8 ms·
I don't understand. Can companies curry government favor to get tariff exceptions? Aren't the tariffs in place already?
by Evidlo 2y ago
I don't understand. Can companies curry government favor to get tariff exceptions? Aren't the tariffs in place already?
- runjake 2y agoApparently, yes. I saw mention of discussion around the Trump administration potentially giving Apple a tariff waiver. And I believe in Trump’s last term, Apple did have some sort of waiver. I’m on mobile but Googling for “Apple tariff waiver” and “Apple tariff exemption” will point you to several news items.
- runjake 2y agoA couple (from a pool of many) citations: From the 45 presidency: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-escaped-tariffs-last-time-this-time-it-may-have-to-raise-prices-958d50fa https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-escaped-tariffs-last... Now: https://9to5mac.com/2024/12/17/analyst-trump-will-waive-apples-china-tariffs-so-it-doesnt-lose-to-samsung/ https://9to5mac.com/2024/12/17/analyst-trump-will-waive-appl...
- teaearlgraycold 2y agoYou can when the president is corrupt.
- slt2021 2y agoIts not corruption when the president creates US jobs It is corruption when president outsources and offshores US jobs, though
- stetrain 2y agoNeither of those fit the definition of corruption.
- simonh 2y agoThere is no jobs problem in the US though. Unemployment is at 4% which is mostly just job churn. Long term unemployment is only 1%. US consumers, that’s all of you, are being hammered with taxes on imported goods most of which can’t realistically be produced in the US anyway, to solve a problem you don’t have. A commitment like this takes years to plan. It can’t possibly be a response to tariffs announced weeks ago. This is all optics.
- teaearlgraycold 2y agoDepends how you count it. I wouldn’t count most gig app workers as employed. But the government does.
- slt2021 2y agoI also wouldnt count fake bullshit government/corp/college administration jobs (email jobs) with negative productivity
- johnnyanmac 2y agoI just gotta pay rent dude. I'm not judging how you do it.
- astrange 2y agoThe government determines the employment rate via surveys, i.e. they just go and ask people if they're employed. It's not a calculation from taxes or from employers or anything. So it's up to the gig workers if they think they're employed or not. Presumably this depends on how often they do it.
- slt2021 2y agoFalse, USA has a big problem with manufacturing. All US jobs are service jobs to prop up consumer economy, that have no strategic benefit. A lot of fake employment and low productivity jobs are in the government/NGO sector, paper pushers, DEI jobs, law/compliance type jobs - that should have been manufacturing jobs instead. USA has no shipyards and infrastructure is crumbling precisely because of misallocation of resources and labor
- llamaimperative 2y agoYes this is one reason tariffs are so valuable to a corrupt POTUS. They have essentially unilateral and very fine-grained control over them, down to exempting specific companies or products outright.
- duped 2y agoCongress needs to step up on this, honestly. The entire idea that the President can unilaterally implement trade policy is as plain a violation of separation of powers I can think of, and SCOTUS is a fan of non-delegation doctrine.
- hcurtiss 2y ago[flagged]
- llamaimperative 2y agoWho is advocating for that?
- luxuryballs 2y agoiirc as soon as anything becomes beyond the border the President holds the keys for various reasons including the ever-vague “national security” but also due to being prescribed as the primary negotiator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
- duped 2y agoTariffs are not treaties, they're taxes/duties - only Congress has the power to raise them. Article I is extremely clear on that. Historically, tariffs were always raised by acts of Congress, not by Presidential fiat. Trump is using extremely misguided legislation from the 1960s/70s where Congress allowed the President to enact tariffs for national security and emergencies. There is a very strong argument (in the sense it resonates with the conservative SCOTUS majority) that Congress cannot delegate its fundamental powers to the executive by legislation alone. I think people are just too cowardly to bring a case in front of the courts to challenge the constitutionality of it all. Non-delegation doctrine is what the Federal Society want to use to kneecap all federal regulation. Trump operates on a spoils system so it's not in the interest of conservatives or businesses to challenge him, for fear of retribution.
- cloverich 2y agoCharitably, tariffs exist so POTUS can either lower taxes or increase jobs in US, but both would take time to pan out assuming things go well. So if a company is willing to onshore money or jobs, its achieving its intended purpose in their eyes.
- janalsncm 2y agoI believe the stated purpose of the latest round had to do with fentanyl precursor manufacturing.
- hatsix 2y agoI believe that's the Mexico/Canada Tariffs, but it's really hard to keep it straight, by design.
- svachalek 2y agoNo I think Mexico/Canada were largely about stopping immigrants and fentanyl smuggling. But China was targeted for not doing enough to stop manufacturing of fentanyl precursors.
- 3vidence 2y agoSorry to say but that's already been walked back on after Canada committed $1 billion dollars for extra northern border security and it made no difference in the tariffs discussions. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-border-patrol-canada-us-1.7446291 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-border-patrol-canada-u... <- discussion of commitment from Canada https://financialpost.com/news/trump-says-tariffs-on-canada-mexico-going-forward-next-month https://financialpost.com/news/trump-says-tariffs-on-canada-... <- as of today (sorry for FT source but this is literally all across google you can just googla USA tarrifs)
- georgemcbay 2y agoThe idea that the Canadian tariffs were ever really about Fentanyl is patently absurd. 0.2% of all US border Fentanyl seizures were on the Canadian border. That's almost literally nothing.
- rcpt 2y agoThat's kind of the point of tariffs