Again, there is a concerted effort to flag stories that are highly important, actual and factual. The one thing wrong with it is that they are not flattering for the tech oligarchs.
The rules to not discuss meta phenomenons are understandable, but they also are divorced from reality at this point. Personally, I would also like to pretend nothing is happening.
The pattern of information suppression is undeniable though, and HN should not pretend there is no moral conflict here. We either allow it to happen, or not.
@dang, I guess you are tired to death, and that is why I hesitate to bring it up. I think the flagging system makes it too easy to suppress unwelcome information at this point. Maybe you are willing to react?
> The one thing wrong with it is that they are not flattering for the tech oligarchs
HN hosts plenty of threads that are "not flattering for the tech oligarchs", so I don't think we're considering the same things.
The issue here is repetition. Avoiding too much repetition on HN's front page is a core principle [1] (or rather, an important consequence of the core principle [2]). There have been quite a few frontpage threads about goings-on in the U.S. government right now (I can think of 4 from yesterday, and there were no doubt more that I've forgotten).
It's not all off topic, but at the same time we can't have every one of these threads on the front page—it wouldn't leave any room for anything else, and HN is not primarily a political or current affairs site (https://qht.co/newsguidelines.html). Also, it would provoke an even larger backlash from the community (who don't come here primarily for those things) than the one currently complaining about flags.
So what do we do? Here is the basic approach:
When there's a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT) [3], we tend to downweight follow-ups and less-substantial articles and try to reserve frontpage slots for stories that haven't been discussed yet, have articles that can serve as a foundation for substantive discussion, and contain significant new information [4]. In this way, HN can host a certain amount of frontpage discussion about the latest MOT without being overrun by it.
People inevitably disagree about which specific articles are substantive, contain SNI, and so on, but from a moderation point of view the specific composition of articles matters less than the underlying principles [6]. The latter have held up well over the years and haven't changed.
Whenever a divisive MOT comes along, the users who feel most passionately always complain that not enough articles are getting through. This time is different, they say, and therefore we should change the rules [5]. The trouble is that "this time" always feels different. HN has been around long enough to undergo (and survive) many of these waves. The main thing we learned from these experiences is no, the rules didn't need to change, and we were right to stick to them. MOTs come and go, no tsunami lasts forever, and preserving HN for its intended purpose is the right strategy.
If people want to make a case for a particular article meeting the criteria I mentioned, and deserving to be unflagged and maybe be on the front page, that's great. But please familiarize yourselves with the principles first, so we can be having the same conversation. A common case is when people's strong passions about a MOT make them feel like every related article is critical and needs emergency frontpage accommodation. Then when that doesn't happen, they feel like the system is rigged, oligarchy overlords are suppressing truth, the mods are secretly on the other side, and other intense imaginings.
Thank you for your lengthy response, appreciated. You must have done something extremely bad in your previous life for having this job. A short response:
> The issue here is repetition.
I trust your word about that. I understand you did the flagging in this case? If so, in that case it might spare you explanations if you had a toggle for "too much related subjects at this moment", and it would spare others submitting relevant pieces about the subject. Like [dupe] is also a helpful tag.
In this case, the MOT topic that is allowed to be discussed (afaik) is the purging of information by the Trump decrees.
The topics we posted here are about something else, namely the fact that Musk's servants are taking highly sensitive, personal data from government systems (even from air gapped ones).
Also, I am sure to have seen high quality submissions taken down months before these things became actuality. You can guess that if you see these kinds of topics over a longer period of time taken down, you start to form hypotheses.
> "this time" always feels different.
I understand that people can be passionate about many things. The problem is that the flood of things happening are overwhelming, precisely to avoid meaningful discussion. We are not discussing the new logo of Twitter, we talk about new history lemmas on Wikipedia.
