Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 98 posts

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#41

Post by h3throw »

matt4077 wrote: post #36
h3throw wrote: post #30

It seems most posters didn't really read the article as the tariffs appear to be in compliance with a WTO ruling on something illegal the EU is doing wrt subsidies to Airbus. Unsurprising that the NYT and HN goes with the lead that Trump is unilaterally fucking up world order yet again but in this case it doesn't seem so deserved. I really wish both groups (the NYT and HN) would be more nuanced when it comes to Trump…

Every word of the article's headline is true, and the facts it contains (subject, object, action, and magnitude) are the most important facts of this story. The reasoning you want to see in the headline is in the first paragraph. If you're interpreting the headline as "Trump is unilaterally fucking up the world order yet again" then that is something that happens entirely in your head . It's somewhat bold to fault ot…

It's all in my head?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 (now deleted)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995

I think wrt NYT, the facts are all true but purpose should also clearly be a part of it. Imagine a headline which said "Trump kills man on White House lawn with Colt .45" and the man was attacking him with a machete.

When many (most?) people are aware of the prior tariff tirade by Trump and not everyone reads the meat of an article, I think it's irresponsible to not include the _why_.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#42

Post by matt4077 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #11
munk-a wrote: post #2

That's some particularly hilarious timing giving boeing's recent "unsafe to fly our plans" headline news. As someone in Canada it's been disappointing to watch the massive internal subsidies given to Boeing (from the US government) help sink Bombardier - though the company also did under-perform.

Doesn't every country do the same thing— albeit perhaps not at the same scale? When Embraer complained about Bombardier's subsidies from the Canadian government, the WTO decided that they were illegal. Then Bombardier complained about Embraer's subsidies from the Brazilian government and the WTO decided that those are illegal too.

It's probably somewhat rare in industrialised democracies these days. Many trade deals limit subsidies (hence this WTO ruling). It is also difficult to give one-off subsidies in diversified markets, because (domestic) competitors would complain/sue.

The EU has especially stringent rules against this, making (for example) shenanigans such as Amazon's HQ2 race-to-the-bottom impossible. That's also what got Apple and Ireland into trouble. It's effectively a cartel of countries pooling power to counter multinationals' ability to offshore profits to the cheapest jurisdiction.

The are exemptions: The EU and US massively support agriculture with direct payments. Canada does the same with milk quotas. (These two systems are somewhat incompatible: allowing subsidised US milk to be sold for Canada's protected high prices would amount to double dipping. Hence some disagreements across that particular border).

Aircrafts are a rather special beast: there's a national security angle, they are objects of national pride, and both the EU and US have one large manufacturer. Airbus is also diversified across many EU countries, assuring them wide political support.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#43

Post by fastball »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #28
munk-a wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the current administration was elected on a platform of "America First" so, what did you think would happen? I think the US has been self-centered for quite some time, and there was a hilarious thread in a different article that went into the idea that America is the world-policeman that everyone wants but... yea, for equal treatment and to avoid regulatory capture - one needs to avoid that dying empire.

"America First" ... "US has been self-centered for quite some time" Anyone who suggests that France is not 'France first' or that Switzerland is not 'Switzerland first' etc. etc. has not been paying attention.

Lies. Europe obviously cares more about the rest of the world than they do about themselves.

/s

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#44

Post by munk-a »

m0zg wrote: post #35
gumby wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The so-called "America first" policy works against the interests of the United States though. Or is it "destroy America first, screw up the rest later?"

>> works against the interests of the United States though That's just, like, your opinion, man, especially after the trade deal with China is finalized. About time someone actually raised a stink about what's going on with China and Europe in terms of foreign trade. It's unpleasant work, but it has to be done, moreso with China than with the EU. FTA: "“Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the E.U. to end…

Your tax dollars are going to prop up a failing company that is producing substandard products that have gotten people killed - I don't see how you could mentally position yourself to be alright with this.

The general idea of protectionism is less controversial - I think it is generally bad[1] due to the economic effects of it. But if you're in favor of protectionism you can check any claim you have to free-market economics or de-regulation for growth at the door, protectionism is basically the Ur-form of regulatory capture and state-capitalism so being pro-Boeing subsidies and then claiming that the US becoming "socialist" is terrible is just logically inconsistent.

[1] I'd leave the notable exception of when it's used to specifically stimulate economic sector growth - propping up a robotics company in TN to create a labour pool that enables other companies to grow out of the labour availability is a pretty good usage.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#45

Post by pmorici »

arcticbull wrote: post #38
citilife wrote: post #23

In 2016 the US imported $416B and exported $270B to the EU. Although $11B is a large number, it's a 2.6% tax on the total. More interestingly, is what they are taxing. Personally, I'd rather have tariffs than income tax. At least then I can choose what to buy.

Consumption taxes are regressive, income taxes are progressive. The poor are disproportionately impacted by tariffs and sales/consumption taxes. The administration is taking money out of the hands of Americans under a truly misguided idea of what a trade deficit is.

I don't think that is a given. If you put the consumption tax only on luxury goods it could be progressive. I doubt the poor are buying Rolex watches and if they are taxes aren't the problem.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#46

Post by koolba »

arcticbull wrote: post #38
citilife wrote: post #23

In 2016 the US imported $416B and exported $270B to the EU. Although $11B is a large number, it's a 2.6% tax on the total. More interestingly, is what they are taxing. Personally, I'd rather have tariffs than income tax. At least then I can choose what to buy.

Consumption taxes are regressive, income taxes are progressive. The poor are disproportionately impacted by tariffs and sales/consumption taxes. The administration is taking money out of the hands of Americans under a truly misguided idea of what a trade deficit is.

Depends on what you tax. A high tariff on imported caviar or luxury sedans isn’t going to impact Joe Sixpack.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#47

Post by munk-a »

fastball wrote: post #43
sonnyblarney wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"America First" ... "US has been self-centered for quite some time" Anyone who suggests that France is not 'France first' or that Switzerland is not 'Switzerland first' etc. etc. has not been paying attention.

Lies. Europe obviously cares more about the rest of the world than they do about themselves. /s

One of these political entities has accepted significantly more refugees from a war caused by the US - and it certainly ain't America.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#48

Post by PHGamer »

gumby wrote: post #12

More subsidies to that callous killer Boeing, from a government of the megacorps, by the people, for the megacorps.

you cant kill boeing. if shit hits the fan theyre pretty much our only airline manufacturer. i mean what happens if the eu tells the us to fuck off. we don't get any more airbuses and if boeing is dead no way to make our own planes.

Re: U.S. Readies $11B in Tariffs on E.U

#49

Post by wavefunction »

m0zg wrote: post #35
gumby wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The so-called "America first" policy works against the interests of the United States though. Or is it "destroy America first, screw up the rest later?"

>> works against the interests of the United States though That's just, like, your opinion, man, especially after the trade deal with China is finalized. About time someone actually raised a stink about what's going on with China and Europe in terms of foreign trade. It's unpleasant work, but it has to be done, moreso with China than with the EU. FTA: "“Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the E.U. to end…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN