Live data from Hacker News

Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

bloomberg.com

391–400 of 931 posts

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing about the tariffs make any sense. The want to use the tariffs to negotiate with countries but also say they want to use tariffs to bring back manufacturing. If you are using tariffs to negotiate then once the country gives you what you want, you have to lift the tariff thus the free market keeping manufacturing overseas. If you want to bring back manufacturing then you can't use the tariff to negotiate. I am…

Not to mention no one is investing in manufacturing if the economic conditions to support it get changed every day or two.

Which is the biggest flaw in all this. If the goal was to bring consumer electronics manufacturing back to the US, adding a tariff that goes up every quarter would make sense. People could make plans and build factories. YC might even fund something.

Trump doesn't have the authority to set permanent tariffs. All this is being done as a temporary measure under the Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is for wars. These backdoor tariffs are being challenged in court, and there's a good chance of the plaintiffs winning.[1]

For tariffs to stick, Congress has to do it. The Constitution gives Congress sole power over tariffs. There's a long-term track on this, going through the US Trade Representative's office, with Federal Register notices and public comments. Last week Greer was up on Capitol Hill testifying before a congressional committee. That's the normal path by which tariff changes are made. Greer is so out of the loop that he hadn't been told about the big tariff on China. That change came out while he was in front of the committee. He was publicly humiliated. Which means he can't do his job of negotiating with other countries on behalf of the US. Greer may quit.

When you dig into this, you don't find "4D chess".

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/04/10/can-tru...

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#392

This is a massive sign that Trump's double down strategy is failing badly. He only has one play: Be a bully and double down any time someone fights back. It works when you have the leverage but as soon as you don't anymore you loose, big. The US just ran out of leverage. I don't know about everyone else but I just started looking into how to move money and investments outside the US.

> I don't know about everyone else but I just started looking into how to move money and investments outside the US.

Based on tweets I've seen, you are not the only one engaging in "capital flight". Not great for the US.

One would like to think this will be a good lesson for the administration. But I'm worried that they are not acting completely rationally.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#393
post #30

From an outsider’s perspective, it’s difficult to discern any coherent U.S. strategy—assuming one even exists. One day it’s a 145% tariff on China. The next, it’s “Well, it’s still 145%, but Apple and Nvidia are exempted because their stock prices might take a hit.” Then comes a 90-day pause, adding to the confusion. It’s not clear whether Jamieson Greer is actually steering this, or if any of it was thoroughly thoug…

chaos is the strategy

Chaos is a strategy but in this case it's just chaos.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#394
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump’s next book: “The Art of the Fold”.

“Gambling with your savings”

You don't send 6 casinos broken and remain solvent by gambling with your savings.

He is, and always has, gambled with other people's savings.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's a puff piece, but it contains examples of what he did with his life and businesses. You couldn't write an article like that after 2015 or so without it being influenced by his disaster of a political career. My point is, he didn't just sit on daddy's money, he actually pulled off a couple of savvy moves. There are plenty of other things to criticize him for.

Why would you want an article on someone that excludes context from their most impactful and most visible decade? It's true that an author today, who knows about his 2024 conviction for fraudulently overstating the value of his properties, would bring a much more skeptical eye to claims about what a success they were. Did he seem to be making better deals in 2010 because he was better at it then, or because nobody wa…

Because the first guy I replied to claimed Trump never did anything earlier in his life but inherit money, and I wanted to provide examples of how that isn't true.

The Tiffany's transaction definitely happened, and no landowner in Manhattan has left money on the table like that since. As scummy and self-promoting as he is, he changed the real estate market in NY and made some investments that paid off in the 70s and 80s.

I think that puts to rest this idea that he just rested on daddy's money and then lost money on his Atlantic City casinos, or whatever.

(Standard disclaimer that he has always sucked, and maybe he never made a good business move after the 80s.)

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#396
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Trump genuienly wants to disrupt neoliberalism? Now, a lot of people on the left use "neoliberalism" in the same way people on the right use "woke", or (Eu) football fans use the word "offside" i.e. it means "it's anything the other side do that I don't like". But neoliberalism actually has a definition used by more serious people - generally free trade and the reduction of government interference. Maybe Trump…

> Maybe Trump doesn't want globalisation, maybe Trump wants stuff to be made in the USA. As I said, what he is doing is not going to get stuff made in the US. Even if we had all of the raw materials needed (we don't), the US doesn't have the talent to spin up a manufacturing hub. That is the missing piece to all of these conversations. So we don't have the materials, we don't have the skills, and we seem to be attack…

> Even if we had all of the raw materials needed (we don't),

What is this brand of defeatist bullpucky? There is no raw material which is not contained within the borders of the US. Only some which are less expensive to extract elsewhere.

