8 ms·

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 prot

by csense 8mo ago

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.

cogman10 8mo ago
I agree with this assessment. And I think that the way it's setup in the constitution is correct, that congress needs to ultimately create the tariffs rather than the president. Creating tariffs unilaterally should almost never happen.
simonh 8mo ago
They can be and are. The USA had tariffs on many products prior to Trump.
- tracker1 8mo ago
  I think GPs point was that Tariffs are legitimate as a practice and that some people have been led to believe that they shouldn't exist at all.
  - ragazzina 8mo ago
    Can you make an example of a tariff from the last 100 years that definitely benefitted the US in a long-lasting way?
    - tracker1 8mo ago
      How do you feel about allowing the import of goods from nations using slavery to create those goods? Would you be okay with a foreign nation undercutting domestic production as a strategy to destroy your industry to control a market? That's aside from my position that most taxes should be at a point of trade/exchange.
      - dlisboa 8mo ago
        You have to see there's a hefty dose of hypocrisy in this, right? American might has been used, quite extensively, to impose unfavorable conditions to local companies in their own soil in favor of American companies. Multiple American multi national corporations have used exploitative labor conditions in underdeveloped countries to prop up their own margins. The American government has used multiple coercive tools to de-industrialize many nations and has, in the 21st century, an explicitly paternalistic attitude towards the Western Hemisphere with literal stealing of their resources. I understand and even respect when someone says "I'm American so I wish to maintain the status quo where the US can undercut other nations but they can't undercut us". But if there's some rose tinted view of how the US is actually the morally aggrieved one, I just can't bear it.
        sarchertech 8mo ago
        You’re responding to a different question than what was asked. The question wasn’t about American hypocrisy, it was can you imagine a situation where tariffs are potentially good.
      - SmirkingRevenge 8mo ago
        You can just ban imports from people who use sweatshops, or hash that out in trade agreements. Because Trump is so fixated on tariffs, it's centered tariffs in too many conversations on these trade topics. People have developed a kind of tunnel vision here. There are other kinds of policy levers besides tariffs for securing supply chains, promoting domestic manufacturers, or cutting out businesses that rely on slave labor from international trade. Most of them are cheaper and more effective than tariffs.
      - SideQuark 8mo ago
        The question was for a specific example, not some moral vague strawman. The question is a good one, right to the heart of the claim. Without specific examples, especially ones that are not post selected (i.e., pick all tariffs at a point in time and see of that was beneficial), it is silly to claim tariffs are useful when there is ample evidence of when they cause significant harm to the economy. So, have a case for a timepoint where the set of tariffs ended up being demonstrably beneficial for an economy?
    - dboreham 8mo ago
      There's a tarriff on sugar that means we have to use HFCS in processed foods and beverages. Oh wait...
    - freeone3000 8mo ago
      Auto tariffs have kept Detroit producing automobiles despite various other entrants, while still being low enough for foreign competition.
      - rsynnott 8mo ago
        _Just about_. After significant government bailouts. Ultimately, this sort of protectionism tends to be expensive, and yield an inferior product.
        freeone3000 8mo ago
        But may still be worth it to protect a skilled domestic industry.
      - DiogenesKynikos 8mo ago
        Auto tariffs are currently keeping far less expensive - yet much more advanced - Chinese EVs out of the US market, costing American consumers thousands of dollars on every car purchase.
        phil21 8mo ago
