Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted

@gtconway.bsky.social

I don’t think a better headline could have been written about what happened yesterday.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/pol...

April 15, 2025 at 5:48 AM

Reposted

Acyn

@acyn.bsky.social

Moskowitz: When President Zelenskyy came to the White House, we heard a lot about what he was wearing. Oh my God, the precious Oval Office—he didn’t wear a suit! I mean, here’s a picture of Kid Rock in the Oval Office—he looks like he’s about to jump over 10 buses on the White House lawn.

April 8, 2025 at 10:11 PM

Reposted

JoJoFromJerz

@jojofromjerz.bsky.social

Oh how I miss having a president who wasn’t out of his motherfucking mind.

April 4, 2025 at 12:56 AM

Reposted

Stephen King

@stephenking.bsky.social

At one of his frequent press conferences (because he loves being on TV), I'd love it if some reporter piped up with, "What do you say to people who call you a know-nothing narcissistic asshole, Mr. President?"

April 3, 2025 at 11:43 AM

Reposted

The Full Monty

@montyseaford.bsky.social

🤦‍♂️

Amy Hoy @amyhoy.bsky.social · Apr 3

guess where they got their weird trade deficit math from?

i went to the pit for y'all and brought back the screenshots with alt text

chatgpt log:

What would be an easy way to calculate the tariffs that should be imposed on other countries so that the US is on even-playing fields when it comes to trade deficit? Set minimum at 10%.
Reasoned about trade tariffs and deficits for 10 seconds v
A straightforward (if naïve) method is to set the tariff rate for each trading partner equal to the percentage share of the trade deficit relative to that country's total imports-always no less than 10%. In formula form:
Tariff Rate (%) = max(10, (Trade Deficit ÷ Total Imports) *
100)
For example, if the US runs a $20 billion deficit on $100 billion worth of imports from a country, the calculated rate is (20/100)×100 = 20%. If the deficit were only 5%, you'd still impose a 10% floor.
This method ignores the intricate dynamics of international trade-such as elasticities, retaliatory measures, and supply chain nuances-but it provides a blunt, proportional rule to "level the playing field." One might implement it in Python like so:

[code]

Gemini answer:

Okay, let's break down the idea of using tariffs to achieve an "even playing field" defined as eliminating the US trade deficit.
While the goal of balancing trade is understandable, devising an "easy way" to calculate tariffs to achieve this is extremely complex, and most economists would argue it's not feasible or desirable for several reasons.
However, let's outline a highly simplified conceptual approach based only on the numbers, ignoring the vast real-world complexities and consequences:
Simplified (and Problematic) Calculation Idea:
1. Identify the Bilateral Deficit: Determine the trade deficit the US has with a specific country (Country X).
Deficit_X = Value of Imports from X - Value of
• Exports to X
2. Target Reduction: The goal is to reduce imports from Country X (or increase their cost to US buyers) by the amount of the deficit, so that the value effectively balances out.
3. Calculate Required Tariff (Ignoring Economics):
• If you assume, very unrealistically, that a tariff directly reduces the value of imports by a corresponding percentage (which it doesn't
- it increases the price), you could try:
Required Reduction % = Deficit_X / Value of
• Imports from X

Claude:

What would be an easy way to calculate the tariffs that should be imposed on other countries so that the US is on even-playing fields when it comes to trade deficit? Set minimum at 10%.
To calculate tariffs that could theoretically level the playing field for trade deficits, I'd suggest a straightforward approach based on the trade imbalance percentage:
1. Calculate the bilateral trade deficit with each trading partner: Trade Deficit - US Imports from Country - US
Exports to Country
2. Express this as a percentage of total bilateral trade: Deficit Percentage - (Trade Deficit / Total Bilateral Trade) × 100
3. Apply a tariff rate that corresponds to this percentage, with
your minimum 10% floor: Tariff Rate = max(Deficit
Percentage, 10%)
This creates a proportional response where countries with larger trade surpluses with the US would face higher tariffs.
For example:
• If Country A has a 25% trade surplus with the US (meaning the US has a 25% deficit), apply a 25% tariff
• If Country B has a 5% trade surplus with the US, apply the minimum 10% tariff
This method is relatively simple to calculate and directly ties tariff levels to trade imbalances. However, I should note that economists generally caution that trade deficits alone don't necessarily indicate unfair trade practices, and tariffs can have complex economic consequences including increased consumer prices and potential retaliation.
Would you like me to elaborate on any part of this approach or discuss potential refinements to make it more sophisticated?

