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

Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

fuelarc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 728 posts

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#311

Post by CoastalCoder »

jongjong wrote: post #307
throwaway5752 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Basically every big tech company engages in much worse forms of government manipulation. At least this one aligns with citizen interests. IMO, if gov manipulation benefits citizens; e.g. creates meaningful jobs or opportunities for citizens, then it's not corruption. The difference is night and day. Where was the outrage over massive government contracts handed out to Oracle, Microsoft, etc... under previous administ…

I'd argue that keeping Musk wealthy is contrary to the interests of most Americans.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#312

Post by insane_dreamer »

Ah yes, the "free market" at work!

Also a friendly reminder that all these tariffs are being made possible by a "state of emergency" declared by Trump because of fentanyl coming from Canada and China. Otherwise, only Congress would have the power to impose tarriffs.

So shall we just be honest and say we're heading towards a centrally planned economy, China style?

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#313

Post by mmooss »

rayiner wrote: post #298
mmooss wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the south violence against the government is treated as distinct from violence against fellow citizens From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive. > chiefly concerned with protecting the majority from the government. In fact, by their actions, they make th…

> From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive. The question is who the police are being deployed to protect, private citizens or the government itself. Ordinarily police are deployed to protect citizens from criminals, so it’s bad to attack the police. But the C…

> Today, when you talk about foundational principles like federalism, limited government, etc., the chief response is that those are incompatible with having a government powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority.

We live in different bubbles, it seems. I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights.

The foundation is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority. The majority can always protect itself by changing the law.

Edit:

> https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis....

I skimmed through this. The source is anti-left; of course they are going to give characterizations like that. And look at this piece of doublespeak:

When I talk about civil rights, the reader should not get the impression that I’m friendly to segregation, or hostile to the civil rights movement as it existed for the whole of the 20th century up until 1964. In fact, I’m very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation for equal citizenship that went on up till then, but there were problems in the Civil Rights Act that were not evident at first.

They won't say they are hostile to the Civil Rights Act and every solution to problems like segregation, oppression of minorities and women, etc. And they don't offer any other solution. They are "very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation", however. :)

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#314

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

rectang wrote: post #7

I have zero faith in "free market" ideologues, because what we actually get when they gain power is just favoritism for "free market" ideologues.

Such has been the US agenda in the developing world since the 70's. It's sort of odd to see them do it to themselves though. It's as if they became confused and started believing their own cover story.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#315

Post by jongjong »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #311
jongjong wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically every big tech company engages in much worse forms of government manipulation. At least this one aligns with citizen interests. IMO, if gov manipulation benefits citizens; e.g. creates meaningful jobs or opportunities for citizens, then it's not corruption. The difference is night and day. Where was the outrage over massive government contracts handed out to Oracle, Microsoft, etc... under previous administ…

I'd argue that keeping Musk wealthy is contrary to the interests of most Americans.

I disagree. I agree that the system shouldn't be creating so many billionaires. It's a flaw in the system. But Musk is among the best of them IMO and his contrarian position makes him essential, even if you disagree with him and his politics. There needs to be opposing forces among the elite or else we're sure to walk down the path of totalitarianism.

I generally agree with Musk's politics but I wouldn't want all billionaires to share his politics because that would be dangerous. Unfortunately those on the left do not seem to understand this; they keep trying to force total consensus. Which is the biggest evil, total consensus is more evil than any idea you could come up with.

Most ideologies are distractions to get people upset over specific unimportant ideas so that they don't get upset over the massive evil, creeping ideology; the ideology of "total consensus over important ideas."

Full consensus is evil incarnate, no matter the specifics. Its stickiness; inability to adapt to reality is what makes it evil. Without opposition, there is no room for independent thought.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#316

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

Capricorn2481 wrote: post #281
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will say this, because I worry that some may have missed the memo. If you keep repeating constitutional crisis like it is some sort of magic word, each time you say it without some level of substantiation, it will continue to lose its power. It is mildly annoying to me that, some, democrat party adherents do not seem to understand this. I can give few more examples if necessary, but my subtle point is: If everythin…

Well, you're an adult, and you can tell that different democrats are different people, so engage with what the person you're talking to is saying and not going "everything's a crisis with you people!" They killed people while storming the capitol. If hundreds of protesters getting their hands on all of our ballots, physically threatening our congressmen, is not a constitutional crisis, I don't know what the hell is.…

[flagged]

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#317

Post by Incipient »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #260
leereeves wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Probably nigh-impossible for some OEMs. Impossible meaning the parts aren't yet manufactured in the US, or that they can't be for some reason?

There's no doubt that they could be. Just not as cheaply.

Once a skillset and supply chain is lost, manufacturing a specific item absolutely may not be possible "now". You'd need to rebuild a supply chain and import skilled workers to get it happening.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#318

Post by Mystery-Machine »

Odd how sentiment about Elon Musk changed rapidly... Some HN users pointed out in the comments here that not even Teslas reach 85%. Is the article wrong? Interesting that everyone is talking about favoriting, but no one talks the anti-favoriting of Tesla during the Biden administration. Tesla wasn't invited to any EV conference that was organized by the previous admin. They are the biggest EV factory in the US yet somehow they were never invited...smh

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#319

Post by mmooss »

leereeves wrote: post #284
mmooss wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Murder is nothing new in my city - people have been doing it for centuries. Warfare, famine, epidemics are nothing new in most parts of the world.

> Murder is nothing new in my city Murder is an interesting example, because like corruption, people overlook it when "their side" does it. Governments employ soldiers to do it on demand. Gang members and mafiosos use it as a tool. Sometimes people even celebrate it, such as equating body count with success in war. The problem in politics is that everyone seems to choose a side, then apply that same kind of double st…

> Murder is an interesting example, because like corruption, people overlook it when "their side" does it.

No they don't. If someone I know committed murder, like almost everyone - organized crime members are very few in the population - I would absolutely not overlook it. What an absurd argument.

Warfare is entirely different.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#320

Post by rayiner »

mmooss wrote: post #313
rayiner wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive. The question is who the police are being deployed to protect, private citizens or the government itself. Ordinarily police are deployed to protect citizens from criminals, so it’s bad to attack the police. But the C…

> Today, when you talk about foundational principles like federalism, limited government, etc., the chief response is that those are incompatible with having a government powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. We live in different bubbles, it seems. I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights. The foundation…

> I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights.

That’s the same argument from the other direction. The federal government, as designed, wasn’t powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. Those rules entailed a major expansion of federal power. Indeed, you can see the seams in the civil rights laws. For example, Title VI’s ban on discrimination in public education is implemented through conditions on federal funding. Because the federal government can’t legislate such a ban directly.

> The foundation is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority.

That’s exactly the civil rights era retconning of the constitution I’m talking about. The statement that “all men are created equal” has nothing to do with minorities. Read the context right before and right after: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip.... The statement is about self determination: the right of a people to determine their own form of government. The equality being referred to is the equality between Britain and its monarch and the colonists.

The founders said almost nothing about protecting minorities from the majority, except perhaps in the context of religious freedom. Their concern was exactly the opposite: that a minority cabal in the government would oppress the majority.

Post reply on HN