Yep, and nobody ever goes on these types of threads and says the EU is collapsing, even though there's demonstrable evidence that things are not going great for the EU (the UK left, there is virtually zero economic dynamism or tech investment, Russia has seized 1/3 of Ukraine who was trying to join the EU, and the continent has no money, no navies and terrible demographics to compete globally in the next century). People gloss over issues about the EU because it aligns more closely with their political beliefs.
Hope and wishing aside, if you think anything Trump is doing is gonna benefit the economy, you really show your ideological side.
For example, businesses are hesitant to invest in domestic manufacture because the tarrifs can be undone by next president. But the reputation that US is building right now cant be undone. Investment in manufacturing takes years, not to mention that its not like America has lots of people wanting to go work in mines and factories. Meawhile as countries with sane leaders adjust, US is gonna be less and less relevant.
So in 5 or so years when your house value and investments are way down and there is a Dem president and you think about complaining about economy is bad under liberals, remeber who cause it all. Most of the current economic problems that existed in late 2020s have origins with Reagan era economics.
Or a wicked disease state like Huntington's that causes your DNA to slip.
Simple failures with catostrophic outcomes are much more likely than rewiring and restarting all of the developmental program across huge cell and tissue populations.
It would be more likely to grow transplant tissue exogenously. It's far safer than using the body as a test tube.
These gene editing techniques are used to fix simple (typically one cause) genetic diseases. Not reengineer live organisms "in flight".
Most of the comments here feel like cope about AI TBH. There's never been an innovation like this ever, and it makes sense to get on board rather than be left behind.
There have been plenty of innovations like this. In fact, much of the hype around LLMs is a rehash of the hype around "expert systems" back in the '80s. LLMs are marginally more effective than those systems, but only marginally.
Utter nonsense. The scale of disruption with LLMs is almost unfathomable. Every small business in the country has basically abandoned the big platforms and expensive enterprises for IT support, marketing and digital content creation, HR, legal...
Patients are having detailed conversations about their health with LLMs. Office visits for routine questions are plummeting.
Software is written almost entirely by LLMs, producing a greater volume of code in a fraction of the time.
Rapidly, we are approaching a point where there is no need for junior employees in most organizations. It's not industry-specific, it's universal. This will reshape corporate Big Four accounting, software engineering, and medicine because revenue will shift so dramatically.
This is not just some marginally more effective use of computing resources.
Do you have even a shred of evidence to suggest that anything you're describing has actually taking place at scale?
"Software is written almost entirely by LLMs" is obviously false. "Every small business in the country has basically abandoned the big platforms and expensive enterprises for IT support" is obviously false. And how would you even know what medical conversations people are having with either their doctors or LLMs?
Everything you're saying sounds like unsubstantiated wishful thinking from someone who's taken a big gulp of the LLM Kool-Aid.
Well, yes. American films obviously have been soft on China because they've been desperate for access to the Chinese market. You don't bite the hand that feeds. In a similar way, if a significant amount of film production moves to the UK, it's likely that criticisms of the UK would be more muted. In the long run, this creates a national security threat when our media is inundated with non-neutral messages about other countries that are not acting in our best interest.
The easy way to see this is to reverse your lens. We've been the beneficiary of soft power from Hollywood for a century. It'd be ridiculous to lose that power without at least trying to preserve it.
> if a significant amount of film production moves to the UK, it's likely that criticisms of the UK would be more muted.
Have you watched British television or movies sometimes? They're not exactly sparing their country from criticism .. E.g. (the original) House of Cards, Not the Nine O'Clock News, etc.
The other country you mention, China, is a better match. But is that the kind of society that the USA wants to be?
Are you intentionally missing the point? Our films made in the US are already neutered from a free-speech perspective because we're chasing opinions that are politically correct in China. We don't want to worsen that by bending to every foreign tax break. We should be making unapologetically American movies, and if foreign consumers still watch those movies, all the better. But we shouldn't be writing these to a lowest common denominator of politically correct speech. It's how we've arrived at a point where all we produce is Marvel slop.
There's some point in that, although certainly not all US movie companies are self censoring in favor of China. Also, if the goal is to prevent chasing Chinese opinions, why not specifically target China?
Or are countries like Canada or the UK also seen as part of "a concerted effort by other Nations"?
> There are things to sort out, but it's certainly doable. They can probably use direct COGS to determine the tariff basis.
You could construct a variety of accounting methods to calculate a tax on the 'foreign content' of movies, but how do you actually impose this tax?
A tariff on physical goods is easy. A country requires that goods enter the country through customs facilities, and then the nice customs official doesn't release the thing until the tax is paid. The legal and physical ability to impose these taxes is long, long established.
How do you physically impose a tariff on a movie? If the master is transported physically, what is its value? The value of the fixed copy/master doesn't necessarily include the value of the IP involved, in the same way that a DVD of a $500 million movie might have a retail value of $20. What about movies transferred digitally, since there are no customs checkpoints on fiber-optic lines?
What legal apparatus would be used to impose this tax? Trump is currently getting away with the physical-goods tariffs because the legal infrastructure to collect the taxes is already in place, and remaining legal disputes are just about whether the President can unilaterally set or change tariff rates. If you'd need new law to "tariff movies," then the chance of this whim turning into a real tax drops sharply.
And it will very likely lead to issues with financing films. Many films these days are shot in multiple locations and use foreign financing, tax breaks and subsidies, sometimes accepting funds from multiple countries.
There are big issues with foreign cinema. We still have a lot of structural advantages in the US to producing films. Production has shifted to other countries because of significant tax incentives. These tax incentives are a way that other countries are frankly not playing fair.
The bottom line for me is that we shouldn't simply accept that films should all be filmed in Canada, Australia, the UK, or elsewhere. Hollywood has been the epicenter of creative jobs in this country for a century, and we should try to preserve it.
Not playing fair? Horse hockey. Every sovereign nation is entirely within their rights to adjust their taxing system for their own benefit. Belief in this juvenile concept of fairness is how we got the unholy mess we're sitting in right now.
US has tons of tax incentives for film, just at the state level. And Trump announced 100% tariffs across the board regardless of if a country has film subsidies.
I wasn’t sure there would be 10, but nearly all the big countries add extra taxes on Hollywood movies to fund their own competitors. It’s effectively a tariff.
There are around 192 countries. I expected "many countries" to be at least 10. Now it's "big countries"? Does Greenland have a tariff on Hollywood films? Does France ban Hollywood films?
> This tariff isn't an attack on Hollywood. This helps actors and staff in the Hollywood area.
Does it, though? I mean, the Trump administration is only making it more expensive for theaters to screen non-US movies. Are you going to even bother going to a cinema if the movie you wanted to see isn't made available? And how dominant are non-US productions in US cinemas?
It sounds like more tarrif bullshit,where the only output is lose-lose.
Most top movies last year [1] were shot outside of the US. Excluding animation movies, of course. I understand that the idea is “medium/long term” to move production to Hollywood area, but the short term impact can be massive.
[1] “Deadpool and Wolverine”, “Wicked” and “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” in London, “Dune part 2” in Budapest and Italy, “Godzilla x Kong” in Australia. Only “Twisters” was filmed in the US.
That's like saying an Apple iPhone is a US phone and hence shouldn't be tariffed. No, it's made in China. Not in the US.
The movies aforementioned are not made in the US either.
> That's like saying an Apple iPhone is a US phone (...)
It is a US phone.
> No, it's made in China.
It doesn't make it any less of a US phone. If you go to Newegg, order a bunch of PC parts from CPU to case, and put them together in your room, how much of the PC was made in your neighborhood?
> The movies aforementioned are not made in the US either.
Ninsense. Do you think that gophers and local caterers are the ones producing and profiting from a movie production?
The distinction here isn't US vs non-US movies, it's where they're produced. A lot of Hollywood output is produced outside the US now to escape the unions, to benefit from cheaper non-US workers and to benefit from tax breaks. These are American movies funded and written by Americans, but the bulk of the production staff aren't from there.
From the first paragraph of the article:
Donald Trump on Sunday announced on his Truth Social platform a 100% tariff on all movies “produced in Foreign Lands”, saying the US film industry was dying a “very fast death” due to the incentives that other countries were offering to draw American film-makers.
That is correct. Other countries are gutting Hollywood because Hollywood has become a hard place to make things. To pick a random example, the TV show Silo by Apple TV is made in the UK, not America, and the lead actress is Swedish. It's set in the USA, based on a story by an American author and produced by Apple but it's not made there.
This move is bad news for the UK and other countries that have built up a successful film industry but don't have the capital depth to fund big budget films, even with access to the US market. Now they lose access to US funding and can't easily export their films to the US either, assuming it goes through.
I'm not even sure it was ever true. I think it's just become part of the folklore of urban leftists, potentially as a way to justify their lives even when nobody was demanding a justification.
reply