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

The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your waistline (2019)

marketplace.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your waistline (2019)

#31

Post by JadeNB »

deepfriedchokes wrote: post #27

This is stupid. The law shouldn’t be written in such a way that companies can exploit silly loopholes, nor should it be written in such a way that is so invasive to normal business operations.

> This is stupid. The law shouldn’t be written in such a way that companies can exploit silly loopholes, nor should it be written in such a way that is so invasive to normal business operations.

Note that the article discusses that these are not loopholes in the sense of weird unexpected hacks, but that the original exceptions were intentionally written in response to lobbying by manufacturers betting that they can offset their lobbying costs by the associated reduction in tariffs.

Orthogonally, though, even if these were loopholes that manufacturers were wriggling through against lawmakers' intentions, then (1) I think that there is no such thing as a law that is written so that it has literally no loopholes—even to make the claim, you'd have to define what a "loophole" is, which would probably require first require a precise definition of what the intent of the law is, at which point that would be the law and any work-arounds would be not loopholes, by definition—and (2) more or less because of (1), these things are still enforced by humans; as redpanda notes (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41594968), one of Ford's attempts at such skulduggery was successfully stopped by a DOJ lawsuit.

Re: The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your waistline (2019)

#32

Post by laweijfmvo »

JadeNB wrote: post #31
deepfriedchokes wrote: post #27

This is stupid. The law shouldn’t be written in such a way that companies can exploit silly loopholes, nor should it be written in such a way that is so invasive to normal business operations.

> This is stupid. The law shouldn’t be written in such a way that companies can exploit silly loopholes, nor should it be written in such a way that is so invasive to normal business operations. Note that the article discusses that these are not loopholes in the sense of weird unexpected hacks, but that the original exceptions were intentionally written in response to lobbying by manufacturers betting that they can o…

yup, my first reaction was “who lobbied to get their products excluded from the tariffs”

Re: The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your waistline (2019)

#33

Post by somat »

Suppafly wrote: post #23
justusthane wrote: post #6

Of course the circumvention of the "chicken tax" is probably the most well-known example of tariff engineering: > Ford imported all of its first-generation Ford Transit Connect models as "passenger vehicles" by including rear windows, rear seats, and rear seat belts. The vehicles are exported from Turkey on ships owned by Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics (WWL), arrive in Baltimore, and are converted back into light tru…

It's also why converse shoes have a little fuzzy later of material on the bottom, they import them as slippers instead of shoes.

I that what that is. It confused me, I thought it was some strange misguided variant of the felt sole wading boot. when I first saw it.

https://thewadingkit.com/felt-sole-wading-boots/

Re: The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your waistline (2019)

#34

Post by wkat4242 »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #22
justusthane wrote: post #6

Of course the circumvention of the "chicken tax" is probably the most well-known example of tariff engineering: > Ford imported all of its first-generation Ford Transit Connect models as "passenger vehicles" by including rear windows, rear seats, and rear seat belts. The vehicles are exported from Turkey on ships owned by Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics (WWL), arrive in Baltimore, and are converted back into light tru…

I'm going to start compiling a list of stories to reply with when people say "environmental activists are too preachy/emotional about their work" and the Ford motor company manufacturing seats, seat belts, and windows, shipping them in vans to get out of a few thousand dollars in taxes per vehicle, and then shredding those things without them seeing a single ass in their entire existence after removing them from the…

Yes me too. It's the first thing I thought of. The "and recycled" part is clearly an afterthought/greenwashing of this horrible practice. It's important to realise too that even when fully recycling a product) and it's very doubtful to be the case here) its definitely not zero impact on the environment.

These seats could have been sold as spares, conversion kits, even put into other new cars.

I think this behaviour should be criminalised and I'm not taking about the tax evasion.

Re: The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your waistline (2019)

#35

Post by jordanb »

wkat4242 wrote: post #34
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to start compiling a list of stories to reply with when people say "environmental activists are too preachy/emotional about their work" and the Ford motor company manufacturing seats, seat belts, and windows, shipping them in vans to get out of a few thousand dollars in taxes per vehicle, and then shredding those things without them seeing a single ass in their entire existence after removing them from the…

Yes me too. It's the first thing I thought of. The "and recycled" part is clearly an afterthought/greenwashing of this horrible practice. It's important to realise too that even when fully recycling a product) and it's very doubtful to be the case here) its definitely not zero impact on the environment. These seats could have been sold as spares, conversion kits, even put into other new cars. I think this behaviour s…

It's also an indictment of our legal and regulatory system that allows this interpretation to go forward (no doubt on the advice of very expensive lawyers and lobbyists hired by Ford).

People may disagree on if the truck tariff is good policy nor not. But allowing Ford to go through with this weird kabuki dance pageant of waste when it's blatantly clear that their intent is to import a truck is absurd and corrupt.