In the end it is your call, and I can see that you are in quite an impossible situation. My personal view though is that at the time the house of Weimar is burning down, we should be able to process more than 1/2 "actuality" topics. So yes, you can tell I think this time is different. As a personal statement, my fear is we will look back and conclude that this time indeed wasn't different from its future. We made it so.
Whatever you decide going forward, I respect your work and wish you good luck!
> You must have done something extremely bad in your previous life for having this job.
Well that made me lol thanks!
> I understand you did the flagging in this case?
Oh no - users do the flagging, in this case and nearly every case. What we do, when we see a story like this, is take a look and see if it would make sense to turn the flags off according to the criteria I described above. I did that 3 or 4 times yesterday, for example, including once or twice in response to emails that people sent, advocating for a particular story.
> and it would spare others submitting relevant pieces about the subject
I don't think that would work. Users are going to submit what they want no matter what we say or do.
> the MOT topic that is allowed to be discussed (afaik) is the purging of information by the Trump decrees. The topics we posted here are about something else
I would call that the same MOT. One could name it "the aggressive and perhaps unprecedented transition of federal power going on in the US government right now" -something like that.
> namely the fact that Musk's servants are taking highly sensitive, personal data from government systems (even from air gapped ones)
The only submission about that which I've seen to date is the OP, and here (as some users pointed out) the reliability of the source is a little unclear. If there's a solid, relatively neutral third party report about this, it might be a better fit for HN. I googled and didn't find one (I mean on this point specifically) but I didn't search deeply.
> Also, I am sure to have seen high quality submissions taken down months before these things became actuality.
I'm always happy to explain what happened in any particular case, but I can only do that if I have specific links to look at.
> You can guess that if you see these kinds of topics over a longer period of time taken down, you start to form hypotheses.
Alas, there is no upper bound on the hypotheses that users will form, and no lower bound on how much information they require before doing so. This is something we just have to live with and address as best we can. My strategy is to answer as many comments as I can [1], and to accept that no matter what I do, its effect on this problem will have measure zero.
> My personal view though is that at the time the house of Weimar is burning down, we should be able to process more than 1/2 "actuality" topics
I hear you! and I don't mean to be dismissive—I know a lot people share your view right now—but I have to point out that to invoke the analogy of Weimar is already to assume your conclusion.
This is by far the most common historical analogy that people reach for, and it also happens to be by far the most activating to (let's call it) the social nervous system. I think our job is to down-regulate that as much as possible for as long as possible, even though it means I'll be called (a) an enabler of Nazis, (b) a Nazi sympathizer, and (c) probably a Nazi myself, because that is how the internet game is played.
If I understand internet dynamics, then it's not true that this-time-is-different [2]; it's just how it feels. But I could be wrong. If what-happens-after-Weimar happens, I'll be happy (well, not happy, but willing) to admit having made the wrong bet, if there's still time to do so.
[1] (and emails—but it's better to do it in the comments because then there's a chance that more people will see it)
[2] I mean for HN. Obviously the events going on right now are different from what happened before; but the only aspect that it's my job to comment on here is the HN moderation aspect.
> One could name it "the aggressive and perhaps unprecedented transition of federal power going on in the US government right now" -something like that.
That is a tame way to call a coup a coup...
> but I have to point out that to invoke the analogy of Weimar is already to assume your conclusion.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
> If what-happens-after-Weimar happens, I'll be happy (well, not happy, but willing) to admit having made the wrong bet, if there's still time to do so.
Interesting way of seeing things go terribly sideways in a nicer light...
Though I have to put my loaded comment in much more nuanced terms, people call for neutrality in general but with the current happenings, and even if myself am not an engineer nor a US citizen nor living in the USA, but a physicist, I have to recall to most the duty of the Engineer
"I am an Engineer. In my profession, I take deep pride. To it, I owe solemn obligations.
As an engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance and respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession. I will always be conscious that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of the Earth's precious wealth.
As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given, without reservation, for the public good. In the performance of duty, and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give my utmost."
