Readit NewsHere it is running in test chamber at mars equivalent atmospheric density - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMCJGfwj3rY
People that have children. Do you think it was honestly a good idea in retrospect, and if so, why? If your wife had been on the fence about having children, would you have preferred to go child-free, in retrospect?
This is certainly something to be concerned about, but without that context it's hard to know what this really means.
The article says a "microplastic particle" is any peice of plastic smaller than 5mm. That's bigger than some pills - I would definitely notice chewing on something that size.
So how big are these really and what are they doing to me?
For reference, the US and EU both regulate that 10 micrograms per liter of arsenic in drinking water is safe. Using my rusty high school chemistry (please correct me if I'm wrong), this is on the order of ~10^20 particles (atoms) of arsenic per year. That's way way more than 100k and arsenic is more inherently harmful to humans than plastic.
This could easily be genuine epidemic levels of awful, or it could be completely nothing. Does anyone know more?
> they are subluminal
since we're talking crazy theories... how do they defeat the speed of causality to relay information back home?
There will be cases where the cost is borne 99% by one party or the other. Some products will go one way, and some will go the other way. Products also change in price for unrelated reasons.
Somebody with an ax to grind will pick the most extreme examples to favor one side. The reporter has not reported all examples.
Even with those examples though: 12% and 9% are a lot less than 25%. Clearly, the US buyers are not paying the full cost of the tariffs. That was my point. The portion will change constantly, and will be different for different products. The portion I gave was a all-products average from soon after the tariffs were imposed.
For consumers, the tariffs are frequently reduced further by the fact that the consumer price is not only composed of the wholesale price. The consumer buys from a provider with unchanged costs for advertising, labor, finance, and so on. For example, when I get a new air conditioner installed for $10,000, much of the price is local labor. It is only the importer that could possibly be exposed to the full percentage.
If China is discounting their goods, and consumers are paying for the tariff as taxes, then there is additional strain on China's ability to compete, which might bring back industry here, but more likely to Mexico, which is now getting the same treatment.
US taxpayers are basically now paying a more efficient form of taxes, since it's a tax on behavior we want to reduce, and it's largely offloaded from the consumer by the Chinese price reduction.
On the other hand, I only like tariffs to offset anti-competitive tactics. Given a little time, government will get hooked on the revenue source and US manufacturers will get soft from having hobbled competition.
It's not so simple. A murderer or rapist may have served his term in prison but still not have made restitution to the victim or his or her family. However, it's good for felons to find work after incarceration so that they can support themselves and ideally make amends to victims.