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

US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#361

Post by skissane »

aetherson wrote: post #312
XenophileJKO wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This still seems like a very low bar. If the country has ANY trade treaty with someone else that has trade advantage, than it would appear like that fits the letter of the law.

We have most favored nation status with most other countries, so they generally don't have any other nation that is getting better terms than we do. That's the point of the WTO.

> We have most favored nation status with most other countries, so they generally don't have any other nation that is getting better terms than we do. That's the point of the WTO.

However, MFN status is full of exceptions. For many countries, the US could plausibly argue that they are being discriminated against despite having MFN status due to one of the exceptions to it

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#362

Post by thatswrong0 »

blobbers wrote: post #326

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…

[flagged]

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#363

Post by forgotoldacc »

somenameforme wrote: post #337
forgotoldacc wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently up to about 40% support them, depending on the poll. [1] That 40% seems absolutely unshakeable in their support. No matter what happens, that group will support it. And 40% is pretty close to half. [1] https://www.progressivepolicy.org/polling-u-s-public-is-agai...

It's not like people are just closing their eyes and trusting in leader. I'm part of that 40% (and probably substantially more given contemporary pollsters difficulty in reaching people like me [1]), and I think my rationale is quite sound. The fundamental reason is that we are creating an unsustainable system. When Germany chose to limit imports of Russian gas, they wrecked their economy. Many people, blinded by hin…

> But that completely ignores the fact that literally every other nation, including the US most obviously, has excesses of dependencies on other countries, many of which we aren't friendly with today, and even more that we won't be friendly with tomorrow

That's called trade. There's a recorded history of it going back about 5000 years (it goes back farther when you look at artifacts spread around the world before written history existed) and every great civilization partook in it and it's the reason they became known as great empires.

Societies that went nowhere and quickly collapsed, notably, did not partake in this system.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#364

Post by palmotea »

wlesieutre wrote: post #137
mangoman wrote: post #121

I'm not a lawyer or even close to it, but why wouldn't the trump admin use the tariff act of 1930? quote: "Whenever the President shall find as a fact that any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid, he shall, when he finds that the public interest will be served thereby, by proclamation specify and declar…

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 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"

Why? If the GP quoted the law correctly and the plain-language reading is also the legal one, it's all about what the president finds as fact. I don't see how that language gives the courts space to second-guess the president's findings.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#365

Post by bruce511 »

worik wrote: post #345
bruce511 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abou…

Naturally individuals can cross the border and get cheaper stuff. But in the grand scale of things, that's irrelevant.

IMO tarifs are preferable to subsidies. Subsidies encourage over production, plus still places the industry at risk. Tarifs just incentivize purchasing local. Plus for whatever revenue there is, it's an income to govt coffers. Whereas a subsidy is an expense. And ultimately the cost is born by the consumer of that product, not the wider tax base.

So, well targeted, it's a more effective tool than a subsidy, and much less prone to waste or corruption.

Put another way, a tarrif is much cheaper than a subsidy (and tarrif makes for a better outcome.)

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#366

Post by givemeethekeys »

siliconc0w wrote: post #180

I wonder if this means businesses can request the courts order the government to repay their unconstitutionally levied duties - especially when it meant it basically destroyed their ability to do business.

I still can't find evidence of anyone that has actually paid tariffs - nothing seems to be 3x more expensive compared to before the tariffs supposedly kicked in.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#367

Post by palmotea »

arcmechanica wrote: post #290
Leo-thorne wrote: post #263

This feels like bringing up an old issue again. These days, a lot of trade policy just comes down to whatever the president decides, with very little public debate. When a 70-year-old law gets used as the main justification, it makes you wonder if emergency powers have simply become too convenient for anyone to walk away from. Whether this ruling will actually change anything probably depends on whether people care e…

90 year old law

Age doesn't matter. The Constitution is even older, and it's not like that makes it moot.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#368

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

lolinder wrote: post #159
mangoman wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it requires the courts to agree - just that there's a burden or disadvantage and that it's in the "public interest" which seems like a pretty low bar to make up a story that sounds plausible. i think the idea that a trade deficit is a disadvantage is kinda brain dead, but it's plausible sounding enough to argue in court. throw in unequal tariff rates and it seems like an easier win than the IEEPA's emer…

"Aforesaid" is a very specific word that means that the "unequal impositions or discriminations" refers back to specific concepts previously referenced in the law. He can't (legally) just invent his own interpretations for what "unequal impositions" and "discriminations" entails, he has to convince a court that the specific actions he's retaliating against are covered by the "aforesaid" definitions. Here's the comple…

And given that most trading partners are members of the WTO then the kind of behavior covered here would be covered by the most favored nation clauses.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#369

Post by awesome_dude »

skissane wrote: post #350
awesome_dude wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Austra…

Falkland Islands were also hit with a tariff that had little to do with the reality of a trade imbalance caused by anything other than they don't buy stuff.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ygx81gpg6o

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#370

Post by forgotoldacc »

erulabs wrote: post #306
forgotoldacc wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people really seem to think this is the end of everything. But there are two options here. One is that some other irrelevant and obscure law from 200 years ago is dug up and used to justify the tariffs and another long court battle begins. The other is that the ruling is simply ignored, just like many others, and half the country will cry that the courts are being ignored and justice will rain down soon, and…

Laws are laws and their age has no bearing nor does it make them irrelevant. The constitution is “from 200 years ago” too.

I like how you focused on "200 years" and not the fact I said "irrelevant". Being old and irrelevant doesn't suddenly make it relevant, no matter how many people like to pretend it is to support their weekly stock pump and dump tariffs on/tariffs off schemes.

And the court here is ruling that the tariffs weren't made in a way that follows the law/Constitution, so your anger is misdirected.

Post reply on HN