In those trying times I think it is important for all of us to uphold basic principles that were guiding principles for the giants we rely on in our daily lives, and while I understand that some of us are bound by our work duties, I would like to wish that they would not cloud judgement for what is right.
Regardless of where we are, and what people might or might not believe, we are in for tough times ahead. And I still appreciate moderation and moderators, although it is a thankless job that usually gets more flak than it should...
The reason that there are so many threads right now about the US government is that it is undergoing a radical transformation, the likes of which have not been seen in at least 100 years in the US.
The President is gutting one major agency after another. He has offered a severance package to almost every single government employee, and has announced that massive layoffs are soon to follow. He has attempted to pause nearly all government spending. He has called for the annexation of Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal, and refuses to rule out military force to achieve those aims (in the case of Panama, he has announced that he will definitely use military force, unless Panama willingly cedes the canal). He has initiated trade wars against Mexico, Canada, China and the EU, which collectively make up 40% of world GDP.
The tech industry is playing a major role in this radical transformation. Elon Musk not only funded Trump's campaign to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, but has now been given direct control over virtually the entire federal government. His people are going into major government agencies and taking over control of IT systems, locking out senior staff or even the entire staff, and doing what they want.
It's a major mistake to think that this is just another topic of the day that shouldn't have more than one or two front-page threads.
Indeed—I said something similar in the comment currently adjacent to yours*, and that's why we're having more than one or two frontpage threads about it.
I currently see only one front-page thread about what's happening to the US government right now. I've searched for recent stories, and most of them have been flagged. This does look to me like suppression of the topic.
I am inclined to think this can't be true, but I have to admit that this would be nothing more than cope.
The US State is collapsing right in front of our eyes. Frightening. The US public still distracted by imaginary internal enemies, some prefer to keep pretending nothing is happening, others complying out of fear, media moguls distorting information sphere, the mess is complete. Cue a dog in a burning house, "All is fine"
All public institutions overtaken, competent people have to leave. What is happening behind the scenes is hidden by a professional chaos actor creating a new crisis everyday.
I think that for the most part federal employees are good people who work just as hard for one president as another. I used to work at a government agency. It was full of fantastic, dedicated, hard working people.
But in recent years there seems to be a large number of people who think that being a federal employee gives them the right to use their positions to “Resist” what people voted for. And such thinking has no place in our democracy. And it’s shameful that federal employees didn’t condemn what happened in 2017.
> Executive branch employees should have no ability to resist or frustrate those changes.
Yes, they should. Unless you believe that it's so easy to run the government that you can replace all the workers every four years (doubtful at best), you need to keep these people in their roles.
It doesn't matter what the Constitution theorizes; the simple truth is that an advanced country needs career civil servants capable of thinking for themselves. That inherently means they will loudly disagree if they think the president is doing something stupid.
Sorry, no. The constitution matters and democracy matters. We do not have a system of governance by credentialed technocrats. Those people are absolutely necessary. But they must abide by democratic values. Their job is to put their talents to work implementing the agenda of the guy people elected to set policies, no matter who wins. It’s like a lawyer representing a client. You owe the voting public—through the president duly elected to represent it—zealously advocacy, regardless of your personal opinions.
It is unconscionable to have a system where the federal workforce enthusiastically implements the policies of the president from one party, but hinders the policies of the other. And to be clear, I don’t think most federal employees think this way. I think most federal employees, especially the old school ones, see it as their duty to do their job the best they can regardless of who sets the policy. So I was shocked and upset by what I saw in 2017. Not just that a vocal minority of federal employees declared they were bad at their jobs and disloyal to the duly elected president. But moreso because the silent majority of good federal employees stood quiet and didn’t say anything.
Again, this is the law and their job. See 'The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946' which prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and the multitude of case law around it over the last 70 years.
Okay. And what if those policies actively hurt people and do more damage than good? Should they just give in? When does it stop? When can they say no? Only when a judge explicitly says it's illegal despite it obviously being illegal?
