371–380 of 568 posts
does this mean we stop paying tariff tomorrow ?
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.
(I've been away for a while, and I'm not in the US so no "feel" for it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does the law list specific conditions in which the president can apply the law if the president can apply it for any reason he wants? Surely there's a mechanism through the courts for someone to challenge illegal tariffs on their imports if the president declares "There's a 50% tariff on everything because I woke up in a bad mood today and it's unfair of other countries to be doing that."
> Surely there's a mechanism through the courts for someone to challenge illegal tariffs What you're describing is the Marbury tail wagging the Article II dog. The focus of the Constitution is allocation of power . The focus isn't creating a system where courts micromanage how the other two branches of government exercise that power. Marbury therefore goes to great lengths to draw lines between an executive's "minist…
Which makes sense, since that would be uncomprehendingly stupid.
It's interesting. Nearly all orders from the executive branch are banned by some federal judge/court now(there are about 100 of federal courts, any one will do). While I don't agree with all the orders, the power of a random federal judge who can issue a nationwide ban relatively easily seems a little too much. To the point that the president is pretty much useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress seems to want a king?
It seems to me that between gerrymandering and the filibuster, congress is basically unable to pass normal legislation when either party has a majority. Hence why all sorts of stuff gets passed by budget reconcilation now, because that is exempt from filibustering. And also why the parties are so keen to find creative new ways of effecting change - if they can't pass laws, they can let the president do what he wants,…
So when do prices go back down?
No way major corps will lower prices. Just like during covid they'll find excuses. Until a regulatory body investigates them for price fixing nothing will change. So nothing will change. During covid, the soda companies kept raising prices. They claimed supply chain. Then, I think it was the SEC(probably wrong), stepped in and said "We're gonna investigate ya for price fixing" and suddenly soda prices went back down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wri…
There is self beneficial trade, and there is trade which risks imperiling your own national stability if and when relations sour. People claim this is obvious in hindsight - and even criticize governments for not acting earlier, yet make arguments akin to yours (which frame it is a practical impossibility) when speaking of acting preemptively to resolve such issues.
And if there has been any trend of the 21st century it's to emphasize that the status quo on just about anything won't persist. So one needs to do like we always should in practically any endeavor - hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
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.
Not the highest tariffs since it wasn’t from China.
And a 170% tariff bill.
https://blog.adafruit.com/2025/05/08/high-tariffs-become-rea...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly so. It is quite difficult to come up with a wealthy non-state actor who's wreaked the same sort of havoc as a Hitler or Mao. Let alone even relatively minor players on the international stage who're responsible for billions to trillions in actual damages to people's living standards. The typical complaint against billionaires is stuff like their yacht is too big or people don't like one policy they took advan…
[flagged]
Not in terms of the general welfare. If the question is "which peoples have the most money" the leaderboards are still dominated by historically capitalist economies in the US and Europe. Its true that China's trajectory is much more promising and their industrial policy has the west licked (although I argue mainly because the west has banned industry more than because China is some paragon of efficiency). But they started a long way behind because the west mainly relied on wealthy inter-state actors and the Chinese were burdened with a remarkably strong civic leader named Mao.
> All we get with this agreement is stability
No; the deal is massive wealth creation and rapid improvements in material prosperity. It is all driven by factories, and the thing that comes with factories is factory owners. Every time people tried factories without factory owners it ended poorly. The west is running a deindustrialisation experiment and it doesn't look like a winner to me either. I wish we'd leave the experimenting to 3rd parties instead of let China experiment with capitalism while we go off into the economic never-never.
More factories -> more stuff is the basic correlation to keep an eye on. Factory owners are going to be a part of that too; they're probably going to be obscenely well off. I support it. The important thing is rewarding the people who build and run factories.