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

Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#441

Post by zadikian »

edot wrote: post #16
nerdsniper wrote: post #11

Unfortunately, I suspect that many platforms/outlets which were paying tariffs for us will continue their high prices. I’d love to see my startups cost of hardware go down but I can’t plan on it happening in my CapEx projections.

Yep. Same exact trick that happened during COVID. Prices ratchet up but never down.

Plenty of supply-driven inflated prices did go back down after covid, or after the post-covid inflation shock. Gasoline is one example.

At the same time, USD M2 supply increased an unusual 40% from Jan 2020 to Jan 2022. It only fell a little after. So prices that were inflated for that reason, I wouldn't have expected to fall back down.

I do feel like some local businesses just price according to costs but keep that ratched up if costs fall, like you said.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#442

Post by JumpCrisscross »

edot wrote: post #40

Howard Lutnick and his sons are surely happy about this. It’s almost like Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce , knew this would happen. His sons, at their firm Cantor Fitzgerald, have been offering a tariff refund product wherein they pay companies who are struggling with paying tariffs 20-30% of a potential refund, and if (as they did today) they get struck down, they pocket the 100% refund. https://www.financ…

> a tariff refund product wherein they pay companies who are struggling with paying tariffs 20-30% of a potential refund

For what it’s worth, I’ve personally been doing this. Not in meaningful dollar amounts. And largely to help regional businesses stay afloat. But I paid their tariffs and bought, in return, a limited power of attorney and claim to any refunds.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#443

Post by RupertSalt »

tombert wrote: post #298
furyofantares wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we repeatedly say that tarrifs are passed off in full to the consumer in the form of higher prices? Isn't that as obviously wrong as the argument for them, that they're paid entirely by the other countries? Is there a reason to believe, or evidence, that it's not a mixture of the two? edit: I want to highlight esseph's reply has a link to evidence that last year's tarrifs were passed off 90% to consumers, whic…

What an odd thing to say. The businesses in the other countries are, you know, businesses. Even if it were Chinese companies that were paying the tariffs, that will be baked into the cost of the good. This is literally first-day economics. No such thing as a free lunch. The cost of the item that the end user pays should reflect all costs associated with production and distribution to that end user. I have no idea how…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff

  A tariff or import tax is a duty imposed by a national government, customs territory, or supranational union on imports of goods and is paid by the importer. Exceptionally, an export tax may be levied on exports of goods or raw materials and is paid by the exporter.
If an analysis says that "domestic consumers are paying 90%" of a tariff then they are simplifying the process that others are describing here as "baked into the cost" and I would say, more accurately, "the cost of tariffs are recouped from consumers/businesses by those who paid them (the importer)"

  The economic burden of tariffs falls on the importer, the exporter, and the consumer. [Wikipedia]
If economists are saying "consumers pay tariffs" then I would expect to see a notation on the price tags and a line-item on my receipts, but the cost of the tariff must be paid by the importer, or there won't be a consumer who can purchase the goods, let alone bear the costs of their tariffs.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#444

Post by insane_dreamer »

Spooky23 wrote: post #183
coldpie wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If whoever runs in 2028 does not have a concrete plan for investigating & prosecuting every single person who worked under this admin from top to bottom, they are wasting everyone's time. We need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029.

We’ll be dependent on New York for that, as potus will pardon everyone save for a few suckers at the end, assuming he leaves office in an orderly manner. The purge of DOJ (They can’t even find confirmable US Attorneys at this point.) and the military officer corps makes that not a certainty.

> We’ll be dependent on New York for that

do you mean because POTUS can't forgive State convictions? But why NY?

Unfortunately, SCOTUS has already absolved Trump of anything he does in office

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#445

Post by toomuchtodo »

rjrjrjrj wrote: post #424
mongol wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Constitutional changes are required for other countries to trust in the stability of the US in the future. For sure. Question is what would be enough to regain trust? I don't really see it happening

Dunno. More than half the country was either enthusiastically in favor of electing a convicted criminal pathological liar or too apathetic to do anything about it. How do you fix that?

You can't change or fix people who have their vote. Mental models are rigid, and people are, broadly speaking, emotional and irrational. They vote vibes, not facts. So, "what do?" as the kids would say. You keep folks who want to come to the US who might be vulnerable once in the US out of the US to protect them (which this administration is assisting with through their anti immigration efforts). The people who want to leave [1]? You help them leave for developed countries, which there are many. The people who will remain and should be protected? You protect them if you have the resources or network to do so. The global economy continues to reconfigure to decouple from the US [2]. Time marches on. These are harm reduction and risk mitigation mechanisms, perfect is not possible nor the target.

