6 ms·

is it not a conflict of interest if you facilitate the legislation of tarrifs that you knew are illegal?

by seydor 8mo ago

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
No, it's not a conflict of interest. It's perhaps dumb, or morally bad, or several other things.
- rayiner 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - leviathant 8mo ago
    You're upsetting the kind of people who leave their shopping carts in the parking lot instead of putting them away when they're done.
  - reskewed 8mo ago
    [dead]
- cj 8mo ago
  > dumb, or morally bad This is easy to say in hindsight. There was a non-zero chance the decision could have went the other way. Also, companies aren't stupid. They don't buy insurance against things that are impossible. And the supreme court doesn't hear cases that are 100% obviously illegal.
  - danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
    It was non-zero but close to zero. Companies don't want to deal with the headache for many things. It's not a given over what time horizon and how much work is involved to get the refund. It's totally sensible to sell the claim for 70 cents on the dollar for example. The supreme court absolutely hears cases that are obvious. They do it for several reasons - to create clarity, to narrow scope, to set a very clear precedent, and other reasons.
    - rayiner 8mo ago
      It wasn’t “close to zero.” The Supreme Court split 6-3, with two Trump appointees voting against him. And the Federal Circuit, which is the most boring appellate court and not political at all, split 7-4, with two democratic appointees and two republican appointees voting to uphold the tariffs. This was a case that split both the liberal and conservative blocs. Obama’s former SG, Neal Katyal, went up there and argued for limiting presidential power over the economy. One of the justices quipped about the irony of Katyal’s major contribution to jurisprudence being revitalization of non-delegation doctrine, which has always been a conservative focus.
      - danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
        Did you read the ruling? Read Clarence Thomas's dissent. It's not clear if he actually thinks what he wrote, or he just voted that way so he could write a dissent and make a strange legal point which probably doesn't carry water but sort of maybe could one day maybe. If it were close, I think he would have voted the other way. The folks on the court appear extremely inclined to take the other side on things just as a mental exercise, or to be able to write something on the record that they find interesting. It was close to zero.
        rayiner 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
        Yes, I read them all. And, surely you understand that many see using the due process clause to make his argument was a stretch. Just saying "his analysis is extremely cogent" doesn't make it so.
        deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
  - jcranmer 8mo ago
    > And the supreme court doesn't hear cases that are 100% obviously illegal. There is an argument in about two months' time as to whether or not the Birthright Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment actually guarantees birthright citizenship in the US. There is no serious legal argument in favor of the interpretation being advanced by the Trump administration, that it does not. And yet here we are.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
    They weren't buying insurance. There's no insurance payout for the companies. They got a small amount of money in hand, and lost the chance to reclaim any of the tariff refund. That isn't insurance. Also, the SCOTUS is not a criminal court, it is a constitutional court. If a case is heard there, both sides have not agreed on "obvious illegality". That is unsuprising since in general one side (in this case, the administrative branch of the US Government) is being accused of illegal behavior - when it comes to constitutional rather than criminal questions, most parties do not just accept their guilt, but push as far as they can towards exoneration. Frequently, however to everybody else, the case concerns obvious illegality.
    - gus_massa 8mo ago
      I agree, it's like "reverse insurance". I'm not sure what is the name. In insurance, you pay [-$10] to avoid a potencial negative risk [-$100]. Here you get money [+$10] instead of waiting for a potencial positive benefit [+$100]. Very slightly related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage
      - tmtvl 8mo ago
        The term you're looking for is 'instant gratification'.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - bumby 8mo ago
    I think the issue is that someone working in public office had influence to affect that probability, and their relatives stood to gain from it. I don’t know enough about the ethics laws to know if it was strictly illegal, but it does create a smell. Suppose a county engineer has influence on whether oil drilling will be allowed (they don’t make policy but consult those who do), and prior to approval their relatives buy up a lot of land in the area. That engineer may not have been the deciding factor, but it seems like it runs afoul of ethics laws/standards.
gruez 8mo ago
>if you facilitate the legislation of tarrifs that you knew are illegal? Did they know it was illegal? Any more than say, the Biden administration "knew" that forgiving student loans were illegal?
- anon7000 8mo ago
  They literally spent a decent chunk of money spinning up a line of business that could only make money if the tariffs were illegal.
  - hammock 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
      Insurance company deal: if you pay us $X now, and then Y happens, we will make you whole, even though that cost may very well exceed $X. Lutnick deal: we pay you $X' now, and if Y' happens, we collect everything which will substantively exceed $X'. This is not insurance, its closer to shorting stocks. Oh, one other thing: the insurance company has essentially nothing to do with Y at all, in the sense that they have no control over Y and generally speaking no involvement in it (think: accidents, floods, storms, fires). By contrast Lutnick is the Secretary of Commerce of the United States of America.
      - hammock 8mo ago
        Lutnick deal: if we pay you $X now, and then Y happens, you will make us the whole refund, even though that windfall may very well exceed $X. Insurance company deal: you pay us $X' now, and if Y' happens, we pay for everything which may substantively exceed $X'.
        PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
        I have no idea what the point of this is, since it just restates what I wrote, and reinforces the point that the Lutnick deal is nothing like "insurance".

is it not a conflict of interest if you facilitate the legislation of tarrifs that you knew are illegal?

by seydor 8mo ago

is it not a conflict of interest if you facilitate the legislation of tarrifs that you knew are illegal?