> the US doesn't have the talent to spin up a manufacturing hub.

I humbly invite you to visit https://www.imts.com/ this year in Chicago. If, after that, you believe that there's something that can't be manufactured in the US, I'll eat my hat.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#397
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing about the tariffs make any sense. The want to use the tariffs to negotiate with countries but also say they want to use tariffs to bring back manufacturing. If you are using tariffs to negotiate then once the country gives you what you want, you have to lift the tariff thus the free market keeping manufacturing overseas. If you want to bring back manufacturing then you can't use the tariff to negotiate. I am…

Maybe Trump genuienly wants to disrupt neoliberalism? Now, a lot of people on the left use "neoliberalism" in the same way people on the right use "woke", or (Eu) football fans use the word "offside" i.e. it means "it's anything the other side do that I don't like". But neoliberalism actually has a definition used by more serious people - generally free trade and the reduction of government interference. Maybe Trump…

> Now, a lot of people on the left use "neoliberalism" in the same way people on the right use "woke", or (Eu) football fans use the word "offside" i.e. it means "it's anything the other side do that I don't like". But neoliberalism actually has a definition used by more serious people - generally free trade and the reduction of government interference.

... That's how it's used on the left

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#398
post #382
post #30

From an outsider’s perspective, it’s difficult to discern any coherent U.S. strategy—assuming one even exists. One day it’s a 145% tariff on China. The next, it’s “Well, it’s still 145%, but Apple and Nvidia are exempted because their stock prices might take a hit.” Then comes a 90-day pause, adding to the confusion. It’s not clear whether Jamieson Greer is actually steering this, or if any of it was thoroughly thoug…

It makes sense if you understand how Trump became president. He'll test something (through a tweet) to his audience and then amplify or kill it based on the response. It worked great with 50% of the US population or so; it doesn't seem to be working at all with the Chinese political elite.

Things like threatening Canada and Greenland's sovereignty, unilaterally tanking stock markets and levying huge tariffs on western trading partners are not popular with his voters.

What they want doesn't matter anymore, these moves are about splitting the western economic and military alliances, a goal Russia has had since the 1960s.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#399

It's not even a week since Secretary of Commerce Lutnick was explaining how he wants to bring back millions of jobs 'screwing the little screws in iPhones' to Amercia ? There is really a good chance that we will develop a deep understanding of how the French Revolution happened and why they went straight to guillotines.

Nothing about the tariffs make any sense. The want to use the tariffs to negotiate with countries but also say they want to use tariffs to bring back manufacturing. If you are using tariffs to negotiate then once the country gives you what you want, you have to lift the tariff thus the free market keeping manufacturing overseas. If you want to bring back manufacturing then you can't use the tariff to negotiate. I am…

economics is a lot of made up theory and not hard science. you won't get any of his smarter supporters replying because even if they did you're showing an inability to model best-case. i mean you're personally at a loss?

if you took the average supporter of both sides neither seem smart. the clips they have of both sides is shameful. but those aren't the people implementing the policy, but they both support their tribes.

if you really are interested in understanding how they think you couldn't do worse than this:

https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese...

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe Trump doesn't want globalisation, maybe Trump wants stuff to be made in the USA. As I said, what he is doing is not going to get stuff made in the US. Even if we had all of the raw materials needed (we don't), the US doesn't have the talent to spin up a manufacturing hub. That is the missing piece to all of these conversations. So we don't have the materials, we don't have the skills, and we seem to be attack…

> Even if we had all of the raw materials needed (we don't), What is this brand of defeatist bullpucky? There is no raw material which is not contained within the borders of the US. Only some which are less expensive to extract elsewhere. > the US doesn't have the talent to spin up a manufacturing hub. I humbly invite you to visit https://www.imts.com/ this year in Chicago. If, after that, you believe that there's so…

> What is this brand of defeatist bullpucky? There is no raw material which is not contained within the borders of the US. Only some which are less expensive to extract elsewhere.

Let me rephrase this. We don't have the raw materials unless we destroy national parks and pollute our waterways. We also don't have the facilities to process these materials.

> I humbly invite you to visit https://www.imts.com/ this year in Chicago. If, after that, you believe that there's something that can't be manufactured in the US, I'll eat my hat.

This link says 2026 not 2025.

Post reply on HN