[baybal2]

Thanks for pulling that link out. Just look at that exemption list.

Product category description lists look to me almost exactly like rigged state tenders would look like in some post-Soviet country

> LED lighting fixtures, a kind of used in horticulture, containing over 5,000 LEDs spread across 6 light bars

> Grills composed of steel wire, each measuring 49cm by 47cm, weighting 0.36kg

> Power supplies ... measuring 148cm in length, 43cm in width

Those items are pretty much purpose written for individual benefactors

[ajdlinux]

And if you read the Background section, you'll see that this list is the result of a process where the USTR asked for exclusion requests, and companies had to provide the codes of the specific products they want excluded.

"Under the June 24 notice, requests for exclusion had to identify the product subject to the request in terms of the physical characteristics that distinguish the product from other products within the relevant 8-digit subheading covered by the $200 billion action. Requestors also had to provide the 10-digit subheading of the HTSUS most applicable to the particular product requested for exclusion, and could submit information on the ability of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to administer the requested exclusion."

So... it's not exactly a surprise if the list reads like it was compiled for the benefit of individual companies. Because... it was.

[VLM]

Yes exactly but you're reading too much into the intentions.

Lets say there's a tariff to encourage those little bags of screws that home depot sells to possibly come from the USA instead of China, or at least tax the Chinese because they do govt funded product dumping to make the market unfair. Really it doesn't matter why. The point is we want to discourage retail sales of Chinese screws for whatever reason, possibly even valid reasons.

Given the above... if I'm importing screws to build cars, and our govt likes domestic auto production, the govt doesn't want to screw me over with high screw taxes such that people buy Japanese cars instead. What they want is people at home depot not buying little bags of chinese screws, what they don't want is instead of "making" 1 cent of taxes on screws they'd lose 1 dollar of taxes on my electric cars because my cars would be too expensive compared to untaxed japanese cars or whatever.

So I apply for an exemption, but seeing as you don't employ me, so I'm gonna spec "M3-0.5 16 mm long SSHS grade 6 anti-corrosion finish screw". There's no point in me paying my lawyers to get an exemption for "screws" in general, just so that you don't have to pay for an exemption to import screws for your internet connected toaster. I mean, good luck with your internet connected toaster product... but pay for your own lawyers.

It is admittedly kinda silly to try to centrally control large scale industrial operations by taxing material components, why not do social control of operations directly by tax codes for electric car factories and internet connected toaster makers, but here we are doing tax code stuff on the parts that make those toasters or whatever.

[baybal2]

> why not do social control of operations directly by tax codes for electric car factories and internet connected toaster makers, but here we are doing tax code stuff on the parts that make those toasters or whatever.

The West pretty much doing that already in more ways than one.

Last G7 was all about finding new ways to tax new industries

[cl0ckt0wer]

Wow, I had to look this up. Great band name! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabazite

[_puk]

> > LED lighting fixtures, a kind of used in horticulture, containing over 5,000 LEDs spread across 6 light bars

Also, really makes one wonder if that sort of specific setup is perhaps the subject of an existing patent.

Imagine being in a position whereby there can be no innovation beyond a specific exclusion on a competitive cost basis, and that exclusion being wholly owned already.

Seems an alarming way to either enrich incumbents, or stifle Innovation full stop, or both.

[lonelappde]

This insinuation is simply false. Anyone building any product can apply for a waiver under the same general rules. The waivers only apply to the specific products that apply.

[ken]

Big companies like Apple can easily put many people to work applying for exemptions, while small business owners can’t afford to. The mere existence of such a system is rigged in favor of incumbents.

This is the “well anyone technically could have” excuse, aka the first chapter of “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”.

[woah]

Reminds me of the detailed but oddly vague exemptions in California’s new AB5 law