[csense]

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.

[rozap]

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.

[heresie-dabord]

> There is no strategy here.

Unless the money is fully accounted and restituted, I believe we can assume what the strategy is.

[cyanydeez]

This ruling like most of the kleptocracy, will show the kleptocrats who is willing to lick boot and who will not. The goal, whether extrinsic or intrinsic, is to find the fascist threats and harm them.

This specifically will happen when businesses request the legal refund and the "deep state" gets to decide whether they deserve a refund.

[chii]

> the "deep state" gets to decide whether they deserve a refund.

yep. For someone who claims to be draining the swamp, this sure as hell sounds like they're digging it in even deeper.

[warmwaffles]

Ever try to get Congress to agree on something without packaging in another thing?

[rocmcd]

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]

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]

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.

[vkou]

Congress could stop this nonsense tomorrow. The problem is not the body's powers, the problem is that the GOP is happy with Trump doing whatever the hell he wants.

Vote the GOP out, and he'll be impeached.

[skeletal88]

It is because your congress and political system don't need coalition governments orvaby kind of agreements, winner takes it all. A true multy party system wpuld be mote flexible and less prone to catering to extremes on the left or right

[sigwinch]

Israel has such a system. Netanyahu is aloft because of a small, fringe party.

[sarchertech]

A multiparty systems has some advantages. But it also has flaws and it wasn’t able to stop Brexit.

And I don’t think a multiparty system would have been able to stop the rise of Trump all else being equal equal.

[Maken]

The UK Parliament was by all means a two-party system, with Labour in one side and the Tories in the other. If anything it has become more diverse post-Brexit. Compare that with the Bundestag, where no party has more than a quarter of the seats.

[sarchertech]

There were 7 major political parties in Germany in 1933, so I’m unsure that there is overwhelming evidence that more than 2 political parties is protective against extremism.

[skeletal88]

The uk doesnt really count, because it also has a fttp election system for the parliament, there are always 2 big parties and then some minor ones. Better example would be Germany.

[sarchertech]

There were 7 major political parties in Germany in 1933, so I’m unsure that there is overwhelming evidence that more than 2 political parties is protective against extremism.

[radiator]

It seems you wish for a system which would be able to stop Brexit against the will of the people.

[sarchertech]

Maybe a system where more than a simple majority in a single popular poll is required to make monumental policy decisions.

[Forgeties79]

The problem is we've kicked this can down the road for decades. We can't just let the president perform Congress's job, no matter how "stuck" they are.

[lucketone]

I disagree with the metaphor.

In suggest: The can of worms was opened.

(i.e. subsequent us presidents, no matter which party, will use more freedom of movement in the office)

[Sabinus]

Why not just do away with the Presidency and call him King?

[Forgeties79]

I actually think Congress is the one who controls the reins still with this one. All they have to do is simply say “no“ and stop falling in line with the party because their president is in charge. They won’t do it, but they need to just agree enough is enough and legislate instead of handing it off to the president so they can’t be held accountable for their votes. Still, at the end of the day the ball is in their court.

[cogman10]

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.

[wesapien]

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.

[unethical_ban]

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.

[olalonde]

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.

[omnimus]

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?

[conductr]

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]

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]

Not how they make them, as in who is responsible within their government or whatever the might have

[lucketone]

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)

[bsder]

> Do you agree with countries doing the opposite to the US?

Yes, please! Maximally efficient is minimally robust.

We need robustness in the global economy more than some megajillionaire needs another half cent per customer in profit.

In addition, we need competition in a lot of areas where we have complete consolidation right now. The only way to get that is to give some protection to the little guys while they grow.

[worik]

> The only way to get that is to give some protection to the little guys while they grow.

Industrial Policy

It has a very bad reputation in the West but in built Japan and Taiwan

In the West it meant "protect old industries" rather than grow new ones (e.g. British steel)

[AngryData]

I agree that we do need robustness in our production and economies, and a lot of it. But I don't really believe that most tariffs, especially current ones, will ensure that in any way.

Generally if you want stable and reliable local production of something, you subsidize that production or industry. You guarantee a certain amount of product will be bought/paid for even if a foreign supplier can or is willing to undercut that cost. That is why we have a large agricultural surplus in basically every western country, subsidized crops means there is money on the table for somebody to be in that industry which ensures surplus production even when other places are offering cheap food to trade.

Those can also be misapplied and corrupted, but it is still better than nothing at all or not extremely well planned and implemented tariffs which can sometimes hurt local production of other things still.

[elcritch]

> We need robustness in the global economy more than some megajillionaire needs another half cent per customer in profit.

Exactly this.

Economies follow the same general principles of our distributed products. There’s good reasons you pay extra and lower efficiency (a bit) to have redundancy and resilience. We saw that we need more of it during COVID lockdown chaos.

