computers using the internet protocol as an interface.
Social media is generally a web application, at least two layers of protocols above the internet. Although there are things like ActivityPub and AT protocol. Still, none of those things are the internet itself.
I can set up an FTP server. Or a gopher server. Or an HTTP server that communicates with JSON payloads. Those are definitely all on the internet. I wouldn’t call those social media.
Social media is generally a web application, at least two layers of protocols above the internet. Although there are things like ActivityPub and AT protocol. Still, none of those things are the internet itself.
I can set up an FTP server. Or a gopher server. Or an HTTP server that communicates with JSON payloads. Those are definitely all on the internet. I wouldn’t call those social media.