Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States(post.japanpost.jp)
post.japanpost.jp
Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States
https://www.post.japanpost.jp/int/information/2025/0825_01_en.html
421 comments
> Closing these de minimus exemptions is making it harder for discerning consumers to buy higher quality goods than are currently available in the US right now.
Everything has a trade-off.
On the other hand, it also prevents companies from dumping artificially cheap and crappy goods (TEMU) on US markets and making it nearly impossible for others to compete.
Unsuspecting consumers buy a super cheap (subsidized) crap product on Amazon or Temu or Shien or wherever - probably a knock-off of an American product, have it shipped to the US, then it disintegrates after a couple of uses or stops working, and we wind up with pollution, additional landfill, and relentless consumerism that's harmful to the country all so we can help a certain country whose name starts with a C keep the lights on and keep factories running so that they don't see unemployment numbers tick up.
Legitimate businesses selling higher quality products where they exist will be able to figure it out. Or not. It's not a big deal if your sunscreen is slightly worse than the Korean version (which I use). Maybe it just hasn't been approved because they haven't done the work to apply because they can get around working with our government and making sure their product meets our safety standards because of the de minimus loophole?
There's also safety concerns, which I think the CBP did a good job of overviewing here: https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/buyer-beware-bad-actors-exploi... . Send drugs or guns or illegal animal products to the US, get caught, who cares you live in (not the US) so you can just spin up another sham company and do it again.
Everything has a trade-off.
On the other hand, it also prevents companies from dumping artificially cheap and crappy goods (TEMU) on US markets and making it nearly impossible for others to compete.
Unsuspecting consumers buy a super cheap (subsidized) crap product on Amazon or Temu or Shien or wherever - probably a knock-off of an American product, have it shipped to the US, then it disintegrates after a couple of uses or stops working, and we wind up with pollution, additional landfill, and relentless consumerism that's harmful to the country all so we can help a certain country whose name starts with a C keep the lights on and keep factories running so that they don't see unemployment numbers tick up.
Legitimate businesses selling higher quality products where they exist will be able to figure it out. Or not. It's not a big deal if your sunscreen is slightly worse than the Korean version (which I use). Maybe it just hasn't been approved because they haven't done the work to apply because they can get around working with our government and making sure their product meets our safety standards because of the de minimus loophole?
There's also safety concerns, which I think the CBP did a good job of overviewing here: https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/buyer-beware-bad-actors-exploi... . Send drugs or guns or illegal animal products to the US, get caught, who cares you live in (not the US) so you can just spin up another sham company and do it again.
My counterexample is that I sell mid-high end vintage bicycle parts.
There’s about a 0% chance of Shimano or Campagnolo bringing that production to the US because they haven’t made this stuff in several decades.
I’ve now jacked my US shipping prices to account for tariffs. I’ll probably lose all US sales.
US buyers probably won’t realize that ~5-10% of its supply has disappeared for these parts. They also may not recognize that US sellers can/will raise their prices accordingly but they will have that increase in price.
Heck, I know some Canadian sellers that set up their supply chain well enough that they put down a US location and buyers think they’re buying domestic. Those will be toast (or have to vastly inflate their pricing).
There’s about a 0% chance of Shimano or Campagnolo bringing that production to the US because they haven’t made this stuff in several decades.
I’ve now jacked my US shipping prices to account for tariffs. I’ll probably lose all US sales.
US buyers probably won’t realize that ~5-10% of its supply has disappeared for these parts. They also may not recognize that US sellers can/will raise their prices accordingly but they will have that increase in price.
Heck, I know some Canadian sellers that set up their supply chain well enough that they put down a US location and buyers think they’re buying domestic. Those will be toast (or have to vastly inflate their pricing).
I bought a pair of motorcycle boots this way. It was a brand that isn't routinely imported into the US. The seller was a dealership near the Canadian border. It was something like they stocked them in London, Ontario and sold them from their Detroit subsidiary.
> buyers think they’re buying domestic
This is hard to tell from the discussion, but are you defending this practice?
This is hard to tell from the discussion, but are you defending this practice?
The tradeoff here is “pay the middleman markup tax” for the most part.
Instead of getting cheap Chinese made clothing for $5, you now get to pay Walmart $17 for the same thing.
If we are going to outsource production in order to save on consumer goods costs, the consumer should be the one reaping the surplus - not capital. Properly informed buyers were quite capable of getting quality product out of China for a tenth of the cost of exactly the same thing stocked on major retailer shelves here.
While there are certainly abuses of the current system, it would be best to close those loopholes vs. just give a bunch of profits to giant companies for effectively doing nothing more than having scale and volume. If you’re lucky they may do some curation too.
Not everything was Temu or Shein. Plenty of smaller factories basically going direct to consumer in a win win sort of scenario. They get paid more, and the customer doesn’t pay any middlemen.
Instead of getting cheap Chinese made clothing for $5, you now get to pay Walmart $17 for the same thing.
If we are going to outsource production in order to save on consumer goods costs, the consumer should be the one reaping the surplus - not capital. Properly informed buyers were quite capable of getting quality product out of China for a tenth of the cost of exactly the same thing stocked on major retailer shelves here.
While there are certainly abuses of the current system, it would be best to close those loopholes vs. just give a bunch of profits to giant companies for effectively doing nothing more than having scale and volume. If you’re lucky they may do some curation too.
Not everything was Temu or Shein. Plenty of smaller factories basically going direct to consumer in a win win sort of scenario. They get paid more, and the customer doesn’t pay any middlemen.
> Instead of getting cheap Chinese made clothing for $5, you now get to pay Walmart $17 for the same thing.
Right... but now that is (arguably) cost competitive with American labor and manufacturing. Or at least it's more cost competitive than it otherwise would be.
I mean this is kind of the price of putting what we say first. Want higher minimum wages, higher environmental standards, unionized labor, benefits/healthcare, lunch breaks, etc.? We will have to pay more, and we should, for those things.
Right... but now that is (arguably) cost competitive with American labor and manufacturing. Or at least it's more cost competitive than it otherwise would be.
I mean this is kind of the price of putting what we say first. Want higher minimum wages, higher environmental standards, unionized labor, benefits/healthcare, lunch breaks, etc.? We will have to pay more, and we should, for those things.
> Right... but now that is (arguably) cost competitive with American labor and manufacturing. Or at least it's more cost competitive than it otherwise would be.
This won't work for clothes. We'd need Wal-mart shoppers to be spending like $400/outfit (incl. shoes) to even maybe bring those jobs back to the US. For clothes specifically, short of raising prices so much that the poorest few tens of a percent of the population are reduced to wearing shit-tier disposable clothes covered in also-cheap patches and often worn threadbare, shoes fully wrapped in duct-tape because the soles are practically gone, et c, there's no way you're bringing those jobs back. We'll just pay more for the exact same stuff, with few or no extra jobs as a trade-off.
Meanwhile, goods partially manufactured here (materials made here, finished elsewhere; materials foreign, construction domestic) will see price increases due to tariffs, which may harm sales, which may reduce employment. Between that and any broader economic down-turn resulting from these policies (can't buy as many things if prices are up, can't spend more on expensive US goods if your basics go up in price) I wouldn't be surprised if we see a bunch of the remaining US clothing manufacturers go out of business in the next few years. I have several brands I like that are already showing visible signs of distress (things like products lines being reduced, no new models showing up) and am worried I'll soon have almost no US clothes to choose from, due to these "protectionist" policies.
This won't work for clothes. We'd need Wal-mart shoppers to be spending like $400/outfit (incl. shoes) to even maybe bring those jobs back to the US. For clothes specifically, short of raising prices so much that the poorest few tens of a percent of the population are reduced to wearing shit-tier disposable clothes covered in also-cheap patches and often worn threadbare, shoes fully wrapped in duct-tape because the soles are practically gone, et c, there's no way you're bringing those jobs back. We'll just pay more for the exact same stuff, with few or no extra jobs as a trade-off.
Meanwhile, goods partially manufactured here (materials made here, finished elsewhere; materials foreign, construction domestic) will see price increases due to tariffs, which may harm sales, which may reduce employment. Between that and any broader economic down-turn resulting from these policies (can't buy as many things if prices are up, can't spend more on expensive US goods if your basics go up in price) I wouldn't be surprised if we see a bunch of the remaining US clothing manufacturers go out of business in the next few years. I have several brands I like that are already showing visible signs of distress (things like products lines being reduced, no new models showing up) and am worried I'll soon have almost no US clothes to choose from, due to these "protectionist" policies.
> This won't work for clothes
Says who? Also you're forgetting if we as a country decide hey this really doesn't work for clothing we can just lower the tariffs on clothing.
Says who? Also you're forgetting if we as a country decide hey this really doesn't work for clothing we can just lower the tariffs on clothing.
> Says who?
Uh, labor costs? I guess we could work to lower those, though. Like, a lot lower.
Meanwhile if the $2 wholesale-in-China shirt costs $30 on the shelf due to tariffs and the identical-quality US-made one costs $40 because that's just what it costs, the latter won't even be made, zero factories will start up to manufacture them. You'd have to raise prices a lot for it to make sense to even try, clothes are (relatively—still far less than once-upon-a-time, which is why the poor can afford to wear clothes that aren't third-hand and much-mended) labor-intensive despite lots of automation because machines remain terrible at manipulating cloth, despite decades of effort at solving that problem.
It's really expensive to make clothes in the US, and skimping on quality doesn't save all that much, percentage-wise. Being that they're also a necessity, we'd truly have to drive quality of life way down for a large chunk of the population to get that industry making low-end clothes.
Uh, labor costs? I guess we could work to lower those, though. Like, a lot lower.
Meanwhile if the $2 wholesale-in-China shirt costs $30 on the shelf due to tariffs and the identical-quality US-made one costs $40 because that's just what it costs, the latter won't even be made, zero factories will start up to manufacture them. You'd have to raise prices a lot for it to make sense to even try, clothes are (relatively—still far less than once-upon-a-time, which is why the poor can afford to wear clothes that aren't third-hand and much-mended) labor-intensive despite lots of automation because machines remain terrible at manipulating cloth, despite decades of effort at solving that problem.
It's really expensive to make clothes in the US, and skimping on quality doesn't save all that much, percentage-wise. Being that they're also a necessity, we'd truly have to drive quality of life way down for a large chunk of the population to get that industry making low-end clothes.
American made t-shirts today don't even cost $30.
What does "American made" mean? Is the raw fabric also made in America or is it just cut and sewn together in America?
Here is an example: https://www.allamericanclothing.com/collections/shirts/produ...
According to the website it’s compliant with the Berry Amendment, made in California, $15. From what I understand Berry Amendment “compliance” means all raw material and manufacturing is exclusively US sourced and US manufactured.
A quick comparison I saw was this:
According to the website it’s compliant with the Berry Amendment, made in California, $15. From what I understand Berry Amendment “compliance” means all raw material and manufacturing is exclusively US sourced and US manufactured.
A quick comparison I saw was this:
A “Made in USA” jacket could have fabric from China but still be assembled in the U.S.
A Berry Compliant jacket must have U.S.-made fabric, thread, zippers, and even labels!
You should trust people who live in countries that tariff a lot. You won't get quality crap. When tariffs cause the imported good to become equal to $200, the local good doesn't suddenly get cheaper it rises to match $180. Obviously any incentive that remained for local product to improve is now totally dashed too because of state forced back protection from competition. You end up paying multiple times the prices for the same shit sane countries buy much cheaper than you and life turns to shit, and the lower classes don't get better but end up loosing more money on the same crap.
I don't think we're comparing apples to apples though, and even so it's again just a trade-off we can make.
> the local good doesn't suddenly get cheaper it rises to match $180
Lowering prices isn't the goal, otherwise we could just export everything to (insert low-cost country here) and have products made as cheaply as possible regardless of working conditions or other considerations. The goal in part with tariffs would be to make it so that domestic products or products from friendly countries are cost competitive, not necessarily cheaper. Some folks just want the cheapest possible products and they don't care about any other issue. But that's just one factor among many for the nation. Some think that we should have lunch breaks and 40 hour work weeks and different environmental standards - that costs money and makes labor more expensive in countries like the United States.
I would disagree that there isn't an incentive to improve your local products, at least in the United States. The market here is big enough that we generally have competition regardless of whether or not competitors from other countries are participating in the market. But even so, it's not like competitors aren't participating in the market even with tariffs, it just changes the pricing calculations.
> the local good doesn't suddenly get cheaper it rises to match $180
Lowering prices isn't the goal, otherwise we could just export everything to (insert low-cost country here) and have products made as cheaply as possible regardless of working conditions or other considerations. The goal in part with tariffs would be to make it so that domestic products or products from friendly countries are cost competitive, not necessarily cheaper. Some folks just want the cheapest possible products and they don't care about any other issue. But that's just one factor among many for the nation. Some think that we should have lunch breaks and 40 hour work weeks and different environmental standards - that costs money and makes labor more expensive in countries like the United States.
I would disagree that there isn't an incentive to improve your local products, at least in the United States. The market here is big enough that we generally have competition regardless of whether or not competitors from other countries are participating in the market. But even so, it's not like competitors aren't participating in the market even with tariffs, it just changes the pricing calculations.
And what will you get by making a crappy product artificially competitive? Its the same inferior product still, except you artificially forced the better stuff to be more expensive. Its absolutely hilarious seeing USA adopt policies of communist countries of the Latin America.
Wrong, as I said just ask countries like Brazil what happens when you tariff everything to shit and beyond. Brazil doesn't have chip fabs still and still has to pay a huge amount for phones and computers.