These are system problems. Think in systems. No different than having an abusive family you have to decouple from for self preservation, just at geopolitical scale. Capital, people, information are all mobile, and can relocate as needed. There is nothing on US soil that cannot be replaced or replicated elsewhere on the globe (besides perhaps national parks and other similar public goods, which can hopefully be protected until improved governance emerges). Please, challenge me on this if you think it's wrong, I've put much thought into it to provide guidance to others.

The only thing we had of value was trust (value of US treasuries and the dollar) in the rule of law and stability, and we burned it up. Humans are tricky. Get as far away as you can from harmful humans.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/697382/record-numbers-younger-w... ("In 2025, 40% of women aged 15 to 44 say they would move abroad permanently if they had the opportunity. The current figure is four times higher than the 10% who shared this desire in 2014, when it was generally in line with other age and gender groups.")

[2] Global Trade Is Leaving the US Behind - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-02-12/on-tra... | https://archive.today/dsI9R - February 12th, 2026

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#446

Post by Refreeze5224 »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #429
dylan604 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but now SCOTUS can say they are not a rubber stamp for POTUS. "See, we just ruled against him. Sure, it's a case that doesn't really solve anything and only causes more chaos, but we disagreed with him. This one time."

When they rule for Trump it’s proof they are just a rubber stamp. When they rule against Trump it’s somehow also proof they are a rubber stamp?

SCOTUS rules for the rich and powerful. Most of the time Trump is aligned with them. Sometimes he does dumb shit like tariffs, or things that upset the order the rich and powerful want to maintain, and they rule against him.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#447

Post by ceejayoz »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #412
ceejayoz wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS can move much quicker than this when they want to. And have fairly regularly to benefit this administration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Second_Trump_pre... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.G.G._v._Trump was vacated within days. "On Friday, March 14, 2025, Trump signed presidential proclamation 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act and asserting that Tren de Aragua, a criminal organization from…

That was on the emergency docket. This decision was the merits docket, which always takes much longer.

That's a distinction entirely invented by the court, and under their control.

The emergency docket is whatever they want to treat as an emergency. The decision not to treat this as such - it's hard to imagine many clearer examples of "immediate irreprable harm" - was clearly partisan.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#448

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #442
edot wrote: post #40

Howard Lutnick and his sons are surely happy about this. It’s almost like Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce , knew this would happen. His sons, at their firm Cantor Fitzgerald, have been offering a tariff refund product wherein they pay companies who are struggling with paying tariffs 20-30% of a potential refund, and if (as they did today) they get struck down, they pocket the 100% refund. https://www.financ…

> a tariff refund product wherein they pay companies who are struggling with paying tariffs 20-30% of a potential refund For what it’s worth, I’ve personally been doing this. Not in meaningful dollar amounts. And largely to help regional businesses stay afloat. But I paid their tariffs and bought, in return, a limited power of attorney and claim to any refunds.

[deleted]

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#449

Post by Marsymars »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #372
SilverElfin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an insane conflict of interest. His sons took over the firm? It was already bad that Lutnick took over in the first place. As I recall he sued the widow of Cantor to steal control of the company after Cantor died. But I guess this is not very surprising. I am sure every friend and family member of Trump administration people made trades leading all those tariff announcements over the last year, while the rest…

Serious question - what do you think the kids should do when their parents get political positions, not work?

The responsibility is on the parent; the parent should recuse themselves from decisions or discussions where there could be a conflict of interest involving their family members.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#450

Post by softwaredoug »

csense wrote: post #151

I don't think tariffs should be imposed capriciously at the President's whim. But I do think tariffs are an appropriate policy tool that should be used to protect US companies against overseas competitors that get government subsidies or other unfair advantages: Low wages, safety regulations, worker protection, environmental rules, etc.

We have laws explicitly for imposing tariffs for these reasons (like Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Trade Act of 1974)

The difference is they have to go through administrative procedure, and are subject to more judicial review to ensure administrative process was followed. Even if its a fig leaf in this administrative, its a tad slower with higher judicial oversight.

What Trump wants to do is impose tariffs on a whim using emergency powers where administrative procedure laws don't apply.

So the hope here: we have at least more predictability / stability in the tariff regime. But tariffs aren't going away

Post reply on HN