        While not allowing an entire industry and supply chain to die. One of the last heavily industrial and manufacturing industries left in the US at any decent sized scale. You need such things for national security, so it's very likely "worth it" even all the way down to the American consumer level. Look at the shipbuilding industry if you want to see what happens to that capacity without it. Due to the lack of commercial shipbuilding in the US, we can't even keep up with building for our Navy during peacetime. If a war ever were to attrit naval forces to any meaningful degree there would be zero hope of scaling up that supply chain in a relevant timeframe. Arguments could of course be made if the auto manufacturing industry (and it's suppliers) are useful in an actual hot war, but I think without them we'd be in even heavier dire straights in that regard.
        defrost 8mo ago
    - refurb 8mo ago
      Softwood lumbar from Canada. US stumpage fees are set by the market, while Canada sets a below market fee. Tariff adjusts cost of softwood lumbar from Canada to adjust for this. Where is my prize?
rozap 8mo ago
Yep, that's why you need to convince Congress of that fact, as has been done in the past. Tariffs absolutely make sense as a strategic tool. There is no strategy here.
- warmwaffles 8mo ago
  Ever try to get Congress to agree on something without packaging in another thing?
  - rocmcd 8mo ago
    I agree with the sentiment, but that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Just because Congress is stuck doesn't mean the Executive gets to do whatever they want.
    - conductr 8mo ago
      I think a lot of time Congress being stuck is a feature, not a bug. What happens when things aren't stuck, they change too much, in both frequency and magnitude. Kind of like when one person in the executive branch gets to make the rules. It's utter chaos and uncertainty on the business environment, even on the consumer environment, they have no idea what anything costs anymore. Am I paying double from a year ago because of tariffs or because it's easy for the seller to say tariffs, I'll never know. As a business, should I charge more now in anticipation for future uncertainty, has seemed simultaneously unfair and prudent. Now, should I reduce prices to go back to pre-tariff or just pocket it and call it inflation. Uncertainty is chaos, it's hard to plan for anything or make big decisions. This is why high(er) rates didn't hurt the housing market but all the Trump related uncertainty did.
      - jfengel 8mo ago
        With Congress completely stuck, the executive branch takes over a lot of functions that probably belong to the legislature. I say "probably" because the Constitution isn't really explicit about it, but it's what most people would infer. The executive branch is less accountable than the legislative one. You elect only the top office, and only once every four years. With so much bundled into a single vote, it's nearly impossible to hold any specific action to account. It doesn't work out great for the judicial branch, either. They often rule that a decision is based on the law as written, and it's up to the legislature to fix that -- while knowing full well that the legislature can't and won't. And they're not consistent about that; they'll also interpret a law to favor their ideology, and again Congress is in no position to clarify the intended interpretation. Congress was deliberately set up to favor inaction, and not without reason. But that has reached the point where it practically doesn't even exist as a body, and its ability to serve as a check on the other branches has vanished, leading to even more abuses.
omnimus 8mo ago
Do you agree with countries doing the opposite to the US? When for example US tech is better than the local alternative but the countries create unfair advantages to the local alternatives?
- jdashg 8mo ago
  Absolutely!
- conductr 8mo ago
  I believe as a US citizen I have no say in how they make these decisions so this thought exercise is pointless. We all structure our governments differently and so compete globally with differing rules, I only care about how we do it here in the US. At times, what we do may be in reaction to others, but how we do it needs to be agreed upon here at home and for that we have a Constitution that gives this power to congress not the executive. I'm glad the court got it right, it's a glimmer of hope that the constitution still has some meaning.
  - DiogenesKynikos 8mo ago
    The entire point of the WTO was that countries can cooperate globally to reduce tariffs and other trade barriers, so it does matter what you think of other countries' decisions.
    - conductr 8mo ago
      Not how they make them, as in who is responsible within their government or whatever the might have
    - lucketone 8mo ago