The answer to local industry being shit isn't to coddle it further, it is to scare the living shit out of them. Clearly in-country competition isn't enough, otherwise it'd already have been better than foreign goods. That's how capitalism succeeds, coddling them will only lead to overall crappy product and crappy life everywhere. I find it quite amusing this anti China rhetoric suddenly jumped up after in some areas Chinese getting superior to Americans. Hilarious really how much of a sore loser America is.
Enjoy and suffer shit goods at shittier prices. The tradeoff is you get fucked in both, in any countries that do tariffs. If one of the goals was to make life better for the lower classes, what will happen is that it won't, they'd be fucked even more being forced to pay more for the same stuff.
Wrong, as I said just ask countries like Brazil what happens when you tariff everything to shit and beyond. Brazil doesn't have chip fabs still and still has to pay a huge amount for phones and computers.
The answer to local industry being shit isn't to coddle it further, it is to scare the living shit out of them. Clearly in-country competition isn't enough, otherwise it'd already have been better than foreign goods. That's how capitalism succeeds, coddling them will only lead to overall crappy product and crappy life everywhere. I find it quite amusing this anti China rhetoric suddenly jumped up after in some areas Chinese getting superior to Americans. Hilarious really how much of a sore loser America is.
Enjoy and suffer shit goods at shittier prices. The tradeoff is you get fucked in both, in any countries that do tariffs. If one of the goals was to make life better for the lower classes, what will happen is that it won't, they'd be fucked even more being forced to pay more for the same stuff.
> And what will you get by making a crappy product artificially competitive?
I disagree with this characterization on at least two points:
The first is that you're assuming the product is crappy. Maybe it's actually quite good but just slightly more expensive for whatever reason, maybe that's unionization or something. Many people may opt to pay $6 less for a cheaper "thing" because they're not thinking about quality or wages or other factors. I know plenty of people who opt for buy-and-replace strategies because of "cheaper" products.
Second you're assuming that the cheap product isn't also artificially competitive. Other countries subsidize manufacturing or have lower wages or have other factors that lead to the product being cheaper than it should be.
> Its absolutely hilarious seeing USA adopt policies of communist countries of the Latin America.
I'm not sure protectionist policies are inherently communist, but to the extent they are I expect leftists to cheer these policies on.
> Enjoy and suffer shit goods at shittier prices.
Sounds good - stop bothering us about our crappy decisions then?
I disagree with this characterization on at least two points:
The first is that you're assuming the product is crappy. Maybe it's actually quite good but just slightly more expensive for whatever reason, maybe that's unionization or something. Many people may opt to pay $6 less for a cheaper "thing" because they're not thinking about quality or wages or other factors. I know plenty of people who opt for buy-and-replace strategies because of "cheaper" products.
Second you're assuming that the cheap product isn't also artificially competitive. Other countries subsidize manufacturing or have lower wages or have other factors that lead to the product being cheaper than it should be.
> Its absolutely hilarious seeing USA adopt policies of communist countries of the Latin America.
I'm not sure protectionist policies are inherently communist, but to the extent they are I expect leftists to cheer these policies on.
> Enjoy and suffer shit goods at shittier prices.
Sounds good - stop bothering us about our crappy decisions then?
>Other countries subsidize manufacturing or have lower wages or have other factors that lead to the product being cheaper than it should be.
Then do the same for Americans. Make better product, don't force people to buy crappier.
Its not just about the buyer choosing a quality-price tradeoff. Let us be honest, the USA (or any other country) isn't the best in every sector. Artificial tariffs just mean your people will have to buy worse product. Again, its a slide to Latam style communism, absolutely hilarious.
I will even agree that a careful and targeted application of tariffs can help grow certain industries and can be a beneficial thing, but again careful and targeted is key, its a teat that they should be removed from in time. But what Trump is doing isn't remotely targeted or thought out.
The fact that you somehow are pegging me as a leftist and reacting emotionally to simple statements of fact show how incredibly stupid people who love tariffs are. Absolute comedy.
Tariffs are essentially a signal you are a loser, you can't do better so you force barriers on others. And I will maintain this for all countries that do it, whether its USA, Brazil or China. You are not showing strength by tariffs you are showing how weak you are. If I were thinking of investing in a weakening country, I might think otherwise now.
Then do the same for Americans. Make better product, don't force people to buy crappier.
Its not just about the buyer choosing a quality-price tradeoff. Let us be honest, the USA (or any other country) isn't the best in every sector. Artificial tariffs just mean your people will have to buy worse product. Again, its a slide to Latam style communism, absolutely hilarious.
I will even agree that a careful and targeted application of tariffs can help grow certain industries and can be a beneficial thing, but again careful and targeted is key, its a teat that they should be removed from in time. But what Trump is doing isn't remotely targeted or thought out.
The fact that you somehow are pegging me as a leftist and reacting emotionally to simple statements of fact show how incredibly stupid people who love tariffs are. Absolute comedy.
Tariffs are essentially a signal you are a loser, you can't do better so you force barriers on others. And I will maintain this for all countries that do it, whether its USA, Brazil or China. You are not showing strength by tariffs you are showing how weak you are. If I were thinking of investing in a weakening country, I might think otherwise now.
>You are not showing strength by tariffs you are showing how weak you are.
Why does that matter?
Why does that matter?
Signals are important to pay attention to. Its not a nice thing to be weak as a country. It's alright if you think you need this or that tariff right now to prop up this or that key industry, but what happens over time if you continuously slide ever weaker. Its just a warning sign that must be paid heed to. A strong sector shouldn't need a tariff to survive. For better or worse your IT/tech sector is one of the good examples of a strong sector, to extent that other countries are trying to shield themselves from it's success. That should be the aspiration for the industry, not living under tariffs forever.
Americans hate the current tech sector. Google and Microsoft are among the most hated companies in the US. International reach and adherence to European legal pressure has forced European laws loosely on Americans in the form of blocked sites and "accept cookie" banners.
I'd guess that most Americans don't care much if Europe perceives a strong posture. That's not a very American ideology. Many Americans would ask if Spain is in the UK. That's not an exaggeration. Americans couldn't care less about what Europe thinks.
I'd guess that most Americans don't care much if Europe perceives a strong posture. That's not a very American ideology. Many Americans would ask if Spain is in the UK. That's not an exaggeration. Americans couldn't care less about what Europe thinks.
> The fact that you somehow are pegging me as a leftist
I didn't mean to do that, and I apologize for that. I just meant that to the extent that you are associating tariffs with communism that those on the left will applaud Trump's tariffs and trade policies as they align with that ideology.
Though as an aside, you mention that we're sliding toward LATAM style communism (again I think it's mercantilism and not communism but whatever) but it seems to me that it's more so happening in the political sphere via Trump and his cronyism, not so much because of trade barriers.
> Then do the same for Americans. Make better product, don't force people to buy crappier.
A t-shirt is a t-shirt. At some point we're not really talking about making a better product, but we're instead talking about the costs associated with making that product. Instead of phrasing this as "buy the cheaper product" or "buy the better product" it should instead be looked at as "buy the product that is more environmentally friendly (shipping, environmental standards, etc.)" or "buy the product that supports higher American wages and 40 hour work weeks".
These are all just trade-offs and policy decisions. If you gave me the choice between buy American made t-shirt for $20 [1] or buy the made in (insert country) shirt for $5 - I would buy the American one every time because the price isn't the only factor.
For a long time we've focused on price only, but the prices on the shelves are not necessarily the only consideration, they're just the easiest one for people to make and we don't have other clear and obvious incentives right at the point of sale to help someone make a decision - was the (insert country here) product made by a despotic regime hellbent on assaulting your way of life - is that on the sticker? Or is it some harmless text hidden away that says "Made in Country X".
Efficient markets are great, but they're not the point of society, just another thing we decide how much or how little we want of.
[1] https://www.allamericanclothing.com/collections/shirts/produ...
I didn't mean to do that, and I apologize for that. I just meant that to the extent that you are associating tariffs with communism that those on the left will applaud Trump's tariffs and trade policies as they align with that ideology.
Though as an aside, you mention that we're sliding toward LATAM style communism (again I think it's mercantilism and not communism but whatever) but it seems to me that it's more so happening in the political sphere via Trump and his cronyism, not so much because of trade barriers.
> Then do the same for Americans. Make better product, don't force people to buy crappier.
A t-shirt is a t-shirt. At some point we're not really talking about making a better product, but we're instead talking about the costs associated with making that product. Instead of phrasing this as "buy the cheaper product" or "buy the better product" it should instead be looked at as "buy the product that is more environmentally friendly (shipping, environmental standards, etc.)" or "buy the product that supports higher American wages and 40 hour work weeks".
These are all just trade-offs and policy decisions. If you gave me the choice between buy American made t-shirt for $20 [1] or buy the made in (insert country) shirt for $5 - I would buy the American one every time because the price isn't the only factor.
For a long time we've focused on price only, but the prices on the shelves are not necessarily the only consideration, they're just the easiest one for people to make and we don't have other clear and obvious incentives right at the point of sale to help someone make a decision - was the (insert country here) product made by a despotic regime hellbent on assaulting your way of life - is that on the sticker? Or is it some harmless text hidden away that says "Made in Country X".
Efficient markets are great, but they're not the point of society, just another thing we decide how much or how little we want of.
[1] https://www.allamericanclothing.com/collections/shirts/produ...
Quality is to an extent a personal function, each person may have a different idea of what factors to consider in quality. But the word here is personal, I find it highly unpleasant when a state uses its might so transparently to force these choices.
You should also not discount price. You can afford to, I can afford to buy something more expensive because we consider some other aspects of the item more important. Again, if you had said this in terms of simply propping up a local even if less efficient industry alive, it makes sense, redundancy is a concept I can understand of course, I could have accepted it even if I don't agree fully. But I feel if it is presented as making the life of lower and middle classes easier, it is a total lie since they will be impacted most by these price increases. Some T-shirt firm in America will start earning more, but then where do the people of that firm spend it on? The other firms are also now higher priced if we fully commit to such extreme and wide ranging tariff programs. I am sorry if I come across as a bit vigorous in this, but I have seen how it is in high tariff countries so I have a strong feeling on this matter.
You should also not discount price. You can afford to, I can afford to buy something more expensive because we consider some other aspects of the item more important. Again, if you had said this in terms of simply propping up a local even if less efficient industry alive, it makes sense, redundancy is a concept I can understand of course, I could have accepted it even if I don't agree fully. But I feel if it is presented as making the life of lower and middle classes easier, it is a total lie since they will be impacted most by these price increases. Some T-shirt firm in America will start earning more, but then where do the people of that firm spend it on? The other firms are also now higher priced if we fully commit to such extreme and wide ranging tariff programs. I am sorry if I come across as a bit vigorous in this, but I have seen how it is in high tariff countries so I have a strong feeling on this matter.
> We will have to pay more, and we should, for those things.
No. US labor costs are high and working conditions are better, in large part, because US labor is worth it and US productivity is high. That labor is spent in high value industries and is often highly skilled.
We should accept we're better at some things and trade according to the principle of comparative advantage.
No. US labor costs are high and working conditions are better, in large part, because US labor is worth it and US productivity is high. That labor is spent in high value industries and is often highly skilled.
We should accept we're better at some things and trade according to the principle of comparative advantage.
I don't disagree with you, but I think it would be better for society if we had fewer gig workers and Wal-Mart greeters, and more artisans who become more price competitive.
I don't think making things more expensive for consumers is going to help that happen. I think it's going to steepen the divide between capital and labor.
And most of the products we're talking about that are coming in via de minimis are not exactly competing with US "artisans."
Indeed, I'm helping train future US artisans, and we depend upon being able to get input components cheaply and consistently, which is becoming more and more of a problem and endangering my programs being able to do as much.
And most of the products we're talking about that are coming in via de minimis are not exactly competing with US "artisans."
Indeed, I'm helping train future US artisans, and we depend upon being able to get input components cheaply and consistently, which is becoming more and more of a problem and endangering my programs being able to do as much.
But as I look around with our current trade strategy (pre-tariff) I've only seen exactly what you describe happen - the divide between capital and labor has only increased exponentially, and as prices have gotten lower people we see less entrepreneurship, less new business starts, fewer products made in America, and more consolidation into Wal-Mart scale corporations.
> And most of the products we're talking about that are coming in via de minimis are not exactly competing with US "artisans."
Sure they are - they're much cheaper, mass manufactured goods which people default to because they are only exposed to the price of the product. Raising the prices of those goods makes artisan products more cost competitive.
> And most of the products we're talking about that are coming in via de minimis are not exactly competing with US "artisans."
Sure they are - they're much cheaper, mass manufactured goods which people default to because they are only exposed to the price of the product. Raising the prices of those goods makes artisan products more cost competitive.
> and more consolidation into Wal-Mart scale corporations.
I think this has more to do with the effective abandonment of antitrust mechanisms.
> Raising the prices of those goods makes artisan products more cost competitive.
Look, I don't want an artisan UART board, and I don't think that my programs can ever afford "artisan UARTs." I'll just give up teaching this stuff to students instead.
I think this has more to do with the effective abandonment of antitrust mechanisms.
> Raising the prices of those goods makes artisan products more cost competitive.
Look, I don't want an artisan UART board, and I don't think that my programs can ever afford "artisan UARTs." I'll just give up teaching this stuff to students instead.
I don't know what you mean by artisan UART board - artisans and craftspeople don't, in my view, need to have anything to do with programs or universities or teaching or students - like you sit at home and work on making stuff, maybe you can sell it at a farmer's market or if you make something really good start your own business which could just be a single shop you run. Not to suggest there aren't or can't be training or teaching programs, but that's not a requirement.