The whole point of democracy is to have a way for people who don’t agree on what’s “good” or not to live together and make collective decisions. You completely throw that away if you allow federal employees to substitute their own judgment and value system for those of voters. That’s absolutely corrosive to democracy.
And remember the Resistance wasn’t about things that were “obviously illegal.” It was federal workers trying to frustrate immigration and environmental policies they disagreed with. That’s simply way out of the proper lane.
No you don't. Civil servants disagreeing with stupid policy or malicious policy is a feature. It says the policy is bad, full stop. Civil servants generally have more knowledge about what they do and are doing than elected leaders. It's just a consequence of working in it. Blind yes men is corrosive to democracy.
Show me where in the federalist papers it says that civil servants can frustrate policies they think are “stupid.” What you’re talking about is full mask-off “people should be governed by their betters” technocracy.
They aren't ruling. Pushing back against bad policies is not ruling. Nor is it a religion.
You're clearly American. The American founding fathers wanted to avoid tyranny of the majority. That is clear. Civil servants pushing back is exactly that! No, it's not documented in the Federalist papers but the world is a lot more complicated than the 18th century.
The founding fathers wanted to prevent tyranny of the majority when it came to individual rights. And they created a very specific system for doing that: specific rights that could be vindicated in the judicial branch. What they didn’t do was empower an unelected, unappointed bureaucracy to have any role in that. And they certainly did not extend that concept to government policies of general application—the “guns versus butter” tradeoffs that governments must make. If a candidate wins the election promising more guns and less butter, the only job of the civil service is to make that happen.
And there hasn’t been any material change since the 18th century. There were fierce debates over policies back in the 1700s, including some of the same debates we’re having today, like over tariffs. The federal government already had thousands of employees even during Jefferson’s time in 1802. Nobody imagined that those employees would have anything more than a ministerial role carrying out the agenda of the elected President.
And yes, the only way to describe what you’re seeing among federal employees today is a religion. I’m in DC. Some people—and again to be clear it’s a minority—are literally crying over changes in government policies related to immigration, defriending people based on who they voted for, etc. These are not detached professionals who deserve the public trust. They’re religious nuts who believe they have the moral high ground and that gives them the right to override the constitutional design.
Those "credentialed technocrats" are implementing the laws, as written by the Congress of the United States of America.
The President is supposed to execute the laws that Congress passes, and to spend money as Congress appropriates it. He does not have carte blanche to do whatever he would like with the Federal government. There are some areas where the President has more freedom of action (like foreign policy), but when it comes to administering government, he is not all-powerful.
Trump has the power to fire them! Even if I accepted your premise, he still can't require their personal loyalty.
Their job is to do what they were hired to do, not swear fealty to the president. There is a reason why some positions are political and some are career - it's because you do in fact need "credentialed technocrats" if you're trying to run a developed country in the 21st century.
You do need credentialed technocrats to run a country. But the whole premise of “non-political technocrats” is that they do the job they’re hired to do regardless of their political views. Democracy can’t work if non-political appointees feel licensed to put a thumb on the scale of their preferred party. That’s what was happening in the 2017 resistance.
> But the whole premise of “non-political technocrats” is that they do the job they’re hired to do regardless of their political views.
What if their job is against the whims of an administration working in direct opposition to the laws passed by Congress?
Musk has attempted to shut down USAID, which is a Congressionally mandated agency. Are you still going to call it "putting a thumb on the scale of their preferred party" when the employees inevitably resist this?
There is a spectrum. An FCC employee tasked with ensuring a device won't emit interference can easily do their job with very little reference to politics!
But an FCC employee tasked with ensuring free and fair access to broadcast licenses now no longer can, because Donald Trump has put HIS hand on the scale in opposition to the law and Constitution.