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

danielmarkbruce 8mo ago

No, it's not a conflict of interest. It's perhaps dumb, or morally bad, or several other things.

rayiner 8mo ago
[flagged]
- leviathant 8mo ago
  You're upsetting the kind of people who leave their shopping carts in the parking lot instead of putting them away when they're done.
- reskewed 8mo ago
  [dead]
cj 8mo ago
> dumb, or morally bad This is easy to say in hindsight. There was a non-zero chance the decision could have went the other way. Also, companies aren't stupid. They don't buy insurance against things that are impossible. And the supreme court doesn't hear cases that are 100% obviously illegal.
- danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
  It was non-zero but close to zero. Companies don't want to deal with the headache for many things. It's not a given over what time horizon and how much work is involved to get the refund. It's totally sensible to sell the claim for 70 cents on the dollar for example. The supreme court absolutely hears cases that are obvious. They do it for several reasons - to create clarity, to narrow scope, to set a very clear precedent, and other reasons.
  - rayiner 8mo ago
    It wasn’t “close to zero.” The Supreme Court split 6-3, with two Trump appointees voting against him. And the Federal Circuit, which is the most boring appellate court and not political at all, split 7-4, with two democratic appointees and two republican appointees voting to uphold the tariffs. This was a case that split both the liberal and conservative blocs. Obama’s former SG, Neal Katyal, went up there and argued for limiting presidential power over the economy. One of the justices quipped about the irony of Katyal’s major contribution to jurisprudence being revitalization of non-delegation doctrine, which has always been a conservative focus.
    - danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
      Did you read the ruling? Read Clarence Thomas's dissent. It's not clear if he actually thinks what he wrote, or he just voted that way so he could write a dissent and make a strange legal point which probably doesn't carry water but sort of maybe could one day maybe. If it were close, I think he would have voted the other way. The folks on the court appear extremely inclined to take the other side on things just as a mental exercise, or to be able to write something on the record that they find interesting. It was close to zero.
      - rayiner 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
        Yes, I read them all. And, surely you understand that many see using the due process clause to make his argument was a stretch. Just saying "his analysis is extremely cogent" doesn't make it so.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
- jcranmer 8mo ago
  > And the supreme court doesn't hear cases that are 100% obviously illegal. There is an argument in about two months' time as to whether or not the Birthright Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment actually guarantees birthright citizenship in the US. There is no serious legal argument in favor of the interpretation being advanced by the Trump administration, that it does not. And yet here we are.
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
  They weren't buying insurance. There's no insurance payout for the companies. They got a small amount of money in hand, and lost the chance to reclaim any of the tariff refund. That isn't insurance. Also, the SCOTUS is not a criminal court, it is a constitutional court. If a case is heard there, both sides have not agreed on "obvious illegality". That is unsuprising since in general one side (in this case, the administrative branch of the US Government) is being accused of illegal behavior - when it comes to constitutional rather than criminal questions, most parties do not just accept their guilt, but push as far as they can towards exoneration. Frequently, however to everybody else, the case concerns obvious illegality.
  - gus_massa 8mo ago
    I agree, it's like "reverse insurance". I'm not sure what is the name. In insurance, you pay [-$10] to avoid a potencial negative risk [-$100]. Here you get money [+$10] instead of waiting for a potencial positive benefit [+$100]. Very slightly related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage
    - tmtvl 8mo ago
      The term you're looking for is 'instant gratification'.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- bumby 8mo ago
  I think the issue is that someone working in public office had influence to affect that probability, and their relatives stood to gain from it. I don’t know enough about the ethics laws to know if it was strictly illegal, but it does create a smell. Suppose a county engineer has influence on whether oil drilling will be allowed (they don’t make policy but consult those who do), and prior to approval their relatives buy up a lot of land in the area. That engineer may not have been the deciding factor, but it seems like it runs afoul of ethics laws/standards.

gruez 8mo ago

>if you facilitate the legislation of tarrifs that you knew are illegal? Did they know it was illegal? Any more than say, the Biden administration "knew" that forgiving student loans were illegal?

anon7000 8mo ago
They literally spent a decent chunk of money spinning up a line of business that could only make money if the tariffs were illegal.
- hammock 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
    Insurance company deal: if you pay us $X now, and then Y happens, we will make you whole, even though that cost may very well exceed $X. Lutnick deal: we pay you $X' now, and if Y' happens, we collect everything which will substantively exceed $X'. This is not insurance, its closer to shorting stocks. Oh, one other thing: the insurance company has essentially nothing to do with Y at all, in the sense that they have no control over Y and generally speaking no involvement in it (think: accidents, floods, storms, fires). By contrast Lutnick is the Secretary of Commerce of the United States of America.
    - hammock 8mo ago
      Lutnick deal: if we pay you $X now, and then Y happens, you will make us the whole refund, even though that windfall may very well exceed $X. Insurance company deal: you pay us $X' now, and if Y' happens, we pay for everything which may substantively exceed $X'.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
        I have no idea what the point of this is, since it just restates what I wrote, and reinforces the point that the Lutnick deal is nothing like "insurance".