4 ms·

Useful site for daily tariff updates: Trade Compliance Resource Hub.[1] They've marked which tariffs are now invalid and which are still valid. [1] https://www

by Animats 8mo ago

Useful site for daily tariff updates: Trade Compliance Resource Hub.[1] They've marked which tariffs are now invalid and which are still valid. [1] https://www.tradecomplianceresourcehub.com/2026/02/20/trump-2-0-tariff-tracker/ https://www.tradecomplianceresourcehub.com/2026/02/20/trump-...

dgellow 8mo ago
Damn, that’s pretty much all of them
- fuzzfactor 8mo ago
  It couldn't happen to a more deserving act of vengeance.
  - kernal 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - seanmcdirmid 8mo ago
      We already knew that Trump didn't care what the courts said, America is pretty much dead with trump, so nothing shocking, your deserved vengeance wasn’t delivered.
    - klipt 8mo ago
      Free trade is leftist now? I thought a minute ago "communist China" was the protectionist one and "free capitalist America" was the one in favor of free trade.
      - mcherm 8mo ago
        Anything other than fawning allegiance to whatever Donald Trump said most recently is "leftist" now.
      - carefree-bob 8mo ago
        I remember the anti-WTO protests and the peripheral movements that sprung out of that like No Logo, and the sneering directed at the anti-globalism protesters from people like Paul Krugman, who swore that the Great Depression was caused by Smoot Hawley and insisted there would be massive gains from trade. Later, he fessed up and said that was another Noble Lie. There has been a lot of lying in the history of the economics profession, unfortunately, all for the greater good, I'm sure. When these tariffs hit, I also expected broad price increases as well as a recession, when this didn't happen, I began to reassess some things. In retrospect, I think that the massive expansion of investor rights in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the Clinton era agreements, was not really about trade at all, but about power -- e.g. getting the rest of the world to adopt legislation and reforms that would enable foreign investment/outsourcing. I don't think the American consumer benefitted a whole lot, nor the American worker, from this movement. I also don't think the rest of the world benefitted, apart from East Asia, but the East Asian countries famously industrialized not by pursuing unfettered trade, but by pursuing an export-led growth model with limit controls on capital inflows. E.g. they restricted trade by restricting foreign investment, the exact opposite of the WTO consensus. Part of the reason I don't think trade was all that important, and what is important to the western consensus is investor rights and subordination of national policies is that the US has no problem levying sanctions on a large part of the world, and when these sanctions are levied, you hear barely a peep coming from the press or from economists about these sanctions. Likewise, the EU just imposed massive sanctions on Russia, generally with the broad support of their think tanks and economic experts. So I think trade in general is just a lot less important than we have been told. The real prize were the investor rights agreements and agreeing with western geopolitical goals. I mentioned this to a friend who was bemoaning the terrible human rights situation in Iran, and I pointed out the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, and said the moment KSA directly challenges western power in the same way Iran has, you will start hearing all sorts of complaints about human rights in Saudi Arabia. It's not about human rights either. Just like it's not about trade. I think these types of situations are a real test of character for the experts. It should be an eye opening moment for a lot of people.
        KPGv2 8mo ago
        > When these tariffs hit, I also expected broad price increases as well as a recession, when this didn't happen, I began to reassess some things. "this didn't happen" except for the over $1,300/household in tariffs paid for by us, directly attributable to tariffs in A SINGL YEAR, that is.
