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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by hinkley »

dyauspitr wrote: post #619
hinkley wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thomas isn’t a hack, he’s a shill. And he’s not even trying to be subtle about it. He’s somebody’s bitch and he literally drives around in the toys they bought for him as compensation. If any justice deserves to be impeached it’s him. I can’t believe they approved him in the first place. Anita Hill sends her regards.

But the toys are so cheap. It can’t possibly be just a matter of the money, there has to be some blackmail involved. Either that or he was always self hating.

He was gifted a motor coach worth $80,000, and that’s just one of the bigger things he can’t launder.

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

#672

Post by hinkley »

evan_ wrote: post #637
dyauspitr wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the toys are so cheap. It can’t possibly be just a matter of the money, there has to be some blackmail involved. Either that or he was always self hating.

Why would there need to be bribery or blackmail involved? He's ideologically aligned with the goals of the republican party. His patrons lavish him with gifts because they don't want him to retire, not because they want a specific ruling.

It’s the same thing.

Keep doing exactly what we want you to do, or the money goes to someone who will.

Which is also a message to the rest.

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

#673

Post by Ylpertnodi »

jazz9k wrote: post #489

[flagged]

Trump is bad. As an individual: I'm as-far-as-possible boycotting a lot of US goods (including not using amazon) - even down to the NOT coca-cola cola i now drink. I'll not be visiting the US ever again (regardless of dems or repubs in charge). I'm not alone, either.

So yes, i would say he's bad, and terrible for your country, both short, long, and very long term. Let alone the paedo stuff, the grifting, obama on the brain, tarrifs, ice...the economic jeopardy he's playing with the US is astounding to watch.

However, i am interested, as i am sure others are - in what way could he be considered 'good'?

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

#674

Post by [deleted] »

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #546
mastax wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems likely to me the ruling took this long because John Roberts wanted to get a more unanimous ruling. Additionally, the law in this case isn’t ill defined whatsoever. Alito, Thomas, and to a lesser extent Kavanaugh are just partisan hacks. For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. However the past six years have destroyed that no…

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#675

Post by Starman_Jones »

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #612
tyre wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not an absurd scenario. The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country. The nuance is that nothing Congress passed granted to right to tax . Additionally, they did grant the power to partially block imports. Nothing says you have to enact “no imports from Japan” vs. “no imports of networking equipment from Lichtenstein.”

>The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country. The precise wording is regulate. The idea that "regulate" means you can turn it on or off with no in-between is beyond parody. Absurd. Hilarious. Farcical. That said the headline is misleading and should be renamed, nothing is changing from this ruling.

The precise wording is

"investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit..."

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

#676

Post by cortesoft »

layer8 wrote: post #327
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…

For goods for which no domestic equivalent alternatives exist, why would the foreign suppliers lower their prices to compensate for the tariffs (which are paid by the importers to the government)? More generally, the cost of the tariffs will be split between foreign suppliers and local importers/consumers according to the competitiveness and availability of domestic suppliers, and according to market elasticity for t…

Well, they would likely have to lower their profit margin because the demand is reduced by the higher prices. Fewer purchasers will want to/be able to buy the item at the higher price. The supply and demand curve will find a new equilibrium, but it isn’t like the sellers are going to sell the exact same quantity of items with the price exactly increased by the tariff amount.

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

#677

Post by 9dev »

omnimus wrote: post #244
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.

Do you agree with countries doing the opposite to the US? When for example US tech is better than the local alternative but the countries create unfair advantages to the local alternatives?

That is not an unfair advantage, but protecting their domestic industries for reasons unrelated to the quality of the tech, for example to keep people in active employment, prevent bankruptcies, allow an industry to get up to speed, or a lot of other reasons entirely unrelated to the USA. All of these are valid; any country gets to decide who they want to allow on their markets, and to what conditions.

That is not what Trump has been doing, though. Using tariffs as retaliatory measures? As a threat because he didn’t get to "own" Greenland?

Let’s stop comparing sane political strategies to the actions of a narcissistic madman.

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

#678

Post by pclmulqdq »

xnx wrote: post #57

Am I understanding this right? 1) US customer pays huge import tax on imported goods in the form of higher prices. 2) Seller sends the collected tax to the US government 3) US government will refund all/most of that tax back to the seller after this ruling 4) Seller gets to keep the returned tax money as pure profit (no refund to customer)

When I have bought things internationally, I have always been the one doing the importing. This means I paid some Trump taxes and I will get my money back.

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

#679

Post by jagged-chisel »

teeray wrote: post #452
jrmg wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I get compensation from UPS or FedEx for making me pay illegal tariffs - and making me pay a fee to them for processing it too? (I know the answer is practically ’no’, but it does still seem to me that the bureaucracy and companies that went along with this obviously illegal operation bear some culpability...)

If everyone sued them in small claims over it, there probably would be a whole lot of default judgments.

Then you’re on your own to collect.

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

#680

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN