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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by Forgeties79 »

lucketone wrote: post #871
Forgeties79 wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is we've kicked this can down the road for decades. We can't just let the president perform Congress's job, no matter how "stuck" they are.

I disagree with the metaphor. In suggest: The can of worms was opened. (i.e. subsequent us presidents, no matter which party, will use more freedom of movement in the office)

I actually think Congress is the one who controls the reins still with this one. All they have to do is simply say “no“ and stop falling in line with the party because their president is in charge. They won’t do it, but they need to just agree enough is enough and legislate instead of handing it off to the president so they can’t be held accountable for their votes. Still, at the end of the day the ball is in their court.

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

#942

Post by bubblewand »

sigwinch wrote: post #926
SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in rare cases, but for each of the various policy goals tariffs are used for, there are other kinds of targeted industrial policy that work better and cost less. Tariffs are the most expensive way to try to onshore manufacturing. The cost per "job created" is astronomical usually. They incentivize corruption and black markets. Even regular old subsidies are usually easier, cheaper, and less problematic

With as much respect as possible, isn’t this disproven by data now? You can’t connect tariffs to a single manufacturing job created.

I read that as “when you use them correctly”.

“Correctly” means building consensus so capitalists can expect the new trade framework they're operating under to be reasonably stable, signaling what you’ll do well in advance, then phasing it in, ideally also with a guide to what a phase-out will look like and why or when you would begin doing that. Also, you’d usually avoid tariffing too widely at once. Focused is far more effective.

The stability is needed to get businesses to invest serious money in new buildings, machines, and training, when it won’t pay off for years.

You signal ahead of time and phase them in to minimize damage done. Gives companies time to adjust their stance before the pressure is on.

You focus them on specifically the goods you want to protect, so you don’t also raise the prices of inputs to those goods more than you have to.

You’ll notice zero of those key components were present in this scheme.

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

#943

Post by projektfu »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #888
sowbug wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe this is used to justify a new emergency federal law that all purchases must be reported on your tax return, just in case the government ever needs to refund any illegally collected import taxes. I think I'm kidding, but I'm not really sure anymore.

Indiana has sometimes required that for decades, though I think they finally adjusted the law a little after online purchases became popular. Indiana charges sales tax like a lot of states, but only on things sold in the state or from a company located in the state. If you ordered something from California or overseas, no sales tax was charged. The law required you to track these purchases and report it on your tax r…

Yeah, most states that have sales taxes have "use taxes" to cover this case and the case of a wholesale item (no tax) being used in house. It gets enforced primarily in retrospect and on big ticket items that the state does see, like a vehicle purchase.

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

#944

Post by carlosjobim »

kshri24 wrote: post #791
carlosjobim wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then where are the hackers in this comment section calling out for the European Council to strike down European tariffs like the US supreme court did? Where were they before Trump?

Please study why tariffs exist in the first place. It is not to punish a country. It is used as protection from a stronger adversary, especially by developing countries, for balancing trade disparities. Not everything can be lop-sided in favor of US.

In the first Trump presidency, it was the same outrage about tariffs, and he wasn't talking (as far as I remember) about punishment and such.

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

#945

Post by idiotsecant »

gcanyon wrote: post #938
beloch wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To the extent this is true, the entire thing could literally be a grift (I'm not saying Trump is smart enough to come up with this, just that people around him are, and he's grifty enough to go along with it): 1. Trump enacts the tariff, despite knowing it will be struck down. 2. The tariff extracts hundreds of billions from the economy. 3. Finance firms buy the potential refund for pennies on the dollar, knowing tha…

Trump has been obsessed with tariffs for decades. I fully believe he thought this was a great idea. Lutnick, on the other hand, quite obviously forsaw this eventuality (as did anyone who understands how power actually flows in the United States) and encouraged it while preparing to profit massively himself. It's an obvious play, good on him for getting away with it. It's clear at this point that this administration has utterly collapsed the idea of the rule of law, though. 15 years ago this would have been a scandal that would have led to firings and possibly impeachment

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

#946

Post by bakies »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #239
sowbug wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will I get back the $17 DHL charged to collect the $1 tariff on the cat toys I bought from China? Actual event may not have occurred, but DHL flat fee is real.

Were cat toys not made in the US? Especially if you were to factor and $18 delta? Sorry, but tariffs on aluminum or steel that is only made in China or microchips or components. I think that’s a valid discussion to have. … you’re complaining about disposable cat toys that were likely made in a sweat shop where the workers were not making a livable wage and then putting in a container on a ship burning crude oil and p…

If you read the whole two sentence comment it wasn't cat toys and the product doesn't matter.

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

#947

Post by nathan_compton »

czl wrote: post #894
conductr wrote: post #885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally think it should not get refunded. There’s no sane way to get it back to its source. And no one group should be making profit from it. Best if it stays with the government like a federal forfeiture so in theory we all benefit from it as citizens , maybe it goes against the national debt or lessens our deficit next year.

Not a bad idea, but how do we prevent this from creating incentives to engineer similar situations in the future?

Presumably such future attempts would be stopped immediately given this ruling.

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

#948

Post by [deleted] »

JimmyBiscuit wrote: post #921
beloch wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Umm this doesnt seem to be true: https://www.semafor.com/article/02/20/2026/cantor-fitzgerald... Or is there another source for this claim?

[deleted]

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

#949

Post by sigwinch »

bubblewand wrote: post #942
sigwinch wrote: post #926

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With as much respect as possible, isn’t this disproven by data now? You can’t connect tariffs to a single manufacturing job created.

I read that as “when you use them correctly”. “Correctly” means building consensus so capitalists can expect the new trade framework they're operating under to be reasonably stable, signaling what you’ll do well in advance, then phasing it in, ideally also with a guide to what a phase-out will look like and why or when you would begin doing that. Also, you’d usually avoid tariffing too widely at once. Focused is far…

Sorry, yes, I wasn’t clear. The point I wanted to make was that this tariff strategy seems to fail propelling any job creation at all. To the degree that if it wasn’t tariffs but some kind of protection money, we’d more clearly call it a strategy.

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

#950

Post by cruffle_duffle »

zanellato19 wrote: post #503
Telemakhos wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If everything is an emergency then nothing is, and that was clearly not congress' intention with those laws. The state of exception is the true test of sovereignty, and powers that crave sovereignty therefore seek out states of exception. The PATRIOT act created new institutions and authorities like the TSA. Just a few years ago local health departments were making business-shuttering decisions that ruined life for…

Are you equating covid to the common cold? If so, this comment is absurd.

More like a flu in terms of IFR but yeah.
Post reply on HN