The executive branch is not allowed to ignore a law passed by Congress, only interpret it in good faith. This is written into the Constitution (the part that goes "shall faithfully execute"). This means that executive branch employees disobeying the president in accordance with US law are in fact working within the system.
If your suggestion is that in such a case they should kowtow to the president, you are deluding yourself. That is not democracy; Congress is the voice of the people and are the only federal lawmakers.
If the GOP would like to use their majority to undo existing laws, great! They actually have to vote and go through the motions instead of handwaving it away as executive privilege. Historically, this has not worked very well for them - it turns out that a platform of "tear it all down" works a lot better in on the campaign trail than in practice and they've been unable to repeal laws because they simply could not come up with a replacement.
This is why people actually speaking out about swooping changes in their administration is important.
I find it very odd that you find that upholding democracy matters, even if it means to enact and act on behalf on people that are actively dismantling it or have a proven track record at effectively ignoring the popular vote, which since you are a fervent democratic believer, I am guessing you are also against various different problems such as: gerrymandering, purging voters of certain groups from the ballots, attempting to manipulate election results and even in some case ignoring the popular vote altogether in a more than dodgy manner (see this description of the 2000 election https://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/pomper.htm )
This is without counting that an important number of members of the current administration, refused to acknowledge January 6 or admit that the previous administration was indeed legitimate...
So yes people should do their jobs, but should be held to standards, even a soldier is bound by the oath to the constitution, as does everyone appointed to a Federal position:
"An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Again you pledge not to the administration but to the institution and the constitution, so I do not think your point do really stand here.
You don’t get to take away power from voters and give it to civil servants by waving your hands about the Holocaust. Yes, there is a line when a civil servant has to decline to follow orders. But the line is way over there. Obama blew up plenty of Muslim weddings and I think that the UAV operator was correct to follow those orders.
Look at the Blusky group linked here. What holocaust is the national park service “Resistance Team” preventing? You’re invoking the Holocaust to justify defying the duly elected president’s policy choices on legitimate political issues: the environment, immigration, etc.
And name-calling is rich when I’m defending the right of the winners of elections to do what they promised the public to do. As much as you hate the public and think you know better, this is a democracy and they’re in charge. Meanwhile you’re defending the prerogative of unelected career bureaucrats to veto what the public wants. Sorry, you’re the bad guy. The federal “Resistance” workers are the bad guys.
> Meanwhile you’re defending the prerogative of unelected career bureaucrats to veto what the public wants. Sorry, you’re the bad guy. The federal “Resistance” workers are the bad guys.
No, the person advocating for a purge of employees in favor of regime-loyal employees using deranged claims of a resistance movement is the bad person. This is not hard.
The constitutional crisis started in 2017 when the unelected civil service declared “Resistance” to the elected President’s policies. That goes to the heart of whether the executive branch—the largest and most powerful branch today, to which Congress has unwisely abdicated much of its constitutional authority—is under democratic control.
Whatever arguments people have about whether the President can stop payment on block grants versus earmarks are trifles in comparison.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) directs courts to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
I’m familiar with the APA. It’s a statute that allows judicial supervision of executive branch actions. It absolutely doesn’t empower individual executive branch employees to try and frustrate the policies of the president.
If you think an action will be set aside by the courts, there are processes for handling that through in-house as legal departments and ultimate the President’s Office of Legal Counsel. And those lawyers have the job of aggressively representing the elected administration’s interpretation of the law before the courts. But line federal employees have zero role in the APA process.
It does though. It requires federal employees to not behave in an arbitrary and capricious manner. It requires them to move slowly when arbitrary and capricious policies come down. Go read the case law. They can't just to be told to start denying people something because the President wants it so, unless the authorization for what they are doing allows the President that sort of authority. They very much can and should follow the actual law and policies, not 'what the President wants'. What you are talking about is a banana republic, not the USA executive branch as it has worked since the 1940s.
I literally litigate APA cases. The APA is what you invoke if the government grants you a permit and then takes it away without a good reason. But individual executive branch employees cannot invoke the APA to oppose an administrative policy they disagree with.
You also seem to think the President is a dictator that can dictate what people do and they are required to follow those dictates up to an until the courts come back. We do not have a top down dictatorial system of government.
This is basic high school US civics 101 on how our government functions.
Show me a civics textbook that says federal employees have any independence from the president. You won’t find one. The founding fathers created a very specific system, not a general vibe. The government as a whole isn’t dictatorial—there are three branches that check each other. But within each branch it’s close to dictatorial. The Supreme Court justices decide the law. Their staff can privately express their opinions, but have no independent power. Same for congressional staff. It would be unthinkable for a Supreme Court clerk or congressional staffer to declare “Resistance.” The same should be true for federal employees. Express your concerns through proper channels, but otherwise keep your mouth shut and follow the directions of those with constitutional authority.
The branches have to be dictatorships inside themselves. The founders were very deliberate in creating a system with democratic accountability. Everyone with power is either elected or appointed by someone who is elected. Career civil servants are not elected. Voters have no way to influence them other than by electing the president. And so career civil servants cannot have powers beyond the ministerial. Otherwise you end up with a government that isn’t responsive to elections—where people can’t change the course of government by voting.
Trump ordered random water released from dams in California last week. That is a dictate, not sound policy. There was zero documentation on our tariffs on over 40% of goods coming into the country as of this morning. The press secretary last week tried to clarify the freezing that was initiated, ultimately leading the the rescinding of the clarifying order that were given to the entire US government. That is dictatorship, not sound executive policies in line with the office of the President. Those are all dictates from the person on top. Yes, offices would be correct in ignoring them. In fact, the Army Corp of Engineers ultimately did have to stop release water due to potential negative outcomes. And the Army Corps acted correctly. But according to you, they acted wrongly and illegally.
I'm not going to give a basic civics lesson. The executive 'executes' the rules and policies established by the legislative branch. Government employees execute those rules, the President oversees. The only people the President gives orders to are the military. Musk has control of the National Checkbook, with no oversight, protocols or security to limit his actions. That is dictatorial power, not Constitutional executive authority.
Sorry bud, you want blind following of dictates. That is not the American system of government.
Many of those things will be litigated, and some may be overturned. That happens to administrations all the time. That is checks and balances. But federal employees are not at liberty to ignore directives from the President because they don’t think it’s “sound policy.” Nobody voted for them. You’re talking about unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats short-circuiting the operation of the democratically accountable branches.
By the way I’d give the same courtesy to any president. His student loan forgiveness was obviously illegal, as well as being bad policy. But it would’ve been beyond the pale for his Department of Education to ignore the directive.
> The executive 'executes' the rules and policies established by the legislative branch. Government employees execute those rules, the President oversees.
Article II is crystal clear. The very first sentence says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” It’s parallel to the congressmen or Supreme Court justices. The “civil service” are just staff. The constitution doesn’t even bother mentioning them.
What you’re saying is that there’s this key organ of government—the “non-political civil service”—with independent responsibilities exercising their best judgment, that somehow isn’t even mentioned in the constitution!
> What you’re saying is that there’s this key organ of government—the “non-political civil service”—with independent responsibilities exercising their best judgment, that somehow isn’t even mentioned in the constitution!
You're saying that as if it were a real zinger, clinching the argument for you. I don't think it is or does.
Yeah, the constitution may not mention a non-political civil service. So what?!? It ultimately regulates a whole lot of shit that it doesn't explicitly mention. Like, does the constitution explicitly mention Elon Musk's employees installing drives on government computers? No? Clearly unconstitutional, then!
If the President orders a Treasury Department employee to transfer $1 billion to the President's personal bank account in Switzerland, does that employee have the right to say "no"?
According to the theory you're espousing here, that employee is a drone who will have to transfer the money, even though it's obviously illegal.
I was thinking we've got a set up for that. Trump tariffs, Musk wanting to cut 2trn in spending, and stock markets at record highs due to the AI bubble. In the 30s it was the 1929 crash after the electricity bubble. I doubt it'd be quite as bad. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce" as they say.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930) – A Historical Disaster
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is one of the most infamous examples of how tariffs can backfire catastrophically. It was originally intended to protect American farmers and industries from foreign competition during the onset of the Great Depression. However, it exacerbated the economic crisis and led to a global trade collapse.
---
Background
The Great Depression was beginning in 1929, with the stock market crash causing widespread economic distress.
U.S. legislators, led by Senators Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley, passed the tariff to protect domestic agriculture and manufacturing from foreign competition.
The law raised tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, some by as much as 60%.
---
The Immediate Consequences
1. Foreign Retaliation and Trade War
Over 60 countries retaliated by imposing their own tariffs on U.S. exports.
U.S. agricultural exports collapsed as major buyers (like Canada and Europe) stopped purchasing American farm products.
Canada, the U.S.'s biggest trading partner, imposed heavy tariffs on American goods, devastating trade between the two countries.
2. Collapse of Global Trade
World trade plummeted by 66% between 1929 and 1934.
The U.S. saw a 61% decline in its exports in just two years.
Many businesses reliant on international trade went bankrupt, worsening unemployment.
3. Massive Job Losses & Economic Depression
U.S. industries that depended on international markets suffered major layoffs.
Unemployment in the U.S. skyrocketed from 8% in 1930 to 25% by 1933.
Small businesses, especially those in farming and manufacturing, collapsed.
4. Agricultural Sector Devastation
Farmers were already struggling from falling prices due to overproduction.
The tariffs cut off international markets for U.S. farm products, causing massive surpluses and price drops.
Thousands of farms went bankrupt, leading to foreclosures and mass migration.
---
Long-Term Fallout
The tariff is widely blamed for deepening and prolonging the Great Depression in the U.S.
It damaged diplomatic relations, making it harder for nations to cooperate economically.
By 1934, the U.S. reversed course, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt signing the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act to lower tariffs and restore trade.
Economists today use Smoot-Hawley as a cautionary tale of how protectionist policies can backfire.
---
Lessons from Smoot-Hawley for Today
Tariffs can lead to retaliation, making U.S. exports suffer more than imports.
Trade wars harm both consumers and businesses, driving up costs and causing job losses.
Global trade interdependence means isolationist policies are riskier than ever.
Economic downturns should be met with stimulus and trade expansion, not restrictions
Stop coping. Repeat out loud after me: "The US has collapsed similarly. A coup has taken place like that similar to Putin when he rose to power. China, the US, and Russia are three single-party dictatorships which are controlled by the party in a totalitarian manner."
The sooner everyone starts admitting this, the sooner something can be done about it.
OPM isn't an "institution." It's the HR department for the executive branch, which has a new CEO. And nothing is "happening behind the scenes" or "hidden." The guy who won the election literally had Musk camped out in Pennsylvania for the last week before the election promising to do this. And now he's tweeting everything he's doing in real time.
And the the linked article--the fact that the official National Park Service has what calls itself a "Resistance team"--is exactly why Trump voters were excited at the prospect of Musk doing this. We cannot have a democracy if executive branch employees think they have license to "Resist" the elected President's agenda.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. You can't just come in and 'arbitrarily' change things. That is the law of the land for 70 years, backed up by the Supreme Court (including against Trump during his last term). That law provides the stability that makes the USA number one in the world. Without that stability, there is no investment in business. There is no selling US bonds. There is not dollar as the world's reserve currency.
