Live data from Hacker News

US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

bloomberg.com

341–350 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would have to convince the courts that I don't like having a trade deficit with anyone somehow means our trading partners are "placing a burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid"

He doesn’t have to convince the courts of that. The President makes foreign policy, not the courts. As long as the President is plausibly exercising a foreign policy power Congress gave him, the courts don’t get to reweigh the evidence and decide for themselves whether the trade deficits result from other countries placing trade barriers or something else.

> The President makes foreign policy, not the courts.

A tariff is not foreign policy. It is a tax levied on American companies.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a narrow so small that passing tariffs would still be politically difficult even though they control both chambers, and that is not even considering a filibuster. I hope this judgement stands, however, trade actually works out really well for the US economy and its job market. Yes, we don't often manufacture the thing, but we have huge roles in designing those things and packing them with software. Even Chi…

There is no filibuster. Somehow the democrats are to weak to attempt one and completely caved on everything.

Cory Booker's world record fillibuster wasn't real?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> entire premise of the private market is competition, or else it's just a blight on humanity. So the idea of a trade court seems a little silly at best You think private markets can exist without laws (and by corollary, venues in which to adjudicate them)?

Yes, they are the default. What do you think ancaps think about all day? It ain't fucking democracy.

Well, let me amend this. An ancap economy is certainly possible. Whether it looks anything like (neo)keynsian macro markets is another story—but economies are always possible. But yes, in general, stable societies should be extremely aggressive at paring down the wealth of successful people, or they will be subsumed by them.

And let me re-emphasize, private markets are generally a terrible thing for most people who aren't already being starved by their state. This does not generally result in efficient processes in the short term, and we're discovering in the long term private markets don't encourage competitiveness either.

...but when we talk about private markets (i.e., public markets of mostly private things), we neglect the real private markets, aka "platforms", aka app stores and subscriptions. These aren't even pretending to provide the benefits of market-driven societies.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly every country that Trump tariffed does have some sort of tariff on the US. Canada has a sizable dairy tariff, for example. Whether that dairy tariff is particularly onerous on the US, worth antagonizing our closest ally for, that would be the political question, but certainly it's definitionally unequal.

Like most things in life, tarifs can be used well, or used badly. Canada's Dairy Tariff is specifically designed to protect a specific local industry, which exists, is of national interest to keep, and which could come under threat from cheap alternatives imported from abroad. It's specific, targeted, and serves a valuable purpose. They have been in place a long time, and provide a stable trading environment making t…

Any Canadians here to comment on the milk tariff policies?

I have spent ten days of my life in Canada and I learnt of the tariffs by news reports concerning people driving to USA, loading up on milk, coming home.

Tariffs are not always stupid. But in most cases there is a better alternative.

E.g. Canada could subsidise domestic milk producers. (We used to do that in New Zealand)

There is a lot of nonsense talked about economics ("tariffs always bad" is an example) because there are strong incentives at work for the actors. It makes it very difficult for policy makers to have good, responsive, effective economic policy.

Money and politics? What could go wrong....

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's an argument that your interpretation of the act is (pretty clearly) unconstitutional.

I’d love to live in a world where non-delegation was such a robust doctrine. But “you can set tariffs if you find that other countries are being unfair” (paraphrasing) is a more than intelligible principle supporting Congress’s delegation.

The case before the Court of International Trade failed on non-delegation and major questions grounds. But my point isn't that SCOTUS will affirm the lower court here (though: they will), but rather that your logic upthread doesn't hold. You said "the President makes foreign policy, not the courts". Plain category error.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#347
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He doesn’t have to convince the courts of that. [..] As long as the President is plausibly exercising a foreign policy power Congress gave him... Sure he does. The various tariff-related acts don't give the president carte blanche to set tariffs whenever he pleases. The acts give him the power to enact tariffs under certain conditions. If the president cannot convince a court that "having a trade deficit" falls und…

> The acts give him the power to enact tariffs under certain conditions Right, but the “condition” in the law is that the President first makes a “finding” that other countries have engaged in unfair treatment. The president only needs to convince the court the finding has been made. But whether a trade deficit results from trade barriers or something else is a decision that Congress has delegated to the President to…

> The president only needs to convince the court the finding has been made.