      I propose an idea that complete lack of protectionism (subsidies, tariffs, quotas) should not be the goal. If we (countries) all are fully open, then we are fully globalised, and likely overall prices are lowest. (that is good) But such system is fragile and very “shockable”, it entirely depends on stable shipping numbers and stable inter country agreements, both of which can be easily sabotaged (various motivations and agendas; just in 6 years: covid, Trump, Yemen Houthies) Not implementable, but fun idea: protectionism based on distance, even within a country. E.g. supermarket must buy 10% of its apples from within 100km, 20% from within 1000km, 40% from within 10000km. (It does have numerous problems, feel free to identify them in comments)
unethical_ban 8mo ago
That's the issue: He used an emergency act passed in the 1970s designed for rapid response to other countries' "first strike" of economic hardship like the oil embargo. Tariffs in general have not been touched at all, those that Congress wishes to pass. This is a ruling that the President cannot use the 1970s act to be a one-person economic warfare machine to the entire world when he doesn't like something.
linhns 8mo ago
Agree, and it should be Congress decision.
lawn 8mo ago
Thoughtful application of tariffs are good. Trump's usage of tariffs is pretty damn dumb.
softwaredoug 8mo ago
We have laws explicitly for imposing tariffs for these reasons (like Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Trade Act of 1974) The difference is they have to go through administrative procedure, and are subject to more judicial review to ensure administrative process was followed. Even if its a fig leaf in this administrative, its a tad slower with higher judicial oversight. What Trump wants to do is impose tariffs on a whim using emergency powers where administrative procedure laws don't apply. So the hope here: we have at least more predictability / stability in the tariff regime. But tariffs aren't going away
learingsci 8mo ago
Or treaties or accords. All basically the same if squint. Sign something like the Paris Accord, you’re basically taxing consumers.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
rkeene2 8mo ago
Good news ! It is against the law (i.e., illegal) for a US President to impose tariffs (on a whim or otherwise) -- a US President doing so is doing so illegally and without constitutional authority! When the US President commits crimes as the US President, he has absolute immunity from prosecution (otherwise, he might not be emboldened to break the law) so there is no judicial recourse, but the US Congress can still see the illegal activity and impeach and remove him from office to stop the execution of illegal activity. As our representatives within the US Government, they are responsible to us to enact our legislative outcomes. It appears they have determined that the illegal activity is what we wanted, or there would be articles of impeachment for these illegal acts. The legislative branch can of course deliberately impose tariffs at any time for the reasons you listed.
cyanydeez 8mo ago
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.
- salawat 8mo ago
  There is no such thing as rational economics. Full stop.
whyenot 8mo ago
I agree with you, but it's a tool that should only be used very sparingly because tariffs can be incredibly difficult to get rid of. See for example the "chicken tax" for light trucks which was instituted in 1964 (because the Europeans tariffed US chicken exports).
SmirkingRevenge 8mo ago
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
- sigwinch 8mo ago
  With as much respect as possible, isn’t this disproven by data now? You can’t connect tariffs to a single manufacturing job created.
  - bubblewand 8mo ago
    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.
    - sigwinch 8mo ago
      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.
      - 8mo ago
olalonde 8mo ago
It protects US compagnies at the expense of US consumers. Almost no economist think they are actually good for the economy, not even retaliatory tariffs.
QuadmasterXLII 8mo ago
This has the air of getting congratulated for getting shanked in an alley while running to the hospital in hopes of getting treated for appendicitis. A knife, after all, is an appropriate surgery tool.
whateveracct 8mo ago
this isn't about tariffs it's about if the executive can impose them
wesapien 8mo ago
The cover story for tarrifs was re-Industrialization. The facts are that they are used more as another rent seeking maneuver, a street rat style protection racket or a means to coerce. Sell the theory but do something else.