      - pnt12 8mo ago
        It disturbs me to see this behavior in my country alt-right voters, or better said, fanatics. The party is full of contradictions, and they will go with the flow, double down and rationalize all of them. Maybe the problem is that they make it part of their identity. Voting for a different party according to their agenda is reasonably easy, but it's hard to reject who we are. In the end, they're supporting a lying, corrupt, violent, fascist party and they don't see it - to them, it's the other parties doing that, even though this one has the most accusations (with evidence backing them up, not just made up).
      - kernal 8mo ago
        Did you even see the press conference? There is now an additional 10% tariff. Like I said before, your short term victory was quickly extinguished with additional tariffs. The Supreme Court just ruled that this specific tariff tactic could not be used. So an alternative tariff plan quickly replaced it.
  - encrypted_bird 8mo ago
    Apologies, but I'm having a hard time parsing your sentence. What exactly are you saying?
    - maest 8mo ago
      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 deserved by those on the receiving end.
      - fuzzfactor 8mo ago
        Roger. Surely it's twisted a bit more with the kind of things Trump spews, but for instance a great leader wins a well-deserved Nobel Prize, and you say it couldn't have happened to a more deserving contender. You say the same thing when a complete moron fails to win the same prize. Equal fairness to all ;)
      - encrypted_bird 8mo ago
        Ah. Thank you. :)
Animats 8mo ago
This law firm seems to be on top of changes. The site just updated with Trump's latest proclamation. Section 122: Implemented (effective Feb. 24, 2026) [1] That's Trump's new 10% tariff applied to most countries. There are some exceptions. Most of the extreme per-country tariffs are gone. For now, anyway. Trump may add Section 201 tariffs later, but those are per product category. What Trump can do in this mode doesn't include most of his per-country "deals". Amusingly, the new 10% tariff doesn't apply until Feb 24th, so you have a few days to avoid it. All this expires July 24th, because the law being invoked here has a time limit unless Congress extends it. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/imposing-a-temporary-import-surcharge-to-address-fundamental-international-payments-problems/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/impo...
- defrost 8mo ago
  > because the law being invoked here has a time limit unless Congress extends it. Like many similar US laws it probably has a time limit expressed in lapsed Congressional days. Heavy emphasis on "Congressional days". Catch me up here, has the Congressional "clock" (count of lapsed days) been restarted since the current admin shut it down as almost the first order of business for 2025? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358343 Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025. Is it still "legally" the first week of the 119th United States Congress 11 months later ?
  - zerocrates 8mo ago
    The IEEPA one works where it can last as long as the "emergency," which Congress can vote to end. The "days don't count as days" game just lets the House have an easier time of not bringing it up for a vote. This other authority is different: it's limited within the law to 150 days and then has to be extended by Congress. So the same kind of strategy of just avoiding a vote doesn't work here. They could monkey with the deadline, but can't do so any more easily than just actually extending the tariff for real. Of course just like today you can have Trump jump to some new authority on day 151 instead.
rtkwe 8mo ago
This may not reflect the tariffs shipping and customs attempt to gather. Generally shipping companies just comply with what the customs agents say is required and at least publicly the Trump admin is saying they're going to continue collecting last I heard.

