How is it not a different point of view to think that healthcare should be tied to one's employment as opposed to all people should have access to affordable healthcare? We can discuss if Obamacare achieved what it wanted to do as I believe it was not very successful, but it at its core is a different view point. Yes, people believing other countries pay the tariffs are clearly not understanding of how tariffs work. But then you went made some clearly erroneous comment that ruined everything else just to get back to stupidity. Which by your standards means you must be stupid too for continuing to put forth a clearly wrong point.

That’s not what I was saying. Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing. The ACA is the official name and Obamacare is an attempt at a derogatory nickname which became common. Hating one and liking the other is an inherently contradictory position. And yet it’s one a lot of people hold. That’s not a different point of view, that’s not having even the most basic understanding of the thing you have an opinion about.

That’s democracy though, everyone gets a vote, even if you’re a doofus.

Right, but it puts rational people who seek to govern in a very uncomfortable position when they're up against an adversary who is happy to seize power at all costs, including weaponizing ignorance, ideology, polarization, conspiracy theories, and a complicit media apparatus, and then engages in blatantly un-democratic tactics like gerrymandering and the filibuster, and all the rest of it.

Basically when all or most of the facts are on your side, how do you balance the need to indulge stupid talking points and perspectives so that you can "reach" people, while also not inadvertently conceding ground in an attempt to meet a person where they are?

IMO it’s an incentive problem - it takes effort to be knowledgeable but the practical benefits are next to nothing. But being in a group of ignorant people is actually probably pretty fun, not to mention the dopamine hit of outrage.

Ideally being informed would be both easier than it is today (less misleading crap, more trustworthy structure to think about what issues are relevant) while also being more rewarded somehow.

Of course. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have a vote. I’m just saying they are in fact doofuses.

I disagree with your blanket assumption that consumers always pay for tariffs. In my experience working for a major garment importer, we kept retail prices the same even after tariffs were added. Why? Because competition from local brands forced us to absorb the cost ourselves. Sure, that's not how every industry works, but saying consumers always pay is an oversimplification. It really depends on the industry, pricing power, and competitive pressure.

Whether tariffs are paid by the consumer is a bit pointless. The incontrovertible fact is that tariffs are paid by someone in the importing country, whether the importing business or their customer or a middleman or some combination. These dingbats are out there thinking that these tariffs will be paid by China or Canada or whatever.

"Tariffs are paid by someone in the supply chain" is the most accurate way to put it because it reflects how things really work in practice. Sure, the importer is the one who physically pays the tariff at the border, but that cost doesn't always stay with them. Depending on the situation, that expense can be shared, passed on, or absorbed by others involved in the trade.

For example, if there's a 35% tariff on a $100 item, the importer technically owes $135. But the exporter might lower their price, maybe selling it for $70 instead to help offset the tariff and keep the business deal going. In that case, the exporter is basically covering part of the cost. On the flip side, the importer might just raise the final price and make the customer pay more...or better yet, assume the cost due to intense local competition.

So even though the importer pays the duty upfront, who actually feels the cost depends on how the parties involved respond. That's why it makes more sense to say someone in the supply chain pays. It's not always the same person every time.

They are paid by the importer. It’s possible those costs will be passed along with higher prices, but you can’t really pass costs back.

Of course you can. Competition means exporters can lower their prices to help mitigate the tariffs in order to beat their competitors.

They can do that without tariffs too.

But why would they if they don't have a competition on price without a tariff?

Why wouldn’t they have competition?

Even if you assume perfect competition costs like tariffs can be passed back to producers.

Imagine a demand and a supply curve. From the perspective of a producer outside the country the tariff effectively shifts the demand curve, but doesn't affect supply. That's going to lead to a lower price at equilibrium.

Of course, from the perspective of the consumer it's the opposite situation, the supply curve shifts which leads to a higher price at equilibrium.

Both happen simultaneously, who pays most of the tariff depends on the elasticity of the supply and the demand

OP said:

> loathe Obamacare and like the ACA

they were not arguing for or against obamacare, they were pointing out the laziness of people that don't realize that Obamacare _is_ the ACA, but somehow hate the former and love the latter.

> How is it not a different point of view to think that healthcare should be tied to one's employment as opposed to all people should have access to affordable healthcare?

Please explain how members of a low-income household would rationally and knowingly advocate to eliminate the only access to healthcare they can afford.

Then, if you are able to present a coherent argument, try to explain that in a stupidity vs diverse point of view, this stance is indeed not founded on stupidity.