Today that's much more difficult because a bar of soap at Wal-Mart is $1 or something and entrepreneurs can't make stuff that cheap when they're making it by hand using real ingredients or honing a specific craft - and it doesn't even end up with shelf space. The suburban, 1-stop-shop big box retailer, drive your SUV down the highway to buy cheap stuff from not America model drives down entrepreneurship and closes off small competitors and artisans.
> I think this has more to do with the effective abandonment of antitrust mechanisms.
That's a factor but not the primary one.
Today that's much more difficult because a bar of soap at Wal-Mart is $1 or something and entrepreneurs can't make stuff that cheap when they're making it by hand using real ingredients or honing a specific craft - and it doesn't even end up with shelf space. The suburban, 1-stop-shop big box retailer, drive your SUV down the highway to buy cheap stuff from not America model drives down entrepreneurship and closes off small competitors and artisans.
> I think this has more to do with the effective abandonment of antitrust mechanisms.
That's a factor but not the primary one.
I buy stuff -- small circuit boards, electronic components, unusual milling cutters, bearings, etc. The existence of these things as commodities lets me do a lot of deep EE and ME work with high school students.
The US will not build a supply chain for these at any reasonable price. And shouldn't. These should be commodities and US labor should focus on higher value things.
(Not to mention that US suppliers don't really like selling at low quantities and most don't really love selling to education or hobbyists).
Tariffs just directly make my programs less feasible.
Note that de minimis-- which we're talking about here-- has something to do with what's at Amazon because of drop shippers, but basically nothing that is sold somewhere like Walmart.
The US will not build a supply chain for these at any reasonable price. And shouldn't. These should be commodities and US labor should focus on higher value things.
(Not to mention that US suppliers don't really like selling at low quantities and most don't really love selling to education or hobbyists).
Tariffs just directly make my programs less feasible.
Note that de minimis-- which we're talking about here-- has something to do with what's at Amazon because of drop shippers, but basically nothing that is sold somewhere like Walmart.
Well we were also talking about artisan products too and not electronics.
I don't buy the general consensus that the US can't or won't build supply chains for these products - we can and will if the tariffs are high enough, it'll just be highly automated which isn't necessarily a bad thing. In your specific case yea you are probably just looking at higher prices, but I don't think that your general argument is necessarily applicable across the entire economy. That's not to say in your specific case yea maybe the tariffs are just a net negative.
> Note that de minimis-- which we're talking about here-- has something to do with what's at Amazon because of drop shippers, but basically nothing that is sold somewhere like Walmart.
Well yes and no. The availability of drop-shipped products en masse, whether it's through Amazon or Wal-Mart's own drop-ship marketplaces still enable cheap consumerism and generate lots of waste and poor quality products at cheap prices (along with some good products at cheap prices to be fair). But I think the point about Amazon just strengthens my argument (for the sake of argument) which is you get these artificially cheap products shipped in, sometimes with stolen designs, and we can't spin up mom-and-pop shops or cottage industries because everybody just looks at the price of the cheapest bullshit thing they find on Amazon and they don't care about any number of issues that factor in to that price.
I don't buy the general consensus that the US can't or won't build supply chains for these products - we can and will if the tariffs are high enough, it'll just be highly automated which isn't necessarily a bad thing. In your specific case yea you are probably just looking at higher prices, but I don't think that your general argument is necessarily applicable across the entire economy. That's not to say in your specific case yea maybe the tariffs are just a net negative.
> Note that de minimis-- which we're talking about here-- has something to do with what's at Amazon because of drop shippers, but basically nothing that is sold somewhere like Walmart.
Well yes and no. The availability of drop-shipped products en masse, whether it's through Amazon or Wal-Mart's own drop-ship marketplaces still enable cheap consumerism and generate lots of waste and poor quality products at cheap prices (along with some good products at cheap prices to be fair). But I think the point about Amazon just strengthens my argument (for the sake of argument) which is you get these artificially cheap products shipped in, sometimes with stolen designs, and we can't spin up mom-and-pop shops or cottage industries because everybody just looks at the price of the cheapest bullshit thing they find on Amazon and they don't care about any number of issues that factor in to that price.
These people make insane statements like supposed "pollution" and "slave labor" of China. What pollution man? The item needs to be produced and the factory will have same level of energy use here or anywhere else, so how does that make China a pollutant. I don't understand his obsession with forcefully jacking up prices of inferior shit, how exactly does that help anyone at all? Does he not know what happens with that minuscule extra profit? The worker will have to spend it on, wait for it, another such overpriced expensive junk completely nullifying it. And local industries get coddled and cozy and lose what tiny remaining incentive they had to compete. I am repeatedly asking him to see how high tariff countries like Brazil are. Just ask a Brazilian how they buy an iphone for example. I have never seen this blatant level of economic illiteracy from supposed educated people.
And I don't even know whats his deal with "artisan" bs, technology is technology. It doesn't stop being tech just because it was invented ten thousand years ago. Artisan crap is a luxury for financially comfortable people. Automation is somehow this weird magical "magitech" to this guy I don't know what. Automation isn't a nice to have, its the essence to have something available and affordable to the masses at all. I seriously don't understand this hunger for economic regression.
Making higher quality items cheaper is literally the fundamental basis of capitalism, or even technological progress in the first place. I really don't understand these bizarre economic theories at all.
And I don't even know whats his deal with "artisan" bs, technology is technology. It doesn't stop being tech just because it was invented ten thousand years ago. Artisan crap is a luxury for financially comfortable people. Automation is somehow this weird magical "magitech" to this guy I don't know what. Automation isn't a nice to have, its the essence to have something available and affordable to the masses at all. I seriously don't understand this hunger for economic regression.
Making higher quality items cheaper is literally the fundamental basis of capitalism, or even technological progress in the first place. I really don't understand these bizarre economic theories at all.
Man whats "real ingredients". No you have to clarify what you meant by this. This is hinting at some really deep confusion of concepts. Are you somehow thinking that a chemical process when done at a home workshop is somehow different from the same chemical process being done in a factory?
It can be - I don’t recall using xanthum gum or food dyes (or whatever these are just random “ingredients”) when I make something for someone in else to eat.
I don’t think this really requires clarification but I’m happy to indulge you on a product by product basis. Do you really think that loaf of bread you make at home is made with the same chemical process as the bread coming from Wonderbread on the shelves at Wal-Mart? It’s sure as hell not using the same ingredients and it definitely costs quite a bit of $.
You can apply this to furniture too. Do you think the furniture you buy at IKEA is made of actual wood with the same chemical process as the wood furniture you spend more money on that’s made by hand? (It’s not)
Are IKEA’s (or whoever) suppliers paying workers good wages? Are their practices sustainable? Are they clear cutting forests and mixing plastic and literal trash into the furniture you buy and throw away after it starts to degrade?
Even pharmaceuticals - are you sure generic drugs are just as good? I generally think so, but just because you cook with the same ingredients doesn’t mean Anthony Bourdain RIP isn’t using those same ingredients and making a better dish (drug).
If there’s confusion about concepts I would say it’s mostly confusion on behalf of the public whom goes to the store, sees price tag + brand, and thinks that’s all they are comparing when they buy things.
I don’t think this really requires clarification but I’m happy to indulge you on a product by product basis. Do you really think that loaf of bread you make at home is made with the same chemical process as the bread coming from Wonderbread on the shelves at Wal-Mart? It’s sure as hell not using the same ingredients and it definitely costs quite a bit of $.
You can apply this to furniture too. Do you think the furniture you buy at IKEA is made of actual wood with the same chemical process as the wood furniture you spend more money on that’s made by hand? (It’s not)
Are IKEA’s (or whoever) suppliers paying workers good wages? Are their practices sustainable? Are they clear cutting forests and mixing plastic and literal trash into the furniture you buy and throw away after it starts to degrade?
Even pharmaceuticals - are you sure generic drugs are just as good? I generally think so, but just because you cook with the same ingredients doesn’t mean Anthony Bourdain RIP isn’t using those same ingredients and making a better dish (drug).
If there’s confusion about concepts I would say it’s mostly confusion on behalf of the public whom goes to the store, sees price tag + brand, and thinks that’s all they are comparing when they buy things.
> and we wind up with pollution, additional landfill, and relentless consumerism that's harmful to the country
But that happens regardless of whether or not you import manufactured goods, doesn't it?
But that happens regardless of whether or not you import manufactured goods, doesn't it?
You're not going to get new clothing for TEMU prices without the de minimis exception. In theory, the higher price of these goods will decrease the amount they're purchased and lessen impact of pollution.
As others in this thread point out, though, there are other casualties of this change.
As others in this thread point out, though, there are other casualties of this change.
Temu should already be paying the tariffs on China-origin goods. De minims for China origin stuff ended May 2nd.
Unless they’re sending it all via China Post and US CBP is letting it pass through anyway. Anecdotally, most of their stuff in major cities is arriving by Gig couriers or from US warehouses (ie: not postal imports) = tariffs applied.
Where Temu and big retailers win the game is that they can structure it to exclude last-mile delivery/logistic cost in their tariff calculations, and that’s a lot of the price.
Unless they’re sending it all via China Post and US CBP is letting it pass through anyway. Anecdotally, most of their stuff in major cities is arriving by Gig couriers or from US warehouses (ie: not postal imports) = tariffs applied.
Where Temu and big retailers win the game is that they can structure it to exclude last-mile delivery/logistic cost in their tariff calculations, and that’s a lot of the price.
This is more like setting `trade: off`.
Everything does not have a tradeoff. This philosophy alone is bullshit.
Sometimes the tradeoff is that someone gets richer / inflates their ego while most people’s lives get worse in a tangible way.
The DOT standard isn't good, but the US doesn't disallow helmets that meet other standards. You can buy Bell and Alpinestars MIPS helmets in the US today, no gray market needed: https://www.revzilla.com/mips-motorcycle-helmets
You're on a tangent of a tangent, but:
Old school helmets use the philosophy that in a crash, you want your head to be harder than its opponent.
New school helmet use the philosophy that a helmet should absorb or deflect as much energy as possible, so that energy doesn't get translated to your brain.
They are actually diametrically opposed. Fortnine (the same channel I linked earlier) has a video on the SNELL standard. Its origins are as a beefier version of the DOT standard. They recently found themselves at a crossroads where it's impossible to both meet SNELL and meet ECE 22.06 (today's state-of-the-art standard). They ended up bifurcating SNELL into two standards: one that meets old DOT-based SNELL, and another that basically says "if it's 22.06, they can call it SNELL variant B." It was the only way they could keep the SNELL brand alive across both halves of the transition.
Old school helmets use the philosophy that in a crash, you want your head to be harder than its opponent.
New school helmet use the philosophy that a helmet should absorb or deflect as much energy as possible, so that energy doesn't get translated to your brain.
They are actually diametrically opposed. Fortnine (the same channel I linked earlier) has a video on the SNELL standard. Its origins are as a beefier version of the DOT standard. They recently found themselves at a crossroads where it's impossible to both meet SNELL and meet ECE 22.06 (today's state-of-the-art standard). They ended up bifurcating SNELL into two standards: one that meets old DOT-based SNELL, and another that basically says "if it's 22.06, they can call it SNELL variant B." It was the only way they could keep the SNELL brand alive across both halves of the transition.
"The Snell Helmet Standard is Meaningless"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76yu124i3Bo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76yu124i3Bo
The motorcycle helmet part of this comment is misleading. I can walk down the street to cycle gear and buy an ECE 22.06 rated helmet with MIPS. This is because ECE is a strict superset of DOT, so companies just sell the ECE version in the US with a DOT sticker added on. (I have spoken to the helmet companies about this directly - most respond to a quick email.)
It's not like ECE vs SNELL where the standards are incompatible.
It's not like ECE vs SNELL where the standards are incompatible.
Americans don't fully understand what a pain in the ass it is for people in other countries to buy whatever they want. They are always paying some additional amount, if it's even available.
Not really the case in at least Europe and the gulf states
I'm not sure it's the same as what GP is saying. Maybe anecdotal, but living in Italy I had a very hard time finding a lot of things. Even getting basic mail delivery was pretty difficult. Same with Spain, to varying degrees.
As another example, visiting the Netherlands, it would take a week to get a decent child car seat delivered last year.
Comparing with the US, it's night and day. I can order something at 6AM and it's at my doorstep by 10AM. And the number of goods that are offered at that speed is absolutely astonishing.
As a side note, what the US has done to the shopping experience may not be preferable when considering all related effects on the market, happiness, etc. But it certainly sets a very high bar if you are comparing to Europe.
EDIT: I almost forgot to mention that all of this magical instant delivery is free!
As another example, visiting the Netherlands, it would take a week to get a decent child car seat delivered last year.
Comparing with the US, it's night and day. I can order something at 6AM and it's at my doorstep by 10AM. And the number of goods that are offered at that speed is absolutely astonishing.
As a side note, what the US has done to the shopping experience may not be preferable when considering all related effects on the market, happiness, etc. But it certainly sets a very high bar if you are comparing to Europe.
EDIT: I almost forgot to mention that all of this magical instant delivery is free!
> Apparently ending the de minimus exemption is closing the grey market for e.g. sunscreen; places that used to sell Japanese sunscreens on American shelves no longer are.
Stylevana, where I go for my Japanese/Korean sunscreen and skincare, is still shipping to the US as far as I can tell.
Stylevana, where I go for my Japanese/Korean sunscreen and skincare, is still shipping to the US as far as I can tell.
Do they use Japan Post?
[deleted]
i appreciate you mentioning MIPS - i had no idea there was a new, better standard, and i'll definitely get one for my next helmet (motorcycle)
MIPS isn’t a standard, but an enhancement (and there is some argument that its benefits are overstated: e.g. you’ll get some beneficial slippage in your helmet if it isn’t as tight as possible, if you have hair, or if the thing you hit is more slippery than asphalt)
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45018181
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45018181
MIPS AB is actually a company, known for predatory patent lawsuits. They've used clever marketing to make MIPS the technology desireable and in my opinion totally unnecessary, or maybe even outright more dangerous for majority of bike riders.
MIPS is a technology, not a standard. There are other technologies for rotational trrauma protection.
The current best standard for consumers is ECE 22.06.
The current best standard for consumers is ECE 22.06.
The funny thing about MIPS is that it makes the same helmet safer, but it might have been a garbage helmet to begin with.
Throwing away your non-MIPS helmet and replacing it with a MIPS may be a safety-reducing decision, unless you’re buying the exact same model.
Throwing away your non-MIPS helmet and replacing it with a MIPS may be a safety-reducing decision, unless you’re buying the exact same model.
For anyone who wants more data, Virginia Tech runs a helmet impact testing lab and publishes results and rankings: https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle-helmet-ratings.html
If we used a similar methodology for testing cars, we’d be blasting watermelon heads from a cannon against windshields and sacks of potatoes against steering wheels.
We’d benefit from more realistic models. But I guess our helmets would then cost $500.
We’d benefit from more realistic models. But I guess our helmets would then cost $500.
Is the methodology that bad? What's wrong with it?
From their test protocol (https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/5e7...), it looks like they simulate a fall (with a model head inside it) against a target at an oblique angle, at six different impact locations and two speeds each. They go through 4 of each helmet model for the rest.
It seems a lot better than nothing (which is what we had before them, at least outside of manufacturers own private tests). Their research was initially funded by the IIHS, the group that does the highway crash tests.
How would you like to see it improved?
From their test protocol (https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/5e7...), it looks like they simulate a fall (with a model head inside it) against a target at an oblique angle, at six different impact locations and two speeds each. They go through 4 of each helmet model for the rest.
It seems a lot better than nothing (which is what we had before them, at least outside of manufacturers own private tests). Their research was initially funded by the IIHS, the group that does the highway crash tests.
How would you like to see it improved?
I think the obvious problems is that majority of riders actually have hair and from my experience the chin strap isn’t very very tightly strapped (you want to speak normally I suppose).
Hair gives you considerable slip area making the inner rotational liners redundant or maybe even too much.
Hair gives you considerable slip area making the inner rotational liners redundant or maybe even too much.
> from my experience the chin strap isn’t very very tightly strapped
Not on a motorcycle helmet! The double D ring system forces you to cinch it tight, and it does not restrict your jaw or make it hard to talk.
If you are experiencing this your helmet may be the wrong size. Most riders are picking helmets that are far too large.
Not on a motorcycle helmet! The double D ring system forces you to cinch it tight, and it does not restrict your jaw or make it hard to talk.
If you are experiencing this your helmet may be the wrong size. Most riders are picking helmets that are far too large.
I was talking about the bicycle helmets though, I should have been clearer.
Oh yeah, most bicycle helmets seem to be stuck 20 years in the past. I mostly use MTB or skate helmets instead.
Crash test dummy on a mechanized bicycle falling off/hitting stuff.
What does a good motorcycle helmet cost these days? I paid $500 for my then top of the line helmet circa 2010. Haven't ridden in over a decade but I'm surprised by the implication that helmets _don't_ cost $500.
You can get a very safe ECE 22.06 rated helmet for $100-150. The more expensive helmets are lighter, more comfortable, have cool designs, and nice stuff like transitions visors or Pinlock anti-fog, but aren't really any safer until you get into FIM fhpre-02 rated helmets for MotoGP racing. (fhpre-01 is functionally identical to ECE 22.06)
The days of having to shell out $600 for an Arai or Shoei for superior protection are past us.
The days of having to shell out $600 for an Arai or Shoei for superior protection are past us.
Wow. That's awesome! My helmet back in the day was indeed a Shoei. I don't recall for sure, but I don't think it was even the absolute most expensive model at the time, but it was about the cheapest helmet I felt comfortable trusting my life too.
De minimis makes no sense and the EU doesn't have it either - in fact they recently managed to even make the Chinese properly fill out the tax forms and in most cases prepay it.
> De minimis makes no sense and the EU doesn't have it either
You're conflating tax with tariffs here. EU does not have a de minimis rule for tax - you always pay tax on import - but it does have a 150 Euro de minimis rule for tariffs.
You're conflating tax with tariffs here. EU does not have a de minimis rule for tax - you always pay tax on import - but it does have a 150 Euro de minimis rule for tariffs.
I work for a company that owns three different helmet brands. All of them sell MIPS helmets on our US ecomm websites and have for years. In fact, one saved from what could have been a severe injury this spring (a car pulled in front of me while I was riding an electric scooter at speed).
You dont need to do anything special to get a MIPS helmet in the US.
You dont need to do anything special to get a MIPS helmet in the US.
Thanks for sharing info about MIPS, it looks great.
Short animation of how it works for anyone else who's unfamiliar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvyoSzAPIBE
Short animation of how it works for anyone else who's unfamiliar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvyoSzAPIBE
[deleted]
That's an interesting way to approach regulation.
This comment was very informative, thanks. It's really disappointing to see a seemingly new wave of people cheering on isolationism/protectionism.
Maybe some have valid concerns for certain products that we don't make ourselves (e.g. semiconductors) but Trump and his cronies are not the solution to that at all.
Maybe some have valid concerns for certain products that we don't make ourselves (e.g. semiconductors) but Trump and his cronies are not the solution to that at all.
Ignoring the massive political elephant that exists in all of this stuff -- isn't this a good trigger, as demand for the "updated standards" products will force these companies (or resellers of these products) to either validate their products for sale in the US or force the US to recognize these EU standards?
I suppose an immediate counterpoint is that the US Consumer seems unwilling to clamor for high-quality products. :/
I suppose an immediate counterpoint is that the US Consumer seems unwilling to clamor for high-quality products. :/
If motorcyclists had the power to demand common sense policy improvements, filtering would be legal everywhere, and cities would start adding PTW (powered two-wheels: motorbikes and e-bikes) lanes alongside the current acoustic bike lanes.
It's a relatively small constituency. Most politicians don't want to upset the status quo to advocate for them. A lot of non-riders have enough negative experience (hearing scary stories or being startled by delivery drivers working within the current system) to actively add friction to the conversation.
For instance, NYC's current chief-of-police is a nepobaby. Her mom is a high society type who is afraid of bicycles, so the police have been actively abd specifically harassing cyclists this year.
It's a relatively small constituency. Most politicians don't want to upset the status quo to advocate for them. A lot of non-riders have enough negative experience (hearing scary stories or being startled by delivery drivers working within the current system) to actively add friction to the conversation.
For instance, NYC's current chief-of-police is a nepobaby. Her mom is a high society type who is afraid of bicycles, so the police have been actively abd specifically harassing cyclists this year.
Yeah, after I posted (and disappointed a few people apparently) I was thinking about just how sticky this stuff really is, and how our political system is a "broad brush" system. It seems to muddle a lot of the smaller sensible details.
Thought-provoking for sure. I'm glad I ride in a filtering-legal state :)
Thought-provoking for sure. I'm glad I ride in a filtering-legal state :)
For sunscreen, they just make a separate less effective version for the US market. The market of people who would say "well, I won't buy sunscreen at all unless it's as good as foreign variants at blocking UV-A rays" is pretty small.
The real harm of the sunscreen thing is that the FDA being weirdly far behind the rest of the OECD at approving new agents means we're stuck with stuff that's a pain to apply and feels gross to wear. This harms health, because people will be less consistent about applying and re-applying when it takes more time than it might, and when the product feels nasty on the skin.
Many grey-market imported sunscreens apply in like 1/4 the time of US ones, feel like nothing at all once rubbed in, don't leave your hands feeling oily and like you need to scrub hard with soap and water right after applying, and have almost no odor. We're like decades behind on that tech, for reasons that I don't understand.
Many grey-market imported sunscreens apply in like 1/4 the time of US ones, feel like nothing at all once rubbed in, don't leave your hands feeling oily and like you need to scrub hard with soap and water right after applying, and have almost no odor. We're like decades behind on that tech, for reasons that I don't understand.
I don't understand the argument that it's bad that the government is suppressing grey markets in goods that aren't approved in the US.
I get it from a selfish point of view, as in I want a particular helmet and I think the design is safer, so I'm upset when I can't have it at the price I want it. I don't understand it as a political argument. If our government isn't meant to do anything, shut it down entirely. Don't have processes and subvert them so everybody can do what they want when they want.
Who would you vote for to get rules broken whenever they stop you from doing what you want, and why would anybody else vote for that person?
That being said, I deeply understand that the science and regulation around any sort of helmeting in the US (also in the case of motorcycles) is completely compromised by the people who sell helmets. The way you fix that is by fixing regulatory processes, not making rules easier to break for connected, smart, wealthy people. If you think fixing regulatory processes is an absurd, naïve impossibility, shut the government down and stop complaining about trivialities.
I get it from a selfish point of view, as in I want a particular helmet and I think the design is safer, so I'm upset when I can't have it at the price I want it. I don't understand it as a political argument. If our government isn't meant to do anything, shut it down entirely. Don't have processes and subvert them so everybody can do what they want when they want.
Who would you vote for to get rules broken whenever they stop you from doing what you want, and why would anybody else vote for that person?
That being said, I deeply understand that the science and regulation around any sort of helmeting in the US (also in the case of motorcycles) is completely compromised by the people who sell helmets. The way you fix that is by fixing regulatory processes, not making rules easier to break for connected, smart, wealthy people. If you think fixing regulatory processes is an absurd, naïve impossibility, shut the government down and stop complaining about trivialities.
The government can't solve for everything at all times. That's why free markets exist and are important. You could have the best most awesome helmet safety regulation get passed on Friday and have it completely blown up by a new discovery on Monday. How long will it take for regulators to catch up?
> The way you fix that is by fixing regulatory processes
Well, that kinda hand waves away a lot of the roadblocks you run into with government and elected officials. In an ideal world, yes, we have regulatory and legislative bodies that can react quickly and do the right thing everytime but that isn't reality.
> The way you fix that is by fixing regulatory processes
Well, that kinda hand waves away a lot of the roadblocks you run into with government and elected officials. In an ideal world, yes, we have regulatory and legislative bodies that can react quickly and do the right thing everytime but that isn't reality.
Two things are happening at the same time.
On the one hand, government is broken writ large. It's been dominated by politicians who care more about power than improvement for as long as I've been alive. The problem becomes worse and feels more intractable every year. I'm not convinced there's anything individuals can practically do to help resolve it. (Those in power would ruin your life if you actually did a good job at making the world better in a way that impinged on their power.)
On the other hand, technology is enabling rules to be enforced in a more automated way. You see this with speed cameras, and now also with these stricter shipping requirements.
These rules were written to have an exhaust valve: for speed limits, that's police discretion. For imports, that's the de minimus exemption. Nobody cares what individuals do; they care what markets do (which is part of why bans are usually bans on selling, not on owning).
I touched on this a little bit about self-driving cars the other day too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44987516
The ratcheting of rules into automated policy is dystopian.
On the one hand, government is broken writ large. It's been dominated by politicians who care more about power than improvement for as long as I've been alive. The problem becomes worse and feels more intractable every year. I'm not convinced there's anything individuals can practically do to help resolve it. (Those in power would ruin your life if you actually did a good job at making the world better in a way that impinged on their power.)
On the other hand, technology is enabling rules to be enforced in a more automated way. You see this with speed cameras, and now also with these stricter shipping requirements.
These rules were written to have an exhaust valve: for speed limits, that's police discretion. For imports, that's the de minimus exemption. Nobody cares what individuals do; they care what markets do (which is part of why bans are usually bans on selling, not on owning).
I touched on this a little bit about self-driving cars the other day too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44987516
The ratcheting of rules into automated policy is dystopian.
Grey markets aren't the same black markets. Ideally the government would be omniscient, efficient, and benevolent so that it could properly regulate things to the benefit of the masses, but in practice it government isn't very responsive and in many cases has to consider different viewpoints on an issue. Even worse, regulations usually create winners and losers in a way where even if it's beneficial to change the regulation, whoever would lose out will automatically be opposed to the change. Americans - mostly working and middle class, not wealthy - bought 50+ billions of dollars of goods imported this way last year. The American people have voted with their wallets but the government is not responsive to their desires in this case.
You can have either a free market or a market tightly controlled by a government plus all the cronyism that entails.
We generally refer to the latter option as "communism"
We generally refer to the latter option as "communism"
It's the price of uncertainty.
Business can plan for low tax or high tax regimes. Not so much when it's just "unknown".
Similar across Europe https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/25/postal-serv...
Business can plan for low tax or high tax regimes. Not so much when it's just "unknown".
Similar across Europe https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/25/postal-serv...
Main thing is uncle Donald gets his beloved chaos and unpredictability. God forbid anything could be predictable or knowable without his direct personal approval. After an appropriate tribute, of course.
I was wondering how this would affect the programmer that was sending people Japanese candy packages back in the day, but apparently they shut it down already due to postal restrictions and related increases in postal rates during Covid. Now I'm curious who survived that but is shutting down due to this.
This was always a completely insane loophole that the item on Amazon was much more expensive than the exact same item on Temu.
Austria, too. I know somebody working there in mid-management. They say the don't care about high or low taxes on the parcels they transport, but they need a straight forward way to execute, and there just is none.
This is the issue for postal systems.
In every country in the world, you could send a package by post and the receiving country’s customs will assess duty/taxes/admin fees and charge the recipient as the default procedure.
As of later this week, the US will not do that procedure (or allegedly charge some absurd flat rate, like $50-$200 on even a $1 package).