Re: The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your waistline (2019)

#36

Post by alwa »

jordanb wrote: post #35
wkat4242 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes me too. It's the first thing I thought of. The "and recycled" part is clearly an afterthought/greenwashing of this horrible practice. It's important to realise too that even when fully recycling a product) and it's very doubtful to be the case here) its definitely not zero impact on the environment. These seats could have been sold as spares, conversion kits, even put into other new cars. I think this behaviour s…

It's also an indictment of our legal and regulatory system that allows this interpretation to go forward (no doubt on the advice of very expensive lawyers and lobbyists hired by Ford). People may disagree on if the truck tariff is good policy nor not. But allowing Ford to go through with this weird kabuki dance pageant of waste when it's blatantly clear that their intent is to import a truck is absurd and corrupt.

As a sibling comment points out, the American legal and regulatory system in fact did not allow this interpretation. It came down rather heavily on Ford for trying to pull this:

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2024/03/11/ford-...

Re: The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your waistline (2019)

#38

Post by LorenPechtel »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #19
tomcam wrote: post #17

A bit related: In the early aughts we bought a Porsche 911, which had a ridiculously tiny back seat. According to the dealer, it existed because two-seaters were considered sports cars and were therefore costlier to ensure. Worked out perfectly for us because our children were young, we lived at the beach, and driving them to school on the freeway was an absolute blast.

I highly doubt actuaries are dumb enough to allow this arbitrage at the insurance company’s expense.

Remember that there are also insurance regulators that must be satisfied. It might not be worth fighting them on something like this.

Re: The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your waistline (2019)

#39

Post by kube-system »

tomcam wrote: post #17

A bit related: In the early aughts we bought a Porsche 911, which had a ridiculously tiny back seat. According to the dealer, it existed because two-seaters were considered sports cars and were therefore costlier to ensure. Worked out perfectly for us because our children were young, we lived at the beach, and driving them to school on the freeway was an absolute blast.

That sounds like some sort of urban legend that originates from people repeating what other people think they know about how insurance works... like the long debunked "red cars cost more to insure".

It really doesn't pass the sniff test, because insurers don't need to know how many seats a car has to determine whether or not a vehicle is a sports car. The make and model is sufficient to determine this. Insurers already have a list of all known mass produced vehicles and their attributes.

Also, most insurers don't rate "sports cars" as more expensive than other cars, outright, because sports cars are not overall actually riskier to insure than non-sports cars. The risk of the driver matters quite a bit more than the car. If you look at IIHS loss data, you'll find that cheap vehicles marketed to subprime markets often have higher liability loss rates than untrendy sports cars marketed to old men.

e.g. Late model Porsche 911s and Corvettes have long topped the least risky in terms of property damage liability according to IIHS data. Why? My guess is that the only people buying these vehicles new are rich old dudes who drive them carefully on Sundays and pay attention while doing so. But despite also being a similarly powerful car, the Dodge Charger Hellcat is one of the most risky. But it appeals to a very different crowd.

Re: The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your waistline (2019)

#40

Post by ToucanLoucan »

wkat4242 wrote: post #34
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to start compiling a list of stories to reply with when people say "environmental activists are too preachy/emotional about their work" and the Ford motor company manufacturing seats, seat belts, and windows, shipping them in vans to get out of a few thousand dollars in taxes per vehicle, and then shredding those things without them seeing a single ass in their entire existence after removing them from the…

Yes me too. It's the first thing I thought of. The "and recycled" part is clearly an afterthought/greenwashing of this horrible practice. It's important to realise too that even when fully recycling a product) and it's very doubtful to be the case here) its definitely not zero impact on the environment. These seats could have been sold as spares, conversion kits, even put into other new cars. I think this behaviour s…

> These seats could have been sold as spares, conversion kits, even put into other new cars.

Or even just shipped the fuck back to the factory! Like good god. If you're gonna have like a thousand seat and window combos that just get shipped back and forth between these factories, that's still wasteful, but I dunno, maybe it's purely an emotional point, but the fact that they're manufactured, fitted, shipped, and destroyed just hits so much harder.

Doing this as a dodge this way would be shitty, but at least make an ounce of sense. Doing it the way they actually did, just making and destroying who knows how many products for literally no reason apart from skating by customs is fucking OBSCENE to me.

Edit: A sibling comment here pointed out the FTC "came down hard" on Ford, which some quick back of napkin math translates to roughly 20% of their Q2 2023 profits to account for ten years of this tom-fuckery, covering hundreds of thousands of vans which doubtlessly contained hundreds of thousands if not millions of parts that never served a day of use and were sent to landfill, oh sorry "recycled," by Ford's partner in Ohio. Granted, more than most corporate fines I've done that kind of math for, but also incredible ROI on the part of Ford motor company. Meanwhile mother nature takes another for the team.

I feel sick.

Edit to edit: I maintain that as long as the "penalties" for this kind of horseshit are fines that go to the company and no further, we will never make an ounce of progress on this. I challenge anyone who feels inclined to take it on to explain to me why every Ford executive that oversaw the company while it was doing this should not be personally financially liable for it, in addition to the company itself paying fines. There is no fucking way Ford motor manufactured, shipped, and destroyed millions of van seats and windows without the executives knowing about it.

Post reply on HN