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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by dboreham »

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…

It wasn't a "rumor" it was explicit deliberate disinformation. Unfortunately many people in the US have insufficient education and accurate news feeds to realize.

See also: disinformation that "other countries charge us the same tariffs", which turns out to be either a plain lie, or they mean VAT (a sales tax, like we have in the US).

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

#682

Post by lysace »

excerionsforte wrote: post #196

Should have been done sooner, I take issue with the 3 who dissented and how long it took there get there. The constitution is clear on this matter. Prices are insane already, we don't need fake emergencies to drive up prices even more.

https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-tariff-ruling-updates

Furious about the defeat, Trump said he will impose a global 10% tariff as an alternative while pressing his trade policies by other means. The new tariffs would come under a law that restricts them to 150 days.

Don't you americans have some kind of mechanism for removing a president from office when the trust is no longer there? I remember hearing a lot about it during the Clinton era in the 90s.

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

#683

Post by bsder »

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?

> Do you agree with countries doing the opposite to the US?

Yes, please! Maximally efficient is minimally robust.

We need robustness in the global economy more than some megajillionaire needs another half cent per customer in profit.

In addition, we need competition in a lot of areas where we have complete consolidation right now. The only way to get that is to give some protection to the little guys while they grow.

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

#684

Post by skeletal88 »

warmwaffles wrote: post #278
rozap wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that's why you need to convince Congress of that fact, as has been done in the past. Tariffs absolutely make sense as a strategic tool. There is no strategy here.

Ever try to get Congress to agree on something without packaging in another thing?

It is because your congress and political system don't need coalition governments orvaby kind of agreements, winner takes it all. A true multy party system wpuld be mote flexible and less prone to catering to extremes on the left or right

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

#685

Post by dboreham »

ragazzina wrote: post #621
tracker1 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GPs point was that Tariffs are legitimate as a practice and that some people have been led to believe that they shouldn't exist at all.

Can you make an example of a tariff from the last 100 years that definitely benefitted the US in a long-lasting way?

There's a tarriff on sugar that means we have to use HFCS in processed foods and beverages. Oh wait...

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

#686

Post by triceratops »

k1ko wrote: post #645
coldpie wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They should’ve allowed an emergency injunction from the outset. That wouldn't have given the opportunity for SCOTUS's financial backers to build up their profits first https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47089443

You think corporations and the elite .01% support tariffs? It obviously was very unpopular with that class of society. The policy was aimed to help the working class of the country. You can argue that it was a piss poor way of doing so, but it's certainly not something that the elite class advocated for and getting rich off of.,

> The policy was aimed to help the working class of the country

If you really think this, you're a rube.

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

#687

Post by rkeene2 »

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.

Good news ! It is against the law (i.e., illegal) for a US President to impose tariffs (on a whim or otherwise) -- a US President doing so is doing so illegally and without constitutional authority!

When the US President commits crimes as the US President, he has absolute immunity from prosecution (otherwise, he might not be emboldened to break the law) so there is no judicial recourse, but the US Congress can still see the illegal activity and impeach and remove him from office to stop the execution of illegal activity. As our representatives within the US Government, they are responsible to us to enact our legislative outcomes. It appears they have determined that the illegal activity is what we wanted, or there would be articles of impeachment for these illegal acts.

The legislative branch can of course deliberately impose tariffs at any time for the reasons you listed.

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

#688

Post by dboreham »

llbeansandrice wrote: post #661
legitster wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kavanaugh strikes me as principled, but in kind of a Type-A, "well, actually" sort of way where he will get pulled into rabbit holes and want to die on random textual hills. He is all over the map, but not in a way that seems consistent or predictable.

His dissent in this case was basically "Don't over turn the tariffs because it will be too hard to make everyone whole" Which doesn't strike me as "principled" at all. Wasn't it JFK who said "We choose to Not do these things bc they're kinda hard actually"? /s

This is nonsense, and the same nonsense as we heard in the insurrectionist ruling. Allowing fascism "Because it's inconvenient to do otherwise" is bonkers.

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

#689

Post by dlisboa »

tracker1 wrote: post #655
ragazzina wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you make an example of a tariff from the last 100 years that definitely benefitted the US in a long-lasting way?

How do you feel about allowing the import of goods from nations using slavery to create those goods? Would you be okay with a foreign nation undercutting domestic production as a strategy to destroy your industry to control a market? That's aside from my position that most taxes should be at a point of trade/exchange.

You have to see there's a hefty dose of hypocrisy in this, right? American might has been used, quite extensively, to impose unfavorable conditions to local companies in their own soil in favor of American companies. Multiple American multi national corporations have used exploitative labor conditions in underdeveloped countries to prop up their own margins. The American government has used multiple coercive tools to de-industrialize many nations and has, in the 21st century, an explicitly paternalistic attitude towards the Western Hemisphere with literal stealing of their resources.

I understand and even respect when someone says "I'm American so I wish to maintain the status quo where the US can undercut other nations but they can't undercut us". But if there's some rose tinted view of how the US is actually the morally aggrieved one, I just can't bear it.

Post reply on HN