Sending postal systems don’t want to deal with the aftermath of rejected/refused packages. And it’s unknown if US Customs and US Postal Service is even capable of charging that flat rate anyway.
In every country in the world, you could send a package by post and the receiving country’s customs will assess duty/taxes/admin fees and charge the recipient as the default procedure.
As of later this week, the US will not do that procedure (or allegedly charge some absurd flat rate, like $50-$200 on even a $1 package).
Sending postal systems don’t want to deal with the aftermath of rejected/refused packages. And it’s unknown if US Customs and US Postal Service is even capable of charging that flat rate anyway.
In the EU a flat fee was introduced to deal with the workload and a system to send predeclared items.
The difference is that it was communicated well in advance without any uncertainty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_One-Stop_Shop
The difference is that it was communicated well in advance without any uncertainty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_One-Stop_Shop
It’s not a flat fee though, it’s the VAT rate and an admin fee if you don’t go the IOSS route.
When I sent an unpaid item, I think I paid 5 EUR/pkg for processing to France customs on top of VAT because I paid online after France assessed it, but before delivery.
US is saying any parcel arriving without duty paid would be charged $80-$200 flat fee solely depending on which tariff rate applies. IE, from a “bad” country, a $1 item could have a $200 fee. Or as low as a bargain or $80.
They’re basically treating every parcel like it’s work $800 item.
https://www.valueaddedresource.net/trump-ends-de-minimis-exe...
Anecdotally, many Canadian shippers have reported that China item containing parcels have just been getting returned to sender. No American has received a bill at the door for postal imports.
When I sent an unpaid item, I think I paid 5 EUR/pkg for processing to France customs on top of VAT because I paid online after France assessed it, but before delivery.
US is saying any parcel arriving without duty paid would be charged $80-$200 flat fee solely depending on which tariff rate applies. IE, from a “bad” country, a $1 item could have a $200 fee. Or as low as a bargain or $80.
They’re basically treating every parcel like it’s work $800 item.
https://www.valueaddedresource.net/trump-ends-de-minimis-exe...
Anecdotally, many Canadian shippers have reported that China item containing parcels have just been getting returned to sender. No American has received a bill at the door for postal imports.
Unless they're declared as gift <$100 or sent via Express.
Americans going to be receiving a lot of $99 gifts!
India has done the same as well
https://www.business-standard.com/immigration/india-post-sus...
https://www.business-standard.com/immigration/india-post-sus...
And several European countries: https://apnews.com/article/us-tariffs-goods-services-suspens...
DHL's announcement
"Temporary restrictions on postal goods shipping to the U.S. for private and business customers"
https://group.dhl.com/en/media-relations/press-releases/2025...
"Temporary restrictions on postal goods shipping to the U.S. for private and business customers"
https://group.dhl.com/en/media-relations/press-releases/2025...
I looked it up. Sending a regular smallish package (2 kg, 35 x 25 x 10 cm, think small laptop) from Germany to NYC is about 25 EUR, now only available for gifts under 100 EUR. Sending it as express, which is what businesses now apparently have to do, is about 80 EUR.
Switzerland as well:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/trade-policy/swiss-post-tempora...
So does any other shipper (UPS? Fedex?) allow shipments from India?
Yes, but you won’t like the pricing.
Is this to help private shipping companies like FedEx and UPS? Sometimes you have to do something even if it’s expensive
Australia too
[deleted]
And New Zealand
As did Thailand
This needs to be repeated. Tariffs are a tax on ordinary citizens. Unlike regular taxes, tariffs are not progressive and therefore benefit the wealthy.
These are the sort of things the poor and middle class voted for. To make the rich, richer. And then turn around and complain that rich are getting richer and they are getting poorer.
These are the sort of things the poor and middle class voted for. To make the rich, richer. And then turn around and complain that rich are getting richer and they are getting poorer.
I'm sure Japan, and other countries doing similar things, don't like the tariffs either. Hopefully actions like this will change voter behavior, either at the polls or to embolden voters to do whatever it is they can to tell their elected officials to revert these changes. Maybe this is a drop in the bucket, but on the other hand, maybe Japan doesn't want to/can't make a bigger a splash.
In any case, it is rare that Americans face consequences for bad behavior of American foreign policy. Hopefully Americans get more engaged and introspective this time around.
In any case, it is rare that Americans face consequences for bad behavior of American foreign policy. Hopefully Americans get more engaged and introspective this time around.
> Hopefully actions like this will change voter behavior
It won't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr...
It won't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr...
[deleted]
[deleted]
They're not nearly as bad as income tax which would have to be raised if we didn't do tariffs.
At least tariffs tax consumption rather than production. Taxing production/income is horribly evil and in better times (such as when the country was founded) people who insisted on it would have been shot.
At least tariffs tax consumption rather than production. Taxing production/income is horribly evil and in better times (such as when the country was founded) people who insisted on it would have been shot.
> At least tariffs tax consumption rather than production. Taxing production/income is horribly evil and in better times (such as when the country was founded) people who insisted on it would have been shot.
Not true. Producing almost anything in the material world requires raw materials. If any of them are imported, they suffer from tariffs.
IMO, if a consumption tax is what you're looking for, then value added tax (VAT) is a more suitable solution.
Not true. Producing almost anything in the material world requires raw materials. If any of them are imported, they suffer from tariffs.
IMO, if a consumption tax is what you're looking for, then value added tax (VAT) is a more suitable solution.
[deleted]
os2warpman(2)
gosub100(5)
> This needs to be repeated. Tariffs are a tax on ordinary citizens. Unlike regular taxes, tariffs are not progressive and therefore benefit the wealthy.
No, people need to stop repeating it, because it's an extremely stupid anti-tax argument. Tariffs are meant to onshore production and raise wages. Telling half the story is simply lying. You might as well complain about buying food because it costs money. You might as well complain about all consumption because consumption is regressive.
The problem isn't tariffs, you can send that money to poor people. The problem is that nobody cares about poor people, including Trump. A lack of tariffs isn't going to make America moral.
One of the only things Trump is doing unbelievably well on is trade. Tariffs haven't been damaging at all. They should be more damaging, but the US is so dependent on foreign poverty that we have to leave any tariff scheme as filled with holes as swiss cheese. The fact is our manufacturing is so based in the exploitation of low-rights and low paid workers from other countries that entire industries would immediately start failing if we ended up in a real trade war with e.g. China.
> To make the rich, richer. And then turn around and complain that rich are getting richer and they are getting poorer.
These are Koch brothers policies you're advocating as if they're social justice. The reason why every capitalist you know is complaining about tariffs isn't because they make the rich richer (by some method yet to be explained.)
No, people need to stop repeating it, because it's an extremely stupid anti-tax argument. Tariffs are meant to onshore production and raise wages. Telling half the story is simply lying. You might as well complain about buying food because it costs money. You might as well complain about all consumption because consumption is regressive.
The problem isn't tariffs, you can send that money to poor people. The problem is that nobody cares about poor people, including Trump. A lack of tariffs isn't going to make America moral.
One of the only things Trump is doing unbelievably well on is trade. Tariffs haven't been damaging at all. They should be more damaging, but the US is so dependent on foreign poverty that we have to leave any tariff scheme as filled with holes as swiss cheese. The fact is our manufacturing is so based in the exploitation of low-rights and low paid workers from other countries that entire industries would immediately start failing if we ended up in a real trade war with e.g. China.
> To make the rich, richer. And then turn around and complain that rich are getting richer and they are getting poorer.
These are Koch brothers policies you're advocating as if they're social justice. The reason why every capitalist you know is complaining about tariffs isn't because they make the rich richer (by some method yet to be explained.)
Details matter. Tariffs CAN promote domestic manufacturing and raise wages. But a few things need to be true for that to happen:
1. Targeted specific tariffs aimed at industries we want to protect. Not a flat across the board tariffs on all / most things coming in. The latter IS just a tax on the consumer.
2. Other policies aimed at promoting the said industries. e.g. CHIPS act.
3. Consistency, predictability and stability of policies. No one is going to move manufacturing to the US if they aren't sure if tariffs are going up or down or will get removed entirely on short notice at a whim.
We have none of the above.
1. Targeted specific tariffs aimed at industries we want to protect. Not a flat across the board tariffs on all / most things coming in. The latter IS just a tax on the consumer.
2. Other policies aimed at promoting the said industries. e.g. CHIPS act.
3. Consistency, predictability and stability of policies. No one is going to move manufacturing to the US if they aren't sure if tariffs are going up or down or will get removed entirely on short notice at a whim.
We have none of the above.
I’d hold judgement on that. The American empire is built on global trade. We tax the world with the dollar, and we’re killing the golden goose.
> reason why every capitalist you know is complaining about tariffs isn't because they make the rich richer
…which capitalist is complaining? These tariffs are a regressive tax that rewards political proximity and power. They are also a massive subsidy to our services sector, which is dominated in compensation by finance, insurance, real estate and tech.
…which capitalist is complaining? These tariffs are a regressive tax that rewards political proximity and power. They are also a massive subsidy to our services sector, which is dominated in compensation by finance, insurance, real estate and tech.
> Tariffs are meant to onshore production and raise wages.
Both of which would still lead to higher prices on the consumer.
> One of the only things Trump is doing unbelievably well on is trade. Tariffs haven't been damaging at all.
I don't know whether to laugh at the absurdity of this statement or to cry because someone could actually say it with a straight face.
Both of which would still lead to higher prices on the consumer.
> One of the only things Trump is doing unbelievably well on is trade. Tariffs haven't been damaging at all.
I don't know whether to laugh at the absurdity of this statement or to cry because someone could actually say it with a straight face.
Using tariffs is A common way to protect local industry. However it is a dangerous weapon, which has downsides. In history tariffs have show to lead to high prices on the domestic market and products which are subpar to globally standards. Domestic companies don't have pressure to innovate, while global market has more competition.
Consequence of that is protection by product group for key products one wants to have locally and not per origin on all kinds of goods.
This can lead to short term wins, but backfire after a while.
Consequence of that is protection by product group for key products one wants to have locally and not per origin on all kinds of goods.
This can lead to short term wins, but backfire after a while.
Tariffs based on worker and environmental rights would be great, but Trump's are based on entirely irrelevant things.
Do you think that cigarette taxes should be repealed then?
If I were to pick a place to tax, the addictive, harmful substances seem like a good option. But that’s easy for me to say because I don’t smoke. I do like sugar though. Imagine the impact on our health if there were a sugar tax.
There is in some places. California has a hefty sugary-beverage tax, for example. I'm intuitively "for" things like this, but I'm curious if it's been long enough that we've been able to collect data showing any effects.
The UK sugary drink tax caused a reduction in sugar consumption, and reduced obesity and dental problems in children.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/09/uk-...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/09/uk-...
[deleted]
This is not whataboutism. The argument described in GGP would apply the same way to GP's case. Cigarette taxes are a sales/consumption tax (specifically one aimed at discouraging consumption, but cigarettes are addictive) and they are necessarily, inherently regressive, for the simple reason that people with orders of magnitude more income and wealth cannot feasibly spend proportionately more on cigarettes.
It's bringing up an entirely unrelated topic as some sort of "gotcha". Cigarette taxes were not part of the GGP's comment. I.e. a red herring
> The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified.
> The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified.
> It's bringing up an entirely unrelated topic as some sort of "gotcha"
Expecting people to be consistent, and treat similar situations similarly, is not a "gotcha". Challenges like this are raised exactly to hold people to their own standards and question whether they are really okay with the consequences of what they just said.
The topic described is not at all "entirely unrelated". There is a clear natural category which encompasses both tariffs and cigarette taxes.
Expecting people to be consistent, and treat similar situations similarly, is not a "gotcha". Challenges like this are raised exactly to hold people to their own standards and question whether they are really okay with the consequences of what they just said.
The topic described is not at all "entirely unrelated". There is a clear natural category which encompasses both tariffs and cigarette taxes.
No, it’s not whataboutism. The original comment made a single argument: regressive taxes are bad. I provided a counter example: the cigarette tax is an example of a regressive tax that is good. This invalidates their argument. That doesn’t mean their position on tariffs is wrong, but they’ve provided an insufficient argument to support their viewpoint. There’s also an implicit corollary that they don’t fully understand tariffs if this is their position.
Whataboutism would be something like someone from the US arguing that China’s treatment of Uyghurs is bad, and someone from China countering with “well, what about America’s treatment of Native Americans?” The Native American argument isn’t a counter example of the Uyghur argument. Both positions can be true. It’s unrelated. That’s not the case here. You can’t be anti-tariff purely because it’s a regressive tax and also be pro-cigarette tax.
Whataboutism would be something like someone from the US arguing that China’s treatment of Uyghurs is bad, and someone from China countering with “well, what about America’s treatment of Native Americans?” The Native American argument isn’t a counter example of the Uyghur argument. Both positions can be true. It’s unrelated. That’s not the case here. You can’t be anti-tariff purely because it’s a regressive tax and also be pro-cigarette tax.
That’s not Whataboutism. Cigarette taxes are excise taxes, very similar to tariffs, and often implemented to encourage behavior by raising commodity cost.
In the case of cigarettes and alcohol they are partially “sin taxes” to discourage negative behavior.
In the case of the Trump emergency tariffs, they are seeking to pivot the entire economy.
So there’s a nuance and multiple ways to look at it. If you’re GM, the ability to make better margins on shitty cars is a net positive. If you’re in the technology or medical field, well, you’re fucked.
In the case of cigarettes and alcohol they are partially “sin taxes” to discourage negative behavior.
In the case of the Trump emergency tariffs, they are seeking to pivot the entire economy.
