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

Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

fuelarc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 728 posts

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#551

Post by leereeves »

zzrrt wrote: post #306
leereeves wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing about the fictional "Wilhoit’s Law". It's not a law of science. It's nothing but an Internet snipe from a blog post by a music composer. It wasn't even written while the political scientist Frank Wilhoit was alive. https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservative... It's just half of a truism: people apply different standards to "their side". As true of the left wing as the right.

Being commonly misattributed (which GP did not do!) doesn’t make it fictional, nor does coming from a composer make it automatically wrong or useless.

It's not relevant that the quote came from a composer specifically. It's relevant that it didn't come from someone with any expertise about politics. Yet it's been elevated to the status of a "law" by people who just really like the way it insults their opponents.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#552

Post by LightBug1 »

How many memecoins did Musk purchase for this exemption?

Or was it an in-kind deal for his amateur-hack-a-billy work at DOGE?

Musk as presidential prostitute is not something I had on my bingo card when he first arrived on the scene.

This is the kind of bullshit your reputation will never recover from - no matter how many puff pieces you buy or retweet.

RIP Tesla.

RIP Elon.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#553

Post by _heimdall »

lazide wrote: post #425
_heimdall wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access to raw materials may be a fundamental blocker there. I had seen stats putting China's control of certain rare earth minerals as high as 80% and products like lithium batteries as high as 97%. I don't know the industry well enough to validate that, but I couldn't find anything refuting or disproving those numbers either. If true, we very well may not be able to make them here if China were to cut off those reso…

These all have potential mines in the US. They’re currently shuttered however, because of cost, because China is cheaper and has been for a long time.

That will be a rude awakening for a lot of people if we have to start mining that heavily here. We were able to have our cake and eat it too as long as we could talk green while outsourcing our environmental damage due to mining overseas.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#554

Post by rayiner »

mmooss wrote: post #476
fallingknife wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prior to the civil rights movement it was assumed that by freedom of association, it was beyond the scope of the government to prevent things like segregation by private citizens. e.g. if a business owner did not want to serve black customers, then that is his right. So yes, someone who does not support the government having that power to infringe on freedom of association will not support any government intervention…

He opposes any known solution to the terrible evil of segregation, and doesn't care to offer any other. If you stand by while someone is drowning, eating a hot dog, you can claim 'I do support agitation for drowning victims', but the facts are plain.

Even in your analogy, that just means you’re not willing to jeopardize yourself in any way to help, not that you affirmatively want the other person to drown. In fact they recommend that you don’t try to help drowning victims, because they often cause their rescuers to drown as well. More generally, not caring about other people isn’t the same as affirmatively wanting to harm them.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#555

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

bloppe wrote: post #223
rectang wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wider Trump administration, and Musk in particular for his DOGE work which has included firing regulatory enforcers.

The wider Trump administration is extremely anti-free-market. They're very explicit about it. The Republican party is nothing like it used to be.

The Republican party only persists as a name. The Trump party has long subsumed it.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#556

Post by _heimdall »

mindslight wrote: post #345
_heimdall wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually see this as an example of why the fuzziness should always matter. We may occasionally find good reason to take the risk, but we have a ton of this kind of fuzziness written into our countless laws and we have no real way to stop those in charge from deciding to misuse it.

The mechanism to stop it is to lean on the chickenshit Republican congress critters to impeach and convict the president who is using his discretionary powers to overtly loot for personal gain, attack our country (/me waves at the import blockade), and is already ignoring the check of the judiciary. It would be great if there were other methods of accountability, yes. But it's impossible to codify legal rules into pe…

I live in a state where unfortunately my senator will absolutely never turn on Trump and impeach, those calls would be a waste of time.

I agree that holding people accountable today is important if and when laws are broken. But surely you can't just stop there. We don't need to codify legal rules perfectly, but acknowledging that we can't should lead to much more hesitation with the powers we allow and the sheer size of our legal codes.

Dealing with an immediate problem first makes sense. We would need to follow that up with overhauling our laws to better ensure this can't happen again. We're never going to do that though, solving the root cause is slow, tedious, and politically untenable.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#557

Post by leereeves »

ta1243 wrote: post #521
tempestn wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your parent's point is that it does not suddenly apply to the full value when exceeding 15% foreign content.

The headline doesn't say that Any vehicle at 85% is exempt Any vehicle at 84.999% or less pays a tarrif That tarrif may be 1 cent or $100,000, the headline doesn't say anything about that. Given the need for transparency though it would be best if every item bought in america highlights the exact cost of the tarrif, same as it highlights sales tax. Indeed America is fairly unique in advertising pre tax prices (buy a…

> That tarrif may be 1 cent or $100,000, the headline doesn't say anything about that.

Exactly. Neither does the story.

That was the point of the top comment. The story doesn't explain that the tariff may be 1 cent and completely trivial. It should have.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#558

Post by marcusb »

InDubioProRubio wrote: post #496
enaaem wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only murky thing is how far Amazon was in implementing it, but there is no doubt that the White House reacted furiously to it. This is a very sensitive issue for them, and companies should be aware that Trump is willing to make their lives very difficult if they show this information.

Up next, a mysterious small company appears, releasing the AMAzing Plugin, that allows to compute the tarif addition on amazon.com. Totally unrelated

Released yesterday: https://github.com/mergd/amzn-tariff

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#559

Post by rayiner »

mindslight wrote: post #399
rayiner wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive. The question is who the police are being deployed to protect, private citizens or the government itself. Ordinarily police are deployed to protect citizens from criminals, so it’s bad to attack the police. But the C…

> who the police are being deployed to protect, private citizens or the government itself I must have missed the outpouring of Republican support for the black lives matter protests when they were attacked by police riots or when police stations were attacked. No private citizens being protected there, and the protesting was directly against government oppression (including of the 2nd amendment even!).

Republicans don’t think that police using lethal force against people with long criminal records—which come from terrorizing fellow citizens—is “government oppression.” That doesn’t describe every person that was the subject of the protests, but certainly describes the people who became the figureheads.

Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule

#560

Post by ozozozd »

wisty wrote: post #450
Suppafly wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My immediate assumption was that Tesla lies and probably has more offshore content than most of their competitors.

I'd just assume they picked whatever definitions they needed to make Tesla exempt.

This is the way.
Post reply on HN