by csense 8mo ago

cogman10 8mo ago

I agree with this assessment. And I think that the way it's setup in the constitution is correct, that congress needs to ultimately create the tariffs rather than the president. Creating tariffs unilaterally should almost never happen.

simonh 8mo ago

They can be and are. The USA had tariffs on many products prior to Trump.

tracker1 8mo ago
I think GPs point was that Tariffs are legitimate as a practice and that some people have been led to believe that they shouldn't exist at all.
- ragazzina 8mo ago
  Can you make an example of a tariff from the last 100 years that definitely benefitted the US in a long-lasting way?
  - tracker1 8mo ago
    How do you feel about allowing the import of goods from nations using slavery to create those goods? Would you be okay with a foreign nation undercutting domestic production as a strategy to destroy your industry to control a market? That's aside from my position that most taxes should be at a point of trade/exchange.
    - dlisboa 8mo ago
      You have to see there's a hefty dose of hypocrisy in this, right? American might has been used, quite extensively, to impose unfavorable conditions to local companies in their own soil in favor of American companies. Multiple American multi national corporations have used exploitative labor conditions in underdeveloped countries to prop up their own margins. The American government has used multiple coercive tools to de-industrialize many nations and has, in the 21st century, an explicitly paternalistic attitude towards the Western Hemisphere with literal stealing of their resources. I understand and even respect when someone says "I'm American so I wish to maintain the status quo where the US can undercut other nations but they can't undercut us". But if there's some rose tinted view of how the US is actually the morally aggrieved one, I just can't bear it.
      - sarchertech 8mo ago
        You’re responding to a different question than what was asked. The question wasn’t about American hypocrisy, it was can you imagine a situation where tariffs are potentially good.
    - SmirkingRevenge 8mo ago
      You can just ban imports from people who use sweatshops, or hash that out in trade agreements. Because Trump is so fixated on tariffs, it's centered tariffs in too many conversations on these trade topics. People have developed a kind of tunnel vision here. There are other kinds of policy levers besides tariffs for securing supply chains, promoting domestic manufacturers, or cutting out businesses that rely on slave labor from international trade. Most of them are cheaper and more effective than tariffs.
    - SideQuark 8mo ago
      The question was for a specific example, not some moral vague strawman. The question is a good one, right to the heart of the claim. Without specific examples, especially ones that are not post selected (i.e., pick all tariffs at a point in time and see of that was beneficial), it is silly to claim tariffs are useful when there is ample evidence of when they cause significant harm to the economy. So, have a case for a timepoint where the set of tariffs ended up being demonstrably beneficial for an economy?
  - dboreham 8mo ago
    There's a tarriff on sugar that means we have to use HFCS in processed foods and beverages. Oh wait...
  - freeone3000 8mo ago
    Auto tariffs have kept Detroit producing automobiles despite various other entrants, while still being low enough for foreign competition.
    - rsynnott 8mo ago
      _Just about_. After significant government bailouts. Ultimately, this sort of protectionism tends to be expensive, and yield an inferior product.
      - freeone3000 8mo ago
        But may still be worth it to protect a skilled domestic industry.
    - DiogenesKynikos 8mo ago
      Auto tariffs are currently keeping far less expensive - yet much more advanced - Chinese EVs out of the US market, costing American consumers thousands of dollars on every car purchase.
      - phil21 8mo ago
        While not allowing an entire industry and supply chain to die. One of the last heavily industrial and manufacturing industries left in the US at any decent sized scale. You need such things for national security, so it's very likely "worth it" even all the way down to the American consumer level. Look at the shipbuilding industry if you want to see what happens to that capacity without it. Due to the lack of commercial shipbuilding in the US, we can't even keep up with building for our Navy during peacetime. If a war ever were to attrit naval forces to any meaningful degree there would be zero hope of scaling up that supply chain in a relevant timeframe. Arguments could of course be made if the auto manufacturing industry (and it's suppliers) are useful in an actual hot war, but I think without them we'd be in even heavier dire straights in that regard.
        defrost 8mo ago
  - refurb 8mo ago
    Softwood lumbar from Canada. US stumpage fees are set by the market, while Canada sets a below market fee. Tariff adjusts cost of softwood lumbar from Canada to adjust for this. Where is my prize?

rozap 8mo ago

Yep, that's why you need to convince Congress of that fact, as has been done in the past. Tariffs absolutely make sense as a strategic tool. There is no strategy here.

warmwaffles 8mo ago
Ever try to get Congress to agree on something without packaging in another thing?
- rocmcd 8mo ago
  I agree with the sentiment, but that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Just because Congress is stuck doesn't mean the Executive gets to do whatever they want.
  - conductr 8mo ago
    I think a lot of time Congress being stuck is a feature, not a bug. What happens when things aren't stuck, they change too much, in both frequency and magnitude. Kind of like when one person in the executive branch gets to make the rules. It's utter chaos and uncertainty on the business environment, even on the consumer environment, they have no idea what anything costs anymore. Am I paying double from a year ago because of tariffs or because it's easy for the seller to say tariffs, I'll never know. As a business, should I charge more now in anticipation for future uncertainty, has seemed simultaneously unfair and prudent. Now, should I reduce prices to go back to pre-tariff or just pocket it and call it inflation. Uncertainty is chaos, it's hard to plan for anything or make big decisions. This is why high(er) rates didn't hurt the housing market but all the Trump related uncertainty did.
    - jfengel 8mo ago
      With Congress completely stuck, the executive branch takes over a lot of functions that probably belong to the legislature. I say "probably" because the Constitution isn't really explicit about it, but it's what most people would infer. The executive branch is less accountable than the legislative one. You elect only the top office, and only once every four years. With so much bundled into a single vote, it's nearly impossible to hold any specific action to account. It doesn't work out great for the judicial branch, either. They often rule that a decision is based on the law as written, and it's up to the legislature to fix that -- while knowing full well that the legislature can't and won't. And they're not consistent about that; they'll also interpret a law to favor their ideology, and again Congress is in no position to clarify the intended interpretation. Congress was deliberately set up to favor inaction, and not without reason. But that has reached the point where it practically doesn't even exist as a body, and its ability to serve as a check on the other branches has vanished, leading to even more abuses.

omnimus 8mo ago

Do you agree with countries doing the opposite to the US? When for example US tech is better than the local alternative but the countries create unfair advantages to the local alternatives?