So there’s a nuance and multiple ways to look at it. If you’re GM, the ability to make better margins on shitty cars is a net positive. If you’re in the technology or medical field, well, you’re fucked.
I think it's quite the opposite. Tariffs are flat taxes on corporations AND can't be avoided with the tax shenanigans all big corporations use and many small ones can't. Implementation and motivation details aside I'm in favor of small tariffs for all but the most equal trade partners.
Corporate taxes have the problem of small business paying much more proportionally than large ones and a flat tax on businesses that rely on cheap foreign labor and goods is deserved.
Trump doesn't get to define all of my opinions by me needing to oppose exactly everything he's done.
The problem with the current political situation is the establishment in both parties w were too cowardly or useless to address real problems which are now actually being addressed by objectively stupid fascists.
And that is the lesson to everyone, get stuff done or get replaced by awful people doing awful things.
Corporate taxes have the problem of small business paying much more proportionally than large ones and a flat tax on businesses that rely on cheap foreign labor and goods is deserved.
Trump doesn't get to define all of my opinions by me needing to oppose exactly everything he's done.
The problem with the current political situation is the establishment in both parties w were too cowardly or useless to address real problems which are now actually being addressed by objectively stupid fascists.
And that is the lesson to everyone, get stuff done or get replaced by awful people doing awful things.
>Tariffs are flat taxes on corporations
The OP said tariffs are not progressive taxes. You are agreeing with them while believing you are disagreeing.
Further tariffs are not specific to corporations. Individuals pay them. Small business pay them. Large businesses pay them.
The OP said tariffs are not progressive taxes. You are agreeing with them while believing you are disagreeing.
Further tariffs are not specific to corporations. Individuals pay them. Small business pay them. Large businesses pay them.
Then you would agree that all corporate taxes are not progressive and are eventually paid by all consumers thus all corporate taxes should be abolished.
Corporate taxes are paid on profit. In theory they should not change consumer pricing in a perfect market. They can be seen as a tool to encourage companies to spend more on R&D and capital investment rather than returning profit.
I recall my left leaning economics professor arguing for the abolition of corporate taxes along similar lines actually. You don't really deserve the downvotes other than perhaps for the aggressive tone.
(I'm not committing myself to the idea, only that it isn't obviously outside the norms of economic thought)
(I'm not committing myself to the idea, only that it isn't obviously outside the norms of economic thought)
In the long run, tariffs basically all fall on the consumer because producer and distributor behavior is near infinitely elastic. Econ 101 predicts that the party who is less able to adjust behavior in reaction to the tax pays most of the tax.
In the short run, this isn't true: firms have goods they need to move.
In the short run, this isn't true: firms have goods they need to move.
This model predicts much higher prices overall than actually observed, especially on the goods deemed most essential (like food). There are many reasons that companies cannot simply charge "what the market will bear".
You’re mixing up two different questions. "What the market will bear" is a monopoly pricing story.
Food is messy because it's a commodity with a whole lot of substitution-- consumers have a high elasticity as a result.
We are talking about elasticity's prediction for the share producers and consumers each pay when there is a cost structure or tax change. Incidence theory is well validated and fits observed evidence remarkably well, including in 2019 studies of the effects of the 2018 trade war.
Food is messy because it's a commodity with a whole lot of substitution-- consumers have a high elasticity as a result.
We are talking about elasticity's prediction for the share producers and consumers each pay when there is a cost structure or tax change. Incidence theory is well validated and fits observed evidence remarkably well, including in 2019 studies of the effects of the 2018 trade war.
We are in a world economy which actually needs demand more than supply. This is your missing analysis.
"We need demand more than supply" is a macro diagnosis.
But tariff incidence is a micro question. Elasticity analysis doesn’t care whether the world has a demand shortfall or a supply glut. It asks: when a tax raises transaction costs, which side is less able to change behavior? In the long run, suppliers usually have more flexibility than consumers.
But tariff incidence is a micro question. Elasticity analysis doesn’t care whether the world has a demand shortfall or a supply glut. It asks: when a tax raises transaction costs, which side is less able to change behavior? In the long run, suppliers usually have more flexibility than consumers.
I can't believe I'm going to look like I'm defending this but here it goes:
The market 'offering' the most demand to the global economy right now is America, by far and away, with a distant second of Europe and Middle East. America has chosen to use tariffs in an attempt to 'tax the demand offered' to the global economy in order to stop the localize debt accumulation of that demand, along with other justifications (rightly or wrongly) of stabilizing global trade and currency.
This is at least the THEORY on Tariffs. Its makes a bit more sense than the 'grrr 1950's trade imbalance' story media keeps spinning, but whatever I'm not going to defend it any more than that.
The market 'offering' the most demand to the global economy right now is America, by far and away, with a distant second of Europe and Middle East. America has chosen to use tariffs in an attempt to 'tax the demand offered' to the global economy in order to stop the localize debt accumulation of that demand, along with other justifications (rightly or wrongly) of stabilizing global trade and currency.
This is at least the THEORY on Tariffs. Its makes a bit more sense than the 'grrr 1950's trade imbalance' story media keeps spinning, but whatever I'm not going to defend it any more than that.
I'm not talking about trade imbalance. I'm simply saying, tax incidence is predicted by elasticity, and in the long run suppliers have very high elasticity.
You can possibly improve trade imbalance with tariffs (though retaliation makes it hard). But it's hard to escape your consumers paying most or all of the costs of those tariffs.
You can possibly improve trade imbalance with tariffs (though retaliation makes it hard). But it's hard to escape your consumers paying most or all of the costs of those tariffs.
I think we agree if I'm understanding you correctly, yes the Suppliers have more elasticity and must ultimately absorb this.
I'd say the remaining problem left in our analysis is massive inequality in America leading to enormous consumer elasticity in a small ultra-wealth portion. This I can't figure out
I'd say the remaining problem left in our analysis is massive inequality in America leading to enormous consumer elasticity in a small ultra-wealth portion. This I can't figure out
That's the opposite of how tax incidence works.
Elasticity means you can change your amount produced in response to changes in price.
Producers can’t easily change output, so they bear more of the tax burden themselves. But in the long run, producers can reallocate or exit until they’re producing at minimum(average total cost), which makes supply more elastic and shifts most of the burden onto consumers.
This is stuff that's covered in week 4 of a basic microeconomics class. It gets a little fancier with imperfect competition or heterogenous agents, etc, but predicting tax incidence is basically dominated by this even in advanced microeconomics.
Elasticity means you can change your amount produced in response to changes in price.
Producers can’t easily change output, so they bear more of the tax burden themselves. But in the long run, producers can reallocate or exit until they’re producing at minimum(average total cost), which makes supply more elastic and shifts most of the burden onto consumers.
This is stuff that's covered in week 4 of a basic microeconomics class. It gets a little fancier with imperfect competition or heterogenous agents, etc, but predicting tax incidence is basically dominated by this even in advanced microeconomics.
Sure ok. You’re being weirdly belligerent.
You came here in your first comment blindly disagreeing with "This is your missing analysis."
Then you seemed determined to misunderstand, e.g.
> > But it's hard to escape your consumers paying most or all of the costs of those tariffs.
> I think we agree if I'm understanding you correctly, yes the Suppliers have more elasticity and must ultimately absorb this.
This is really simple fundamental microeconomics stuff. If you want to understand it, there's plenty of sources online. If you want to argue it, you should learn the basics first.
Then you seemed determined to misunderstand, e.g.
> > But it's hard to escape your consumers paying most or all of the costs of those tariffs.
> I think we agree if I'm understanding you correctly, yes the Suppliers have more elasticity and must ultimately absorb this.
This is really simple fundamental microeconomics stuff. If you want to understand it, there's plenty of sources online. If you want to argue it, you should learn the basics first.
Literally not arguing with you, asked a few questions and made open statements and tried to listen. Consider if you see everyone around you as the asshole who the asshole might be...
> The problem with the current political situation is the establishment in both parties w were too cowardly or useless to address real problems which are now actually being addressed by objectively stupid fascists.
> And that is the lesson to everyone, get stuff done or get replaced by awful people doing awful things.
I don't think that the establishment who benefitted from the status quo actually cares nearly as much as they pretend to while the poor and eroding middle class bear the brunt of the suffering. I doubt rich reagonites and clintonites who made a killing off of deregulation and cheap overseas labour have many regrets.
> And that is the lesson to everyone, get stuff done or get replaced by awful people doing awful things.
I don't think that the establishment who benefitted from the status quo actually cares nearly as much as they pretend to while the poor and eroding middle class bear the brunt of the suffering. I doubt rich reagonites and clintonites who made a killing off of deregulation and cheap overseas labour have many regrets.
WSJ had a nice article on this today:
https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/taxes/corporate-income-...
Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them on to their customers: us.
And applying tariffs to tools and raw materials when you're supposed to be trying to bring manufacturing back to your country is... well, let's just say any government stupid enough to do that isn't likely to improve things in any other respect.
And applying tariffs to tools and raw materials when you're supposed to be trying to bring manufacturing back to your country is... well, let's just say any government stupid enough to do that isn't likely to improve things in any other respect.
Invisible hand forces prices down.
If tarrifs on imported goods are high then people choose non imported goods (which might be substitutes for goods which can’t be made in America) as there are no tarrifs.
They are dangerous though. If country A stops selling to US it sells cheaper to other countries. It also stops importing from the US (and chooses subsidies).
Overall everyone loses out - at least in theory, as everyone uses worse substitutes.
If tarrifs on imported goods are high then people choose non imported goods (which might be substitutes for goods which can’t be made in America) as there are no tarrifs.
They are dangerous though. If country A stops selling to US it sells cheaper to other countries. It also stops importing from the US (and chooses subsidies).
Overall everyone loses out - at least in theory, as everyone uses worse substitutes.
If non imported goods were price competitive with imported goods then tariffs won't be needed in the first place. Tariff's are there for artificially force imported good to be more expensive so the previous more expensive domestically produced products become price competitive.
And if the tariff is set too high domestic goods will become more expensive as well as there'd be no reason for a domestic manufacturer to charge substantially less than the price of the imported goods.
Two domestic manufacturers compete to get more customers by reducing prices, price trends to cost.
All tarrifs do is remove foreign competition who have lower costs for a variety of reasons, some which benefit the country imposing the tariff, some not.
Neoliberal approach is to always require the cheapest goods, no matter the cost. That’s not the only approach.
All tarrifs do is remove foreign competition who have lower costs for a variety of reasons, some which benefit the country imposing the tariff, some not.
Neoliberal approach is to always require the cheapest goods, no matter the cost. That’s not the only approach.
Right because removing competition generally reduce prices overall? Even if domestic producer compete with each other, prices still go up overall.
Two domestic manufacturers compete to get more customers by reducing prices
Which is hard to do when the idiots in charge place tariffs on the raw materials that both manufacturers rely on.
That wasn't my first clue that a rational and charitable interpretation of the Trump tariffs doesn't exist, but it was a big one.
Which is hard to do when the idiots in charge place tariffs on the raw materials that both manufacturers rely on.
That wasn't my first clue that a rational and charitable interpretation of the Trump tariffs doesn't exist, but it was a big one.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Everyone has been repeating this for months but inflation remains relatively normal so prices are not rising. Maybe it's a delayed effect that we won't see until later in the year, but at this point it is a theory and far from a fact, not something that needs to be repeated.
We have already observed that the opposite does not hold - in 2017 we slashed corporate income tax by 14% across the board, roughly the same as the tariffs but with far more surface area, and yet prices did not react and the benefits were not passed along to the consumer.
All we _know_ right now is that this is going to negatively impact economic growth by hitting corporations, the same way slashing corporate income tax positively impacted economic growth by benefitting corporations.
We have already observed that the opposite does not hold - in 2017 we slashed corporate income tax by 14% across the board, roughly the same as the tariffs but with far more surface area, and yet prices did not react and the benefits were not passed along to the consumer.
All we _know_ right now is that this is going to negatively impact economic growth by hitting corporations, the same way slashing corporate income tax positively impacted economic growth by benefitting corporations.
Tariffs don't inherently cause inflation.
The noise about inflation is very likely propaganda trying to focus people on something that the government can control. (Yet, it looks like the US government is giving up on controlling it.)
Instead, tariffs have complex effects on the real economy. Universal tariffs do cause the concentration of wealth the GP was talking about (but it's way worse than the GP's claim) and deindustrialization. Inflation may or may not happen, it's not a given.
The noise about inflation is very likely propaganda trying to focus people on something that the government can control. (Yet, it looks like the US government is giving up on controlling it.)
Instead, tariffs have complex effects on the real economy. Universal tariffs do cause the concentration of wealth the GP was talking about (but it's way worse than the GP's claim) and deindustrialization. Inflation may or may not happen, it's not a given.
Companies have reserves, local stock etc.
Fixed prices are a bet on TACO and hoping to avoid the orange rage: see what happens when you blame price increases on tariffs.
Lots and lots of bribes have been paid. This is yet another.
Fixed prices are a bet on TACO and hoping to avoid the orange rage: see what happens when you blame price increases on tariffs.
Lots and lots of bribes have been paid. This is yet another.
We will definitely see but it's still a theory at this point, and one that has not played out the other way in the past with a reduction on corporate tax _across the board_
> Fixed prices are a bet on TACO
Having been part of some of these conversations it's mostly a bet that democrats will win back control sometime in the next decade and do a full reversal. When that happens, you don't want to be caught out with less market share because you adjusted your prices to maintain your bottom line. Same logic as startups burning VC cash on offering free compute, 80% discounts on tokens, etc. to grab market share.
If you're in an elastic market, your priority is not to maximize profit, it's to make the market inelastic.
