Live data from Hacker News

Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

bbc.com

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771
post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a sense this is the correct level of punishment for all. The courts are slow and deliberative. The Congress could solve this in a week. Impeachment and removal from office.

You are correct. My country does not have the similar separation of powers the US has. I do not understand why Americans have a hard time realizing this: the President and other elected officials work for YOU. They literally run for office to get the position, and they get voted in. Why would someone let an elected official enrich themselves and their friends with your money? Why would the legislative branch allow th…

There is no mechanism for citizens of the united states to recall a president or member of congress. They must wait 2, 4, and 6 years depending on who they'd like to replace. This contributes to the the current woes as as many members of congress and some presidents (like this one) would certainly undergo recall battles or be immediately recalled. Since we can't though, and elections in this country are a 12-16 month barrage of lies, propaganda and ads by the time voting does come around people just check which ever box matches their team, zero thought given and are thankful the whole mess is over with so they can mostly ignore politics until its time to start complaining again about how poorly they're represented. Repeat.

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

#772

I wonder what this means for the EU. We made a new deal under pressure of the tariffs that is actually worse than the deal we had. If we had not bent the knee, we would have had that original deal back, or at least, so it seems? Now we seem to be properly shafted due to weak politicians.

The deal more or less had 3 'bad' things in it: 1. The EU would face higher tariffs on their exports to the USA. Now mostly struck down 2. The EU would not retaliate with tariffs of its own. Not really a big deal since the only US export to the EU that's worth worrying about are digital services, and those aren't subject to tariffs anyways. 3. The EU promised to buy lots of LNG and make investments in the USA to the…

> The EU promised to buy lots of LNG and make investments in the USA to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. This was a bald-faced lie on the part of the EU negotiators. Even if the EU wanted to actually do this, they have no power or mechanism to make member states and companies within those member states buy more LNG or make more investments in the USA. This was just an empty promise.

The amounts named were also, ah, suspiciously similar to the amount of LNG Europe would generally buy, and the amount that would be invested in the US as a matter of course. It was kind of "well, the thing that would ordinarily happen will happen".

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

#773

Hmm. This is celebrated as a victory - I don't mind that, who likes the crazy pro-russian orange man anyway. But I think it should be pointed out that he went on to use an old law. So the supreme court basically said that this was an unfit use case. Ok. They could just come up with a new law that is tailor-made and may eventually be approved. It may take some time but they could technically do so, right? So I am not…

> They could just come up with a new law that is tailor-made and may eventually be approved.

Allowing Trump to trash the US economy is one thing, but even a Republican congress may be a little unwilling to actively _do it themselves_. Trump won't last forever, and they need to get re-elected.

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

#774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely this weekend.

Second carrier's not arriving in-theater until tomorrow at the earliest, and the latest report I saw on its position made it look more like Monday or so. They might go without it, but if they're waiting on the Ford, they'll be cutting it close to fit the opening strike into this weekend.

IMO it depends on the War Powers Act. If it appears they have the votes, they might initate operations earlier.

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

#775

"The ruling applies to his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs, but not individual tariffs he's imposed on specific countries or products " -- So what's gonna happen next? For countries that negotiated special treatment, they'll be stuck with a (now worse) deal? For other countries, they'll return to the previous deal (non-tariff)?

This is one of the things that drives me nuts about certain conservatives here in Canada who have been crying that Carney just "needs to make deal" (on some realpolitik basis) -- that would have been completely insanely bad bargaining. Everyone knew this court date was coming (and also that there's midterms this year). Why on earth would Canada show its belly to Trump when Trump himself was potentially about to be de-fanged? Why ink an unfavourable deal and then find two years later that we're stuck with it while the US political arena has changed?

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

#777

I'm just here to enjoy the endlessly fractal spiraling double-think of tariffs being the devil when the US implements them, and being double-plus-good when the European Union implements them (or China or South America). As hackers here are very intelligent but also very unwise, they find great enjoyment in double-think exercises and the resentment it gives them.

The EU has a weighted mean tariff of about 1.3%. Prior to ol' mini-hands, the US had a weighted mean of 2.4%; it now has a weighted mean of about 8% (or, well, did until this ruling, who knows now). China is 2.1%. A couple of countries in South America have very high tariffs, but you'd expect that; high tariffs are normally a marker of a developing economy.

The idea that the EU is high-tariff, while popular on the internet, is simply not supported by the facts.

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

#778
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? You mean from American importers and therefore consumers? Foreign countries do not pay tariffs. This lie needs to stop.

You really believe that the incidence of taxation falls 100% on the buyer and never the seller? And you think those who have a more accurate view are "lying"? Please learn a bit about the incidence of taxation: https://stantcheva.scholars.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum... The main models supporting your view is where consumer income is exogenous and all firm profits are redistributed to the representative consumer…

Indeed; it's not 100%. It's actually 96%: https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/americas-own-g...

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

#779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...but we disagreed with him. This one time. They've actually done so numerous times already and have several cases on the docket that look to be leaning against him as well. There's a reason why most serious pundits saw this ruling coming a mile away, because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration.

>because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration. Several justices are openly taking bribes

[flagged]

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

#780
post #761
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)

This will be so in some cases, but there are extra steps in others. e.g. In a different path, 1 and 2 are the same, but things then diverge. 3) To recoup some of those tariff costs, the company sells the rights to any potential future tariff refunds. They recoup a portion of what they paid immediately but hand away the right to a full refund to another party, such as Cantor Fitzgerald. The seller might use this to re…

How is this not reverse Byzantine tax farming?
Post reply on HN