jdashg 8mo ago
Absolutely!
conductr 8mo ago
I believe as a US citizen I have no say in how they make these decisions so this thought exercise is pointless. We all structure our governments differently and so compete globally with differing rules, I only care about how we do it here in the US. At times, what we do may be in reaction to others, but how we do it needs to be agreed upon here at home and for that we have a Constitution that gives this power to congress not the executive. I'm glad the court got it right, it's a glimmer of hope that the constitution still has some meaning.
- DiogenesKynikos 8mo ago
  The entire point of the WTO was that countries can cooperate globally to reduce tariffs and other trade barriers, so it does matter what you think of other countries' decisions.
  - conductr 8mo ago
    Not how they make them, as in who is responsible within their government or whatever the might have
  - lucketone 8mo ago
    I propose an idea that complete lack of protectionism (subsidies, tariffs, quotas) should not be the goal. If we (countries) all are fully open, then we are fully globalised, and likely overall prices are lowest. (that is good) But such system is fragile and very “shockable”, it entirely depends on stable shipping numbers and stable inter country agreements, both of which can be easily sabotaged (various motivations and agendas; just in 6 years: covid, Trump, Yemen Houthies) Not implementable, but fun idea: protectionism based on distance, even within a country. E.g. supermarket must buy 10% of its apples from within 100km, 20% from within 1000km, 40% from within 10000km. (It does have numerous problems, feel free to identify them in comments)

unethical_ban 8mo ago

That's the issue: He used an emergency act passed in the 1970s designed for rapid response to other countries' "first strike" of economic hardship like the oil embargo. Tariffs in general have not been touched at all, those that Congress wishes to pass. This is a ruling that the President cannot use the 1970s act to be a one-person economic warfare machine to the entire world when he doesn't like something.

linhns 8mo ago

Agree, and it should be Congress decision.

lawn 8mo ago

Thoughtful application of tariffs are good. Trump's usage of tariffs is pretty damn dumb.

softwaredoug 8mo ago

We have laws explicitly for imposing tariffs for these reasons (like Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Trade Act of 1974) The difference is they have to go through administrative procedure, and are subject to more judicial review to ensure administrative process was followed. Even if its a fig leaf in this administrative, its a tad slower with higher judicial oversight. What Trump wants to do is impose tariffs on a whim using emergency powers where administrative procedure laws don't apply. So the hope here: we have at least more predictability / stability in the tariff regime. But tariffs aren't going away

learingsci 8mo ago

Or treaties or accords. All basically the same if squint. Sign something like the Paris Accord, you’re basically taxing consumers.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

rkeene2 8mo ago

Good news ! It is against the law (i.e., illegal) for a US President to impose tariffs (on a whim or otherwise) -- a US President doing so is doing so illegally and without constitutional authority! When the US President commits crimes as the US President, he has absolute immunity from prosecution (otherwise, he might not be emboldened to break the law) so there is no judicial recourse, but the US Congress can still see the illegal activity and impeach and remove him from office to stop the execution of illegal activity. As our representatives within the US Government, they are responsible to us to enact our legislative outcomes. It appears they have determined that the illegal activity is what we wanted, or there would be articles of impeachment for these illegal acts. The legislative branch can of course deliberately impose tariffs at any time for the reasons you listed.

cyanydeez 8mo ago

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.

salawat 8mo ago
There is no such thing as rational economics. Full stop.

whyenot 8mo ago

I agree with you, but it's a tool that should only be used very sparingly because tariffs can be incredibly difficult to get rid of. See for example the "chicken tax" for light trucks which was instituted in 1964 (because the Europeans tariffed US chicken exports).

SmirkingRevenge 8mo ago

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

sigwinch 8mo ago
With as much respect as possible, isn’t this disproven by data now? You can’t connect tariffs to a single manufacturing job created.
- bubblewand 8mo ago
  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.
  - sigwinch 8mo ago
    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.
    - 8mo ago

olalonde 8mo ago

It protects US compagnies at the expense of US consumers. Almost no economist think they are actually good for the economy, not even retaliatory tariffs.

QuadmasterXLII 8mo ago

This has the air of getting congratulated for getting shanked in an alley while running to the hospital in hopes of getting treated for appendicitis. A knife, after all, is an appropriate surgery tool.

whateveracct 8mo ago

this isn't about tariffs it's about if the executive can impose them

wesapien 8mo ago

The cover story for tarrifs was re-Industrialization. The facts are that they are used more as another rent seeking maneuver, a street rat style protection racket or a means to coerce. Sell the theory but do something else.