> Fixed prices are a bet on TACO
Having been part of some of these conversations it's mostly a bet that democrats will win back control sometime in the next decade and do a full reversal. When that happens, you don't want to be caught out with less market share because you adjusted your prices to maintain your bottom line. Same logic as startups burning VC cash on offering free compute, 80% discounts on tokens, etc. to grab market share.
If you're in an elastic market, your priority is not to maximize profit, it's to make the market inelastic.
It's not a theory -- every business that imports product from international sellers is staring at their current import prices and their remaining pre-tariff inventory numbers right now. (See the huge import volume burst pre-tariffs)
What they're trying to decide is (a) do they eat the cost of tariffs in margin or (b) do they raise prices?
That's a decision that doesn't need to be made until they burn through warehoused inventory, but for high-volume businesses (read: retail) it's measured in months at most.
Once that hits, either (a) or (b) will be chosen, and neither is great for equities markets / the economy.
Moreover, there's no "hiding this under the rug" once publicly traded companies begin to report quarterly financial results AFTER burning through their pre-tariff inventory. They can't not explain to their shareholders why they've taken a hit to profitability.
Best possible case is retail prices rise, once, by the amount of tariffs, and that's that.
But a 15%+ price hike is going to be an uncomfortable narrative for those in power who insist tariffs won't raise prices... so I'm not betting that conversation goes logically.*
* See the reaction part of Amazon got when they "accidentally" line-itemed tariff charges as evidence on how dangerous the administration sees transparency around tariff costs
What they're trying to decide is (a) do they eat the cost of tariffs in margin or (b) do they raise prices?
That's a decision that doesn't need to be made until they burn through warehoused inventory, but for high-volume businesses (read: retail) it's measured in months at most.
Once that hits, either (a) or (b) will be chosen, and neither is great for equities markets / the economy.
Moreover, there's no "hiding this under the rug" once publicly traded companies begin to report quarterly financial results AFTER burning through their pre-tariff inventory. They can't not explain to their shareholders why they've taken a hit to profitability.
Best possible case is retail prices rise, once, by the amount of tariffs, and that's that.
But a 15%+ price hike is going to be an uncomfortable narrative for those in power who insist tariffs won't raise prices... so I'm not betting that conversation goes logically.*
* See the reaction part of Amazon got when they "accidentally" line-itemed tariff charges as evidence on how dangerous the administration sees transparency around tariff costs
> But a 15%+ price hike is going to be an uncomfortable narrative for those in power who insist tariffs won't raise prices... so I'm not betting that conversation goes logically.
As someone selling on eBay from notUSA, the cost increases won’t just be the tariff, but some additional fixed and variable fee for the privilege of determining the tariff and potential loss of the cheapest shipping options.
Friction begets friction!
As someone selling on eBay from notUSA, the cost increases won’t just be the tariff, but some additional fixed and variable fee for the privilege of determining the tariff and potential loss of the cheapest shipping options.
Friction begets friction!
I don’t think anyone here has yet come to the realization that ending rampant consumerism is the whole damn point of the tariffs.
No, that's surely not the point of tariffs. Maybe a silver lining, but for sure not the intention.
According to who? That's not the most common justification provided for them, the more common refrain a bag full of lies about what a tariff is and what a trade deficit is.
The "point" of the tariffs is that Trump likes tariffs. There's nothing more to it than that.
Why cut off your thinking there? I can think of many reasons why he would like tariffs. Two off the bat:
- Allows claiming various benefits like onshoring production, or reduced taxes. This is for the voters.
- Allows threatening other countries' industries with tariffs unless they invest in his friends' enterprises. This is for him.
- Allows claiming various benefits like onshoring production, or reduced taxes. This is for the voters.
- Allows threatening other countries' industries with tariffs unless they invest in his friends' enterprises. This is for him.
Yeah gilding the Oval Office really drives the message home.
“Trump calmly reminds nation that desire is the truth of all suffering” - Onion
“Trump calmly reminds nation that desire is the truth of all suffering” - Onion
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
My brain just leaked out of my ear.
This is a ridiculous attempt at sanewashing. When has Trump or anyone in the GOP EVER stated that they want to end consumerism?
Pretty dishonest. There is nothing about curbing consumerism there. Just telling people that they will HAVE TO buy less if consumer prices increase, in order to hurt China.
Trump effectively saying "deal with it, you'll live" is not even remotely evidence that the primary goal is ending rampant consumerism.
Just… stop.
Just… stop.
Lol, are you serious? Can you elaborate on your thinking here? Are you suggesting Trump imposed tariffs out of some altruistic goal of reducing waste or the social impacts of consumerism?? That can't be right. What is the motivation in your mind?
ActorNightly(2)
> These are the sort of things the poor and middle class voted for. To make the rich, richer.
Experts show saving 7.1337% at Walmart is worth losing your job to offshoring!
I haven't seen meaningful change for poor or workers with a decade of Democrat policy, so pardon me while I ignore that and vote for some tariffs.
Experts show saving 7.1337% at Walmart is worth losing your job to offshoring!
I haven't seen meaningful change for poor or workers with a decade of Democrat policy, so pardon me while I ignore that and vote for some tariffs.
Tariffs like this is a market regulation that the people pays for.
It doesn't "benefit the wealthy" because it's not progressive, it benefits the wealthy that have investments in the tariffed industry by distorting the market to their advantage instead of having to be competitive on a level playing field.
The rest of the wealthy are equally annoyed by the tariffs as everyone else, possibly more so as they see their investments tank.
It doesn't "benefit the wealthy" because it's not progressive, it benefits the wealthy that have investments in the tariffed industry by distorting the market to their advantage instead of having to be competitive on a level playing field.
The rest of the wealthy are equally annoyed by the tariffs as everyone else, possibly more so as they see their investments tank.
It benefits the wealthy by applying to a smaller percentage of their spending. You can easily avoid all tariffs on a 100 million dollar yacht built outside the US, and you don’t pay it for a personal chef etc.
Best part is, I don’t even have to pay it on the work of the personal chef I import!
Most wealthy people are not billionaire wealthy.
Billionaire wealthy pretty much manage to avoid all taxation, progressive or not, so the comparison is moot. They just trample on everyone else.
Billionaire wealthy pretty much manage to avoid all taxation, progressive or not, so the comparison is moot. They just trample on everyone else.
Billionaires still pay property taxes etc so it’s worth separating how regressive various tax schemes are.
They don't really. They misreport the value for tax purposes, they own it through some other legal entity that is all negative, they own it through a company that negotiated tax rates to have some other business happen there, they own it in countries that don't to property taxes, etc. etc.
You can be damn sure they're paying at most a tiny fraction if not zero of any tax rate you'd be paying for that asset as they'd much rather pay very good lawyers, accountants, and most importantly, politicians to not have to pay tax.
You don't need progressive taxes. You just need everyone to pay it equally, without loopholes. Fewer less complicated tax rates are harder to work around.
You can be damn sure they're paying at most a tiny fraction if not zero of any tax rate you'd be paying for that asset as they'd much rather pay very good lawyers, accountants, and most importantly, politicians to not have to pay tax.
You don't need progressive taxes. You just need everyone to pay it equally, without loopholes. Fewer less complicated tax rates are harder to work around.
> They misreport the value for tax purposes
Regular people also commit fraud which can make some differences here. But in general it’s the state who decides what something is worth for tax purposes not the individual.
> they own it through some other legal entity that is all negative
Unpaid property taxes result in forfeiture, so again the state’s getting paid here. It’s financial voodoo around other taxes which causes such structures.
> they own it in countries that don't to property taxes
So do regular people, the important bit is where such property is located not who owns it.
Regular people also commit fraud which can make some differences here. But in general it’s the state who decides what something is worth for tax purposes not the individual.
> they own it through some other legal entity that is all negative
Unpaid property taxes result in forfeiture, so again the state’s getting paid here. It’s financial voodoo around other taxes which causes such structures.
> they own it in countries that don't to property taxes
So do regular people, the important bit is where such property is located not who owns it.
> Regular people also commit fraud which can make some differences here.
Yeah, but it's hard for a regular person to under/overreport a property by, say, 200 million USD, and most people do not have the power to negotiate with or bribe municipalities to get different tax treatment like big companies and the rich people owning them do.
> Unpaid property taxes result in forfeiture
Avoided taxes are not unpaid taxes - we're not speaking of people on the run from debt collectors, but people who cheat their way out of having to pay anything.
> So do regular people
What regular people own properties in foreign countries selected for their tax benefits, for investment or recreational uses?
Most regular people own between zero and one property. Granted, they could move, but it takes extra riches to be able to casually straddle multiple borders.
Yeah, but it's hard for a regular person to under/overreport a property by, say, 200 million USD, and most people do not have the power to negotiate with or bribe municipalities to get different tax treatment like big companies and the rich people owning them do.
> Unpaid property taxes result in forfeiture
Avoided taxes are not unpaid taxes - we're not speaking of people on the run from debt collectors, but people who cheat their way out of having to pay anything.
> So do regular people
What regular people own properties in foreign countries selected for their tax benefits, for investment or recreational uses?
Most regular people own between zero and one property. Granted, they could move, but it takes extra riches to be able to casually straddle multiple borders.
> What regular people own properties in foreign countries
Expats often chose their location based on such factors.
> people who cheat their way out of having to pay anything.
Good luck finding someone who actually pays zero property tax on US land they own. You’re assuming loopholes exist that don’t.
> it's hard for a regular person to under/overreport a property by, say, 200 million USD
Comparing wealthy taxation is only meaningful based on percentages. There’s definitely people who avoid property taxes by failing to disclose they built a house on undeveloped land thus avoiding 50+% of their tax bill.
Expats often chose their location based on such factors.
> people who cheat their way out of having to pay anything.
Good luck finding someone who actually pays zero property tax on US land they own. You’re assuming loopholes exist that don’t.
> it's hard for a regular person to under/overreport a property by, say, 200 million USD
Comparing wealthy taxation is only meaningful based on percentages. There’s definitely people who avoid property taxes by failing to disclose they built a house on undeveloped land thus avoiding 50+% of their tax bill.
> Expats often chose their location based on such factors.
You're not answering the question I wrote. Recreational or investment properties in foreign countries, i.e. not a peron's only property in their home country.
Expats pick a country to live and work in. They don't get to pick different countries for income tax, for property tax, for company tax, etc., like a billionaire being a US citizen with a swiss bank account, luxemburg company, luxury vacation homes in e.g., gated communities in Morocco.
(Also note that this isn't a discussion of just property tax, but billionaires avoiding tax in general.)
> Good luck finding someone who actually pays zero property tax on US land they own
Observe the point above - US citizens owning land in foreign countries.
Also, US citizens paying way less by severely misreporting and paying people to look the other way, like the earlier example.
> Comparing wealthy taxation is only meaningful based on percentages.
All taxes should be fixed, unavoidable percentages yes, that is my original argument. Progressive tax doesn't fix things because it doesn't hit the ultra wealthy like people think, as those evade the flippin' thing anyway. Deal with the corruption and evasion, get some proper (and fixed) rates to apply to their business, and you won't need complex progressive tax systems.
You're not answering the question I wrote. Recreational or investment properties in foreign countries, i.e. not a peron's only property in their home country.
Expats pick a country to live and work in. They don't get to pick different countries for income tax, for property tax, for company tax, etc., like a billionaire being a US citizen with a swiss bank account, luxemburg company, luxury vacation homes in e.g., gated communities in Morocco.
(Also note that this isn't a discussion of just property tax, but billionaires avoiding tax in general.)
> Good luck finding someone who actually pays zero property tax on US land they own
Observe the point above - US citizens owning land in foreign countries.
Also, US citizens paying way less by severely misreporting and paying people to look the other way, like the earlier example.
> Comparing wealthy taxation is only meaningful based on percentages.
All taxes should be fixed, unavoidable percentages yes, that is my original argument. Progressive tax doesn't fix things because it doesn't hit the ultra wealthy like people think, as those evade the flippin' thing anyway. Deal with the corruption and evasion, get some proper (and fixed) rates to apply to their business, and you won't need complex progressive tax systems.
>it benefits the wealthy that have investments in the tariffed industry
If only they invested in venture-backed mass surveillance apps instead
If only they invested in venture-backed mass surveillance apps instead
Oh they do, and you probably have several of them installed...
There is no "level playing field" when you are competing with literal sweatshops though.
Frankly tariffs get a bad rep because of from who and how they are implemented but can absolutely serve a purpose.
Frankly tariffs get a bad rep because of from who and how they are implemented but can absolutely serve a purpose.
The shops you're thinking of are less of a sweat shop than, say, Amazon in the US. Theres no good wages, but factory jobs don't really pay well anywhere.
They're mostly just a lot more efficient at scale, with a few plants managing close to the whole worlds supply of random shit. Almost all microwaves by all international brands are made by the same Chinese company, all prismatic LiFePo battery cells come out of one of two factories in China, and so forth. Economy of scale on turbo steroids.
Imagine having to compete with Ford by making cars in a garage. Now imagine Ford as the garage shop vs. these factories.
The sweat shops you're thinking of is stuff like clothes manufacturing in other third world countries than the usual suspect. That shit is nasty - breathing and handling acid with naked skin nasty.
They're mostly just a lot more efficient at scale, with a few plants managing close to the whole worlds supply of random shit. Almost all microwaves by all international brands are made by the same Chinese company, all prismatic LiFePo battery cells come out of one of two factories in China, and so forth. Economy of scale on turbo steroids.
Imagine having to compete with Ford by making cars in a garage. Now imagine Ford as the garage shop vs. these factories.
The sweat shops you're thinking of is stuff like clothes manufacturing in other third world countries than the usual suspect. That shit is nasty - breathing and handling acid with naked skin nasty.
