Is Donald Trump’s promise more like a sanctions plan?

Sorry, not sorry for splitting that hair. Mixing tariffs and sanctions is a serious problem that will lead to poor policy outcomes and worsening living conditions for the average global citizen. Only pedantry can save us now.

Loading

This could save both sex and the joy of human relationships. To celebrate this November, American women unhappy with Donald Trump’s victory imported the 4B movement from South Korea. The title translates to “Four Nos” because adherents say “no” to dating men, “no” to marriage with men, “no” to sex with men, and “no” to having children with men (which apparently means “full “no” to the last, given the difficult situation with gametes). which our dioecious species faces). This is a classic case of imposing sanctions when a tariff would be more appropriate.

It must be assumed that women who have committed to 4B are heterosexual women (otherwise there is nothing to give up) who have decided, on the basis that some men have political or social views with which they disagree, to sanction the entire sex .

Not only is this an excellent illustration of the fact that sanctions can also have consequences for the party applying the sanctions (these women are denying their own urges to punish others), but it also demonstrates the importance of choosing the right tariff, sanction or ban to achieve your goal.

In this case, the tariff will be more favorable. Instead of completely disowning men, heterosexual women (who want it all) could impose additional measures on them. expenses about sex, dating, marriage and children, engaging only in activities with men who treat women well and respect their bodily autonomy. There are no rules that require fares to be charged in dollars and cents.

Loading

You could say that before social norms changed, the price for sex was marriage; The choice of character was called choosiness. Of course, it is more difficult to find a decent man than to settle for a skillful, lustful and willing one. But, as we have already established, while tariffs can protect what we consider desirable, they do so by making goods more expensive for the consumer. At least, unlike sanctions, tariffs do not make them completely unaffordable.

Thus, the power of pedantry, which can clarify the different types of “no,” is crucial for extracting the maximum benefit from national and social relations. But it could also contribute to a better discussion of so-called social media bans for under-16s. The legislation was passed through Parliament just in time for parents to spend Christmas trying to explain it to their children. The problem is that the ban is not prohibit is an attempt to respond to the damage that autoplay and algorithms do to attention spans and to stop the spiral of harmful content. And this needs to stop somehow. Most people don’t necessarily want to ban social media; we want it to be better.

Targeted modifications could help, but an even more powerful solution would be subscription fees that would force platforms to verify users through credit card payment.

So yes, it will be worth it for the consumer to fix social media. But if there’s one thing we can learn from this November, it’s that failure – whether through tariffs, sanctions or bans – can, under the right circumstances, be worth it.

Parnell Palme McGuinness is managing director of the Agenda C campaign. She has worked for the Liberal Party and the German Greens.