Generally lowering tariffs has been a good thing overall, but there’s a point where it stops being beneficial.

[Forgeties79]

>Do you agree with countries doing the opposite to the US?

If their laws allow their leaders to enact tariffs then sure, they're welcome to do it. Foreign relations is complicated partially because countries operate differently. In the US, Congress is supposed to levy taxes and impose tariffs. Not the president. This game of nibbling (now chomping) at the edges of that clearly outlined role needs to end.

>When for example US tech is better than the local alternative but the countries create unfair advantages to the local alternatives?

We can still enact tariffs and similar policies. We have the same mechanisms they do. I don’t understand what is so “unfair.” Trump just seems to call everything he doesn’t like “unfair.”

[jdashg]

Absolutely!

[9dev]

That is not an unfair advantage, but protecting their domestic industries for reasons unrelated to the quality of the tech, for example to keep people in active employment, prevent bankruptcies, allow an industry to get up to speed, or a lot of other reasons entirely unrelated to the USA. All of these are valid; any country gets to decide who they want to allow on their markets, and to what conditions.

That is not what Trump has been doing, though. Using tariffs as retaliatory measures? As a threat because he didn’t get to "own" Greenland?

Let’s stop comparing sane political strategies to the actions of a narcissistic madman.

[skeletal88]

This has nothing to do with tariffs and everything to do with us companies hsving an unfair advantage or justnot following EU regulations. Or musk trying to interfere in our politics and supporting extreme right wing parties. Also us government having access to our cloud data, etc. All our advertising money goes to the US to google/fb, because everyone is using them, not because they are inherently better at anything, for example.

[Forgeties79]

So many of you keep using the word “unfair.” What is so unfair? What can these countries do that we cannot?

Have you considered all the advantages the US has over some of these countries? Is that not “unfair”? I would say the US’s relationship with the Internet is certainly an advantage even if we call it “fair.”

[omnimus]

I think what they mean is that post war US got a special treatment from their main allies in exchange for US globalism, diplomacy, security. For example in EU with digital technology the US got:

- always open arms for adoption (all govs prefer to use US software, although there have always been local alternatives). EU govs never really pushed adoption of their local software companies, they usually push for adoption of US tech

- extremely lax tax rules and enforcement towards US

- no protection of sales of local companies and startups (every successful EU tech company becomes US owned)

- lax enforcement of local laws towards US companies compared to EU ones. So many US businesses would be illegal but the companies do it anyway while EU alternatives have hard time existing (for example all consumer data gathering and sales but also companies like uber and airbnb)

All that is ok in eyes of EU politicians since there is “the silent deal”. But what do you do once one party doesn't keep their side of the bargain?

[Forgeties79]

I totally agree and rereading it I completely flipped it. I thought he was another person in this thread saying that other countries have an unfair advantage against the US. My mistake.

[softwaredoug]

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

[whateveracct]

this isn't about tariffs

it's about if the executive can impose them

[SmirkingRevenge]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[SmirkingRevenge]

Yes, this particular tariff regime is, well - completely insane and really is all downside.

But even under the best regime, they still are not great, and probably more harmful than helpful

[learingsci]

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

[whyenot]

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).

[simonh]

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

[tracker1]

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]

Can you make an example of a tariff from the last 100 years that definitely benefitted the US in a long-lasting way?

[freeone3000]

Auto tariffs have kept Detroit producing automobiles despite various other entrants, while still being low enough for foreign competition.

[DiogenesKynikos]

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]

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.

[rsynnott]

_Just about_. After significant government bailouts.

Ultimately, this sort of protectionism tends to be expensive, and yield an inferior product.

[freeone3000]

But may still be worth it to protect a skilled domestic industry.

[simonh]

I think the same effects can be achieved using subsidies, and I do accept such interventions can have legitimate justifications.

[SideQuark]

At significant loss to the consumer. Sure a tariff can benefit a subset of people, by costing others even more.

We could also do this without tariffs by simply taking money from some group and handing it to another.

[dataflow]

Someone mentioned a week or two ago on HN that the point of the auto tariffs was national security (maintaining the industry/expertise/etc. in the US, I assume), not economic.

[lucketone]

Receiving money for free is different than money earned for work (even if subsidised).

It creates different incentives for the receiver.

[tracker1]

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.

[SideQuark]

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?

[dlisboa]

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]

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]

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.

[refurb]

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?

[dboreham]

There's a tarriff on sugar that means we have to use HFCS in processed foods and beverages. Oh wait...

[linhns]

Agree, and it should be Congress decision.

[QuadmasterXLII]

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.

[lawn]

Thoughtful application of tariffs are good.

Trump's usage of tariffs is pretty damn dumb.

[rkeene2]

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]

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]

There is no such thing as rational economics. Full stop.