[deleted]
Automation consistently outcompetes sweatshops.
What’s missing from these discussions is the idea of competitive advantage. It is inherently more efficient to grow crops in climates where they thrive, tacking a tariff to protect domestic production means intentionally lowering the standard of living of everyone both domestically and abroad to favor some tiny group doing something wasteful.
What’s missing from these discussions is the idea of competitive advantage. It is inherently more efficient to grow crops in climates where they thrive, tacking a tariff to protect domestic production means intentionally lowering the standard of living of everyone both domestically and abroad to favor some tiny group doing something wasteful.
There are a few situations where tariffs are beneficial:
1. To preserve strategically important domestic industries (historically: food production and mechanization industry)
2. To shield domestic industries while they're growing to take on already efficient and scaled global competitors
Benefiting labor or saving jobs is probably the stupidest use of tariffs, if one of the above isn't also in play, because it'd be more efficient just to offshore it to low COL countries and instead refocus internal labor.
The slippery slope, of course, is that industries will claim to be included in one of the above, but instead sink their tariff-protected excess profitability into shareholder/self-enrichment instead of business investment.
It'd make more sense to require domestic industries in tariff-protected sectors to invest {near tariff} percentages of their revenue in R&D and/or capital expenses (or be heavily taxed).
Otherwise the government is simply artificially inflating their profitability, at the cost of any consumers of the product.
1. To preserve strategically important domestic industries (historically: food production and mechanization industry)
2. To shield domestic industries while they're growing to take on already efficient and scaled global competitors
Benefiting labor or saving jobs is probably the stupidest use of tariffs, if one of the above isn't also in play, because it'd be more efficient just to offshore it to low COL countries and instead refocus internal labor.
The slippery slope, of course, is that industries will claim to be included in one of the above, but instead sink their tariff-protected excess profitability into shareholder/self-enrichment instead of business investment.
It'd make more sense to require domestic industries in tariff-protected sectors to invest {near tariff} percentages of their revenue in R&D and/or capital expenses (or be heavily taxed).
Otherwise the government is simply artificially inflating their profitability, at the cost of any consumers of the product.
Food production isn’t some homogeneous entity, it might make sense to subsidize some level of staples but direct subsidies are more transparent and can be more easily limited. But, obviously industry doesn’t want the government feeding through to stop simply because the’ve scaled vastly past domestic consumption.
Similarly, military procurement can subsidize relevant industries without impacting the wider economy. In other words you can maintain some domestic steel production etc without impacting the cost of goods.
Similarly, military procurement can subsidize relevant industries without impacting the wider economy. In other words you can maintain some domestic steel production etc without impacting the cost of goods.
I think that under-appreciates the slippery slope of political leverage. There's a reason Iowa is so hell-bent on keeping their primaries first.
Without explicitly and financially tying subsidy-fueled gains to modernization efforts, market participants begin to consider the subsidies as business as usual, plan around them, and get lazy.*
It removes a primary incentive to maintain pace with global technology improvements. Domestic industry whispers in politicians' ears that their global competitors are unfair for reasons X, Y, and Z, and they really need more subsidies to protect them.
{Benefit from politically driving new tariffs / subsidies} must never be higher than {benefit from investing in efficiency increases}.
* Lazy as measured by peak international efficiency, not work. E.g. a farmer who works their ass off manually farming is economically inefficient compared to one who mechanizes most of their work
Without explicitly and financially tying subsidy-fueled gains to modernization efforts, market participants begin to consider the subsidies as business as usual, plan around them, and get lazy.*
It removes a primary incentive to maintain pace with global technology improvements. Domestic industry whispers in politicians' ears that their global competitors are unfair for reasons X, Y, and Z, and they really need more subsidies to protect them.
{Benefit from politically driving new tariffs / subsidies} must never be higher than {benefit from investing in efficiency increases}.
* Lazy as measured by peak international efficiency, not work. E.g. a farmer who works their ass off manually farming is economically inefficient compared to one who mechanizes most of their work
That’s a big part of why it happens, but every industry wants subsidies the idealized place of “farming” in the American public’s perception make this significantly easier.
That helps explain why chips, cars, airlines, banking etc get subsidized but PVC pipes don’t.
That helps explain why chips, cars, airlines, banking etc get subsidized but PVC pipes don’t.
Automation is not replacing sweatshops, they've just made the sweatshop workers more productive (economically) while requiring them to be less productive (in activity).
So all that's happened is an exponential increase in the output volume of sweatshops :/
So all that's happened is an exponential increase in the output volume of sweatshops :/
There’s many industries that have moved beyond sweatshops due to automation.
Pepsi can’t get glass bottles from 3rd world sweatshops at anything competitive with a highly automated factory. In the vast majority of industries it’s just a question of levels of automation and climate control inherently makes automation easier by reducing variability in temperature and humidity. Of course the original distinction around climate control that created the term sweatshops is dying as such operations are largely dying out, but that only reinforces the notion of automation killing off the inherent advantages of unskilled cheap labor.
Pepsi can’t get glass bottles from 3rd world sweatshops at anything competitive with a highly automated factory. In the vast majority of industries it’s just a question of levels of automation and climate control inherently makes automation easier by reducing variability in temperature and humidity. Of course the original distinction around climate control that created the term sweatshops is dying as such operations are largely dying out, but that only reinforces the notion of automation killing off the inherent advantages of unskilled cheap labor.
I don't want to compete with pollution, child labor, slaves, extreme hours, and poverty-tier living conditions
[deleted]
Bernie removed the section on his website about tariffs being necessary for a healthy economy...
Tariffs are a populist thing, and people seem to think it's just a Trump thing.
Tariffs are a populist thing, and people seem to think it's just a Trump thing.
You can still send letters- this is a big deal but it’s not -quite- as bad as I first thought since my ballot is mailed in from abroad…
Remember, he’s ending mail-in ballots…
That's not within his power to do.
He wasn’t allowed to end the r&d system in the us, but nobody stopped him. He wasn’t allowed to create export tariffs, go nuts with import tariffs, rip up senate passed treaties, …. As others have said, somebody has to stop the process and to date it’s not been stopped.
Neither was starting “military actions” in the past. Laws need to be enforced to have any power.
> That's not within his power to do.
What rock have you been living under for the past eight months?
What rock have you been living under for the past eight months?
> That's not within his power to do.
Trump has the power to do anything that people (especially Congress) does not push back against.
> 1. Do not obey in advance.
> Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.
* https://timothysnyder.org/on-tyranny
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Tyranny
Trump has the power to do anything that people (especially Congress) does not push back against.
> 1. Do not obey in advance.
> Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.
* https://timothysnyder.org/on-tyranny
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Tyranny
>Trump has the power to do anything that people (especially Congress) does not push back against.
Elections are run at the state level, so it's not like Trump can direct state agencies to stop counting mail-in ballots. That said, the fact that elections are run at the state level, and the fact that only a handful of swing states matter means it only takes a few pliant election officials to change the outcome of the election. eg. if Georgia's governor caved in 2020.
Elections are run at the state level, so it's not like Trump can direct state agencies to stop counting mail-in ballots. That said, the fact that elections are run at the state level, and the fact that only a handful of swing states matter means it only takes a few pliant election officials to change the outcome of the election. eg. if Georgia's governor caved in 2020.
> Elections are run at the state level, so it's not like Trump can direct state agencies to stop counting mail-in ballots.
Trump asked Texas to redistrict that they were all for it.
Trump asked Texas to redistrict that they were all for it.
That's mentioned in the second part of my comment:
>it only takes a few pliant election officials to change the outcome of the election. eg. if Georgia's governor caved in 2020.
>it only takes a few pliant election officials to change the outcome of the election. eg. if Georgia's governor caved in 2020.
Not really true. In this case he doesn’t have the power to do it because the federal government doesn’t operate elections. He has no lever to pull.
At most he can convince some friendly state legislatures to ban mail-in voting, but even that may not be an automatic process (e.g., maybe some states have requirements to change the constitutional or put the item up on a ballot measure).
Every Trump policy to this point has involved some kind of lever that the executive branch has had power over: tariffs, national guard deployments, and even in the case of ICE enforcement, Trump had to go to Congress to appropriate additional funding to make that viable long-term.
As an aside, I’m not personally too worried about the mail in voting as a hot button issue. I don’t think Republicans will touch it significantly because they need turnout, too, and they need it from key demographics that use absentee ballots like older voters and military members.
Some research seems to show that mail-in voting doesn’t really benefit a specific party.
https://www.dw.com/en/us-election-mail-in-voting-biden-trump...
At most he can convince some friendly state legislatures to ban mail-in voting, but even that may not be an automatic process (e.g., maybe some states have requirements to change the constitutional or put the item up on a ballot measure).
Every Trump policy to this point has involved some kind of lever that the executive branch has had power over: tariffs, national guard deployments, and even in the case of ICE enforcement, Trump had to go to Congress to appropriate additional funding to make that viable long-term.
As an aside, I’m not personally too worried about the mail in voting as a hot button issue. I don’t think Republicans will touch it significantly because they need turnout, too, and they need it from key demographics that use absentee ballots like older voters and military members.
Some research seems to show that mail-in voting doesn’t really benefit a specific party.
https://www.dw.com/en/us-election-mail-in-voting-biden-trump...
It's his standard procedure over and over again; works great for him.
Talk it up. If it keeps him in the headlines, great.
Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. If he gets sued, fine, there's a decade of suits piled up in the queue, no problem. If there's an injunction, maybe ignore it and try anyway (queue full). If he's truly blocked, it's the commie judges and he'll make that better soon. OTOH if he gets away with that, more outrage and more PR for him, success.
Early stage fascism thrives on outrage fatigue to slim opposition. Do three more outrages today. Repeat tomorrow.
Talk it up. If it keeps him in the headlines, great.
Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. If he gets sued, fine, there's a decade of suits piled up in the queue, no problem. If there's an injunction, maybe ignore it and try anyway (queue full). If he's truly blocked, it's the commie judges and he'll make that better soon. OTOH if he gets away with that, more outrage and more PR for him, success.
Early stage fascism thrives on outrage fatigue to slim opposition. Do three more outrages today. Repeat tomorrow.
Neither is ending birthright citizenship, dismantling USAID, closing the department of education, firing the heads of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board (independent federal agencies) without cause, impounding funds appropriated by Congress, etc.
Nevertheless, Trump has started process for all of those, and has been successful at many due to the slowness of the courts.
Nevertheless, Trump has started process for all of those, and has been successful at many due to the slowness of the courts.
Also, the ultimate court seems to favour his actions. Hell of a backup plan.
It is if you live in a state controlled by a GOP governor and legislature. Trump also doesn't have the power to gerrymander Texas, yet he commanded it, and then it happened. Which means he actually does have the power.
Trump has tried to do plenty of things that aren't within his power, like ending birthright citizenship by executive order.
Has he "ended" it? Does he have the discipline, intelligence, and patience to do the work to end things legislatively or just make executive orders that will be tied up in courts for years and rescinded as soon he's out of office?
He has codified massive funding to ICE in the BBB, which he has direct control over.
So he can order people to be detained and deported, knowing that the legal system can't handle the appeals of that many people.
Furthermore, the only way he will leave office is if his disease gets bad enough to where he can't function. And then the assumption is that the crazies he has hired aren't going to basically take over the government completely. If he is able to function in 2026 and 2028, US won't have real elections.
So he can order people to be detained and deported, knowing that the legal system can't handle the appeals of that many people.
Furthermore, the only way he will leave office is if his disease gets bad enough to where he can't function. And then the assumption is that the crazies he has hired aren't going to basically take over the government completely. If he is able to function in 2026 and 2028, US won't have real elections.
[deleted]
Neither was tariffs
Untrue, Congress gave that power over to the executive branch.
By what legislation?
19 U.S.C. § 1862, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2251–55, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2411–20, 19 U.S.C. § 2132, 19 U.S.C. § 1338, and 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–10
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48435
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48435
AFAIK the proposal is to go back to absentee ballots, rather than the blanket free for all today
My state does all elections completely by mail, which means all paper ballots. It seems to work perfectly.
Which is good, as that is easier to fraud/tamper with. If you can’t be arsed to move your pistruie to a voting section come Election Day then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote anyway.
Thank you. And to further clarify, Japan Post provides a way to ship packages with the appropriate customs declarations.
Ability to send in a ballot (preventing such, that is) is being addressed by the supreme leader via another "initiative"
While technically true, f.ex. Finland has stopped all mail shipments[0]. I guess the airlines were not set up to dealing with the hassle of making sure all the shipments are “allowed”. Or maybe just lazy, dunno really.
[0] https://www.posti.fi/en/latest-news-at-posti/%20/news/trump-...
[0] https://www.posti.fi/en/latest-news-at-posti/%20/news/trump-...
Title is not accurate. They're allowing personal shipments under $100, and the rest can be shipped via their UGX service.
It sounds like JP doesn't want to deal with the customs paperwork at scale (edit: also the deposits).
It sounds like JP doesn't want to deal with the customs paperwork at scale (edit: also the deposits).
Under $100... by what measure? I'm going to Japan soon and was planning on shipping a bunch of clothes, books, etc to myself. I'm not going to sell any of it, I just want to send a bunch of stuff back without having to deal with checking another bag. So as far as I'm concerned, there's no dollar value. I'm buying stuff in Yen for my own personal use...
But I suppose I'll just check a bag or use a different carrier...
But I suppose I'll just check a bag or use a different carrier...
Declared value. When you ship, they ask you to list the items you're shipping, and what they are worth. These go on the customs forms. Boxes can be opened and inspected, so lying is a gamble, but there's obviously a lot of wiggle room here.
The changes are to the commercial de minimis rule, so AFAIK, the personal $800 exemption