Hacker News Reader

Comment by tialaramex | Hacker News Reader

Right, and sugar taxes are an example of a tax where there's a clear objective. To avoid the tax, don't put sugar in things if you can help it. Result: Products which had sugar because it was cheaper don't any more because of the tax, it's not cheaper now.

These tariffs have a huge red flag because there's no objective. Onshoring? No, wait, we got a new deal the tariffs are removed. New trade deals? No, wait, somebody wrote a mean Tweet about Donald so the tariffs are back and the deal is off.

View on HN

Tariffs to produce market effects (like onshoring) only work if those tariffs are observed to be durable (in four years all these tariffs will evaporate) and are strengthened by being paired with other encouragement (i.e. industry development subsidies).

These tariffs are arbitrary and capricious and no business would rationally respond to them with any kind of long term investment. People just want to weather the storm of the mad king and international partners are developing alternative relationships to seek more stability.

You still have to be way more strategic so the inputs of your new factories don’t get tariffed as well, otherwise your higher labor costs will kill any desire to actually do onshoring.

> Tariffs to produce market effects (like onshoring) only work if those tariffs are observed to be durable

Tariffs do produce immediate market effects - inflation and shortages, which we do observe.

In order to produce positive market effects tariffs must be gradual, differentiated, measured, negotiated and communicated well in advance.

And if tariffs don't work, he'll just defund whatever aid you're receiving or project you're building or life saving research you're doing or critical job you're performing.

And if the cost if lives or dollars or reputation is enormous, he'll still sleep like a baby.

It's cool though, you can probably get a few billion in funding if you "lobby" a few million to the right people. The tariffs exist, imo, primarily as a threat to induce bribes for loopholes (e.g. the smartphone loophole).

I think you sum up exactly why they will be found illegal.

Phew, good thing this regime is super into following the law and listening to courts.

Found to be illegal when? 3 decades after they've done their damage?

There's a case in process that'll likely resolve in the next two months. Quite a few companies have filed suite banking on getting their fees reimbursed.

In the current political climate nothing is certain - but this will likely come to a resolution in the near term.

Okay, so if they lose that case, Trump will just pass a new executive order that once again takes months to resolve.

The solution, of course, is to never vote R again, for any office.

You have to punish anyone supporting this insanity.

Just wanted to point out that this is the first instance of a correct spelling of "lose" I've seen on the Internet in the last three years.

You're loosing your mind Jimmy

And, if Treasury must refund to the companies that "paid" the tariffs, the companies will keep the refunds despite consumers' having actually carried the burden by paying higher prices and suffering attendant inflation. A win–win for the Epstein class!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com