That’s not what the APA means at all. “Arbitrary and capricious” means basically irrational or illogical. Agencies can change their minds on a whim “just because” so long as they articulate a policy reason. This happened several times with net neutrality and was upheld each time. See also: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/502/
Also, the APA was enacted to protect private rights, not to restrict changes to the internal operation of the executive branch. There’s some bizarre cases that have allowed civil servant suits (Crane v. Napolitano) but the practice of that is fraught.
Sorry, in the USA, we don't believe in a 'top down, just following orders' style system. In fact we've gone to war with lots of countries that loved that type of system.
But you are halfway there. It was enacted to provide stability. You stated it clearly 'articulate a policy reason'. There is no policy reason why EVERY AG needs to be cleared out. There is no policy reason why a non-government employee is allowed to install hard drives. There is no policy reason why 1000 EPA staff are being threatened with firing.
There is plenty of established case law regarding this. You can try defending it online. I'm awful at online communication, you will win. But Trump is going to lose in court, again. Which is why he is trying to move so fast in front of the coming court cases that it doesn't matter by the time ruling come down allowing him to bypass our nation's laws, rules, and Supreme Court rulings.
A top-down, “just follow orders” system is exactly what we have within the executive branch. There isn’t even an “executive branch” in the constitution. It’s literally just “the President.” https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art... (“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”). Article II empowers the “President” with all the powers of the executive. If imposes all the obligations of the office on him personally. Everyone in the executive branch works for him.
The APA was enacted to provide stability for members of the public affected by agency action. It wasn’t intended to govern the relationship between the President and executive branch employees. Among other things, the APA applies only to “agencies,” and the President is not an “agency” whose actions are reviewable under the statute: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=176481246527537...
Total BS. We do not have a top down dictatorial system. We do not want a dictator in this country. We have departments that follow relevant policies and laws, and a President that executes on those laws/policies. Again, the President doesn't dictate what people do, the President insures that the executive branch executes our nation's laws. Totally different. This is basic high school civics stuff.
We are ANTI dictators in this great nation, even if sometimes that is politically inconvenient for change that we would like to come quicker.
Edit: Example, as of earlier today there was still no documentation on the new tariffs that will be applied on supposedly 40%+ of goods brought into this country starting in 2 days. This week the press secretary had to clarify which programs were shutdown, what funding was shutdown by executive order and contradicted the previously sent clarifying memo, which was then retracted. These are LITERAL dictates coming down, not sane, understandable, with reason behind them policies.
As an "other" I'd like to point out that the OPM database was handed over to China on a silver platter in 2012 and noone was fired or otherwise disciplined and noone lost their pension. This likely outed everyone who was operationally covert during the time period covered by the database at that time, which was ~ 40 years.
I truly do not understand what sentiment you're trying to convey. The article is literally from a Blusky group that calls itself the "Resistance team of the U.S. National Park Service." How can you possibly condone the existence of that? What kind of government do you think we have?
Any history book promoting an assassin or domestic terrorist would not be legitimate. Single-handedly derailing AI, space, automotive, and social media for personal political ideology will surely be framed in the same way Lee Harvey Oswald is.
Who said assassination? Could be that someone convinces him to stop behaving as erratically as he does. (Yeah, doesn't feel all that realistic...)
Or someone who finally manages to convince the American public that he isn't a hero but exactly the raiving drug-addled Nazi fucklord he is, so they stop worshipping him as some kind of fucking Capitalist Messiah.
Doing either of those would surely merit being called "a hero", wouldn't it?
Musk wants to know how it works so government payments can be privatized to x.com in an effort to make him a trillionaire and to start outsourcing government function to the broligarchs.
The rules to not discuss meta phenomenons are understandable, but they also are divorced from reality at this point. Personally, I would also like to pretend nothing is happening.
The pattern of information suppression is undeniable though, and HN should not pretend there is no moral conflict here. We either allow it to happen, or not.
@dang, I guess you are tired to death, and that is why I hesitate to bring it up. I think the flagging system makes it too easy to suppress unwelcome information at this point. Maybe you are willing to react?