981–990 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the administration cares about the appearance of impropriety.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the Constitutionality of his tariffs or their ability to accomplish the stated goals.
Unless congress is willing to impeach him, he can run wild.
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.
These tariffs have no basis in rational economics. Full stop. It really is only about whether or not the president could do it. That's all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is 10% universal global tariff might actually make some economic sense if he got rid of all the other ones
In practice, isn't this just a blanket federal sales tax/VAT? Isn't that inflationary? I am curious, what do you see as the benefit of this style of taxation?
Not the best way but not completely stupid either.
If you’re interested in this perspective look up Michael Pettis’s work, he explains it better than me.
To be clear, I’m not defending trump, I think he is an idiot. This would be a “stopped clock is right twice a day” situation if he ends up doing it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apologies, but I'm having a hard time parsing your sentence. What exactly are you saying?
The GP is using a snowclone of the original: "It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy". For example, if your boss is very rude and disparaging, but then he gets fired, you would say, sarcastically, "It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy", implying there's some element of karma at work. By analogy, GP is saying these tarrifs were an undeserving act of vengeance. I assume "undeserved" in the sense that it wasn't de…
Thank you. :)
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…
The price the market supports depends on things like taxes and tariffs.
Why removing taxes lowers prices:
https://open.substack.com/pub/shonczinner/p/why-removing-tax...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with Gorsuch, and I love this idea, but until the legislative branch abandons procedures that prevent the deliberation from happening in the first place, this will keep happening.
There is a balance to be struck to avoid a completely ineffectual congress but I'm not sure a legislative body biased towards action is one you would actually want. Making it easier to kill bills than pass them has a natural stabilizing effect which I think is a net good for the country.
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)
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where you going with this? Afaik, Byzantine (or reverse) and other private tax collection setups aren't illegal.
“Not illegal” != “very very good for everybody”
If you believe this is bad for society then say "I can't see how allowing others to profit from your tax refund is good" and not "How is this not reverse Byzantine tax farming?".