Grok:

the deficit. The deficit as a percentage of total trade is
$295B/$582B = 50.69%. Using the formula Tariff% = 10% +
(Deficit% × Scaling Factor), we choose a scaling factor of 50 for illustration:
• Tariff = 10% + (50.69% × 50) = 10% + 25.345% = 35.345%, rounded to 35.3%.
This means a 35.3% tariff on Chinese goods could be proposed to offset the imbalance, aiming to reduce imports and encourage domestic production or exports.
Extending to Other Countries
To provide a broader view, here's a table of top US trading partners with 2024 deficits, using data from The Motley Fool and similar calculations (assuming scaling factor of 50 for consistency):

[data table headings]
Country

Deficit
(USD
Billion)

Total
Trade
(USD
Billion)
Deficit %

Calculate d Tariff %

China
-295
582
50.69%
35.3%

Mexico
-172
840
20.48%
20.2%

Vietnam
-123
(Data incomplet e, estimate)
~30%
25.0%

Ireland
-87
(Data incomplet e, estimate)
~25%
22.5%

Germany
-85
(Data incomplete estimate)
~20%
20.0%

April 3, 2025 at 2:07 AM

Reposted

Aaron Rupar

@atrupar.com

Wow- Himes during a heated exchange w/Will Cain on Fox: "I'm not gonna listen to to you tell me that this about a partisan advantage...it is by the grace of God that we don't have dead pilots right now...it makes me want to throw up to hear you turn this into a partisan issue. You just need to stop"

March 25, 2025 at 8:23 PM

Reposted

Aaron Rupar

@atrupar.com

BENNET: Did you know that the president's Middle East adviser was in Moscow on this thread while you were as director of the CIA participating in this thread? Were you aware of that?!

RATCLIFFE: I'm not aware of that

BENNET: It's am embarrassment

March 25, 2025 at 3:38 PM

Reposted

John Pavlovitz

@johnpavlovitz.bsky.social

March 26, 2025 at 12:15 AM

Reposted

God

@thegodpodcast.com

THEY'RE ALL GOING TO HELL.

March 26, 2025 at 12:32 AM

Reposted

Jenny Cohn

@jennycohn.bsky.social

“One young man sobbed when a guard pushed him to the floor. He said, ‘I’m not a gang member. I’m gay. I’m a barber.’ I believed him. *** He “began to whimper,” as his head was roughly shaved, “folding his hands in prayer as his hair fell.” He “asked for his mother & cried as he was slapped again.”

What the Venezuelans Deported to El Salvador Experienced

Exclusive photos of the arrival of Venezuelan detainees deported from the U.S.

time.com

March 22, 2025 at 8:52 PM

Reposted

Mrs. Betty Bowers

@mrsbettybowers.bsky.social

Schoolchildren are routinely slaughtered by AR-15s. Hundreds die.

[*crickets* "Thoughts and prayers" *crickets*]

A couple unoccupied cars are set on fire. No one is hurt.

["THIS HORROR WILL NOT STAND!!! We MUST act to STOP it from ever happening AGAIN!!!!" We will pass new LAWS BANNING IT!!!]

March 20, 2025 at 8:37 PM

Reposted

JoJoFromJerz

@jojofromjerz.bsky.social

Weird how it’s always Republican dudes and not the drag queens…

March 19, 2025 at 1:35 AM

Reposted

Stephen King

@stephenking.bsky.social

Chuck Schumer was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Eventually the wheel of karma will turn again in the favor of sensible people, but God, am I tired of waiting.

March 15, 2025 at 10:11 PM

Reposted

Indivisible ❌👑

@indivisible.org

“There’s gonna be a big presence in DC, but it’s not just DC — I want to see this in rural areas, in suburban areas, in urban areas, in red states, purple states, blue states. It’s going to take all of us.” - @ezralevin.bsky.social

We’re taking to the streets nationwide on April 5: handsoff2025.com

March 15, 2025 at 2:10 AM

Reposted

Mark Cuban

@mcuban.bsky.social

We don't spend a penny on marketing. It's all word of mouth for @costplusdrugs.com

That's how we keep prices so low. Please spread the word !

March 14, 2025 at 3:32 AM

Reposted

JoJoFromJerz

@jojofromjerz.bsky.social

There are more kids with measles in Texas than there are Trans Athletes in the NCAA but you don’t hear MAGA out there talking about that now do you?

March 13, 2025 at 6:26 PM

Reposted

Aaron Rupar

@atrupar.com

holy shit this question at the Rep. Chuck Edwards town hall 🔥🔥🔥

March 13, 2025 at 11:12 PM

Reposted

Canadian Resistance 🇨🇦

@cdnresistance.bsky.social

Dear United States,

Clean up your shit.

Canada

March 13, 2025 at 12:31 AM

Reposted

Dr. Jonathan Foley

@globalecoguy.bsky.social

One of the most important solutions to climate change is *stopping deforestation* -- yet we still largely ignore it.

We need to work on this...fast. After all, deforestation emits more CO2 than the *entire US economy*.

Some thoughts about moving forward:

drawdown.org/insights/how...

How stopping deforestation is a powerful “emergency brake” climate solution

When people think of climate solutions, they often focus on smokestacks, tailpipes, and other artifacts of our fossil-fueled economy. That’s fitting since roughly two-thirds of the world’s greenhouse ...

https://drawdown.org/insights/how-stopping-deforestation-is-a-powerful-“emergency-brake”-climate-solution

March 11, 2025 at 2:59 PM

Reposted

Pete Buttigieg

@petebuttigieg.bsky.social

What he said about Social Security payments has been repeatedly debunked - so the question isn’t whether he’s lying about this, the question is why.

What is this a pretext for? He and the GOP have long shown interest in going after Social Security. What are they going to try?

March 5, 2025 at 3:09 AM