by Animats 8mo ago

dgellow 8mo ago

Damn, that’s pretty much all of them

fuzzfactor 8mo ago
It couldn't happen to a more deserving act of vengeance.
- kernal 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - seanmcdirmid 8mo ago
    We already knew that Trump didn't care what the courts said, America is pretty much dead with trump, so nothing shocking, your deserved vengeance wasn’t delivered.
  - klipt 8mo ago
    Free trade is leftist now? I thought a minute ago "communist China" was the protectionist one and "free capitalist America" was the one in favor of free trade.
    - mcherm 8mo ago
      Anything other than fawning allegiance to whatever Donald Trump said most recently is "leftist" now.
    - carefree-bob 8mo ago
      I remember the anti-WTO protests and the peripheral movements that sprung out of that like No Logo, and the sneering directed at the anti-globalism protesters from people like Paul Krugman, who swore that the Great Depression was caused by Smoot Hawley and insisted there would be massive gains from trade. Later, he fessed up and said that was another Noble Lie. There has been a lot of lying in the history of the economics profession, unfortunately, all for the greater good, I'm sure. When these tariffs hit, I also expected broad price increases as well as a recession, when this didn't happen, I began to reassess some things. In retrospect, I think that the massive expansion of investor rights in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the Clinton era agreements, was not really about trade at all, but about power -- e.g. getting the rest of the world to adopt legislation and reforms that would enable foreign investment/outsourcing. I don't think the American consumer benefitted a whole lot, nor the American worker, from this movement. I also don't think the rest of the world benefitted, apart from East Asia, but the East Asian countries famously industrialized not by pursuing unfettered trade, but by pursuing an export-led growth model with limit controls on capital inflows. E.g. they restricted trade by restricting foreign investment, the exact opposite of the WTO consensus. Part of the reason I don't think trade was all that important, and what is important to the western consensus is investor rights and subordination of national policies is that the US has no problem levying sanctions on a large part of the world, and when these sanctions are levied, you hear barely a peep coming from the press or from economists about these sanctions. Likewise, the EU just imposed massive sanctions on Russia, generally with the broad support of their think tanks and economic experts. So I think trade in general is just a lot less important than we have been told. The real prize were the investor rights agreements and agreeing with western geopolitical goals. I mentioned this to a friend who was bemoaning the terrible human rights situation in Iran, and I pointed out the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, and said the moment KSA directly challenges western power in the same way Iran has, you will start hearing all sorts of complaints about human rights in Saudi Arabia. It's not about human rights either. Just like it's not about trade. I think these types of situations are a real test of character for the experts. It should be an eye opening moment for a lot of people.
      - KPGv2 8mo ago
        > When these tariffs hit, I also expected broad price increases as well as a recession, when this didn't happen, I began to reassess some things. "this didn't happen" except for the over $1,300/household in tariffs paid for by us, directly attributable to tariffs in A SINGL YEAR, that is.
    - pnt12 8mo ago
      It disturbs me to see this behavior in my country alt-right voters, or better said, fanatics. The party is full of contradictions, and they will go with the flow, double down and rationalize all of them. Maybe the problem is that they make it part of their identity. Voting for a different party according to their agenda is reasonably easy, but it's hard to reject who we are. In the end, they're supporting a lying, corrupt, violent, fascist party and they don't see it - to them, it's the other parties doing that, even though this one has the most accusations (with evidence backing them up, not just made up).
    - kernal 8mo ago
      Did you even see the press conference? There is now an additional 10% tariff. Like I said before, your short term victory was quickly extinguished with additional tariffs. The Supreme Court just ruled that this specific tariff tactic could not be used. So an alternative tariff plan quickly replaced it.
- encrypted_bird 8mo ago
  Apologies, but I'm having a hard time parsing your sentence. What exactly are you saying?
  - maest 8mo ago
    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 deserved by those on the receiving end.
    - fuzzfactor 8mo ago
      Roger. Surely it's twisted a bit more with the kind of things Trump spews, but for instance a great leader wins a well-deserved Nobel Prize, and you say it couldn't have happened to a more deserving contender. You say the same thing when a complete moron fails to win the same prize. Equal fairness to all ;)
    - encrypted_bird 8mo ago
      Ah. Thank you. :)

Animats 8mo ago

This law firm seems to be on top of changes. The site just updated with Trump's latest proclamation. Section 122: Implemented (effective Feb. 24, 2026) [1] That's Trump's new 10% tariff applied to most countries. There are some exceptions. Most of the extreme per-country tariffs are gone. For now, anyway. Trump may add Section 201 tariffs later, but those are per product category. What Trump can do in this mode doesn't include most of his per-country "deals". Amusingly, the new 10% tariff doesn't apply until Feb 24th, so you have a few days to avoid it. All this expires July 24th, because the law being invoked here has a time limit unless Congress extends it. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/imposing-a-temporary-import-surcharge-to-address-fundamental-international-payments-problems/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/impo...

defrost 8mo ago
> because the law being invoked here has a time limit unless Congress extends it. Like many similar US laws it probably has a time limit expressed in lapsed Congressional days. Heavy emphasis on "Congressional days". Catch me up here, has the Congressional "clock" (count of lapsed days) been restarted since the current admin shut it down as almost the first order of business for 2025? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358343 Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025. Is it still "legally" the first week of the 119th United States Congress 11 months later ?
- zerocrates 8mo ago
  The IEEPA one works where it can last as long as the "emergency," which Congress can vote to end. The "days don't count as days" game just lets the House have an easier time of not bringing it up for a vote. This other authority is different: it's limited within the law to 150 days and then has to be extended by Congress. So the same kind of strategy of just avoiding a vote doesn't work here. They could monkey with the deadline, but can't do so any more easily than just actually extending the tariff for real. Of course just like today you can have Trump jump to some new authority on day 151 instead.

rtkwe 8mo ago

This may not reflect the tariffs shipping and customs attempt to gather. Generally shipping companies just comply with what the customs agents say is required and at least publicly the Trump admin is saying they're going to continue collecting last I heard.