It's unclear to me if you think this is just a true statement of how Executive power works, or if you are arguing that the correct standard of review for a very restricted legislative delegation of authority is rational basis scrutiny.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is taxing American importers "foreign policy?"

It does affect trade (setting tariff high enough basically equals to no trade policy for example) with those countries and hence it is foreign policy.

If that's true, then all criminal law in the US is foreign policy because the existence of laws restricts people's decision to visit the US to commit crimes.

Hell we don't even need to go that far afield: your logic implies all taxes are foreign policy, as they all affect foreign trade.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#349

Why is this country insisting on this ridiculous infighting? Why do you have a democracy if your bureaucracy is set up to resist the person the people elected? Didn't this exact sort of thing happen when a democrat was elected, the republicans basically stonewalled all progress? Now the dem bureaucracy is stonewalling the republicans? Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Am I being naive in thinking i…

Yes, it has always been like this.

We elect Presidents to faithfully execute the law, not Dictators to ignore it. The courts have always ruled against executive for disobeying the law. Preventing any one branch from amassing too much power is the whole reason the system of checks and balances exists.

The system, while sometimes aggravatingly slow to change, has allowed us as a country to continually operate under the same system of government with peaceful transfers of power for nearly 250 years.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Discriminates in fact against the commerce of the United States, directly or indirectly, by law or administrative regulation or practice… in such manner as to place the commerce of the United States at a disadvantage compared with the commerce of any foreign country. I think the administration would find it easier to prove this than you think. They just have to find some regulation which they claim disadvantages th…

Yeah - the tariffs imposed on the islands with little to no population are definitely because nobody buying anything is blame for the fact they have a surplus

That was stupid but also practically irrelevant-if an uninhabited territory has zero exports, you can set the tariff as high as you like, with no exports nobody is going to pay it. To be clear, I don’t agree with these tariffs and think they are a mistake, but I think we should focus on their real world harms not a silly administrative error

We know how it happened: Heard and McDonald Islands is an uninhabited Australian territory off the coast of Antarctica. In the 19th century, it was inhabited by sealers for an extended period (mostly Americans, some Australians too)-but they left after hunting the seals to extinction. In the 20th century it became a nature reserve, although it saw multi-year occupation by scientific research bases. Since the 1990s, no humans have been there except for brief visits; apparently nobody has been there in person for over a decade. It is illegal to come ashore without permission from the Australian government, and their policy is to almost always refuse permission (with rare exceptions for scientific research).

Yet despite all this, ISO 3166-1 gave it a country code, HM. And US government databases ended up showing imports from it, almost certainly due to data entry errors, the imports having really come from somewhere else. But it appears nobody was paying attention, so it ended up as a tiny trade deficit in official US trade statistics. And then the Trump administration mindlessly applied the rule “IF official US trade statistics show a deficit THEN impose tariff”. And still nobody noticed. And then after they publicised it, somebody did, and they were widely mocked for the mistake, and I believe this specific tariff has since been rescinded.

Most likely HM was actually a typo for Hong Kong (HK) or Honduras (HN)-adjacent keys on the keyboard. Or maybe the M is correct and the H is the typo, in which case it could easily have been The Gambia (GM) or Bermuda (BM) or Jamaica (JM)-also adjacent keys

Australia has another uninhabited territory (Ashmore and Cartier Islands), and another near uninhabited (Coral Sea Islands, staffed by a tiny rotating crew of government employees)-but, for whatever reason, ISO never gave either its own country code, [0] so this couldn’t have happened to them. (Likewise, Australia claims a big chunk of Antarctica, a claim which most countries-US included-don’t recognise-so the Australian Antarctic Territory doesn’t get its own ISO code, it gets subsumed under Antarctica’s, AQ.)

[0] I guess the reason may be land area - Ashmore and Cartier Islands have a land area of slightly over a square kilometre, less than a square mile; Coral Sea Islands have a land area of 3 km^2, which is slightly over one square mile; by contrast, Heard Island is 368 km^2 (142 sq mi). ISO generally resists giving codes to uninhabited territories unless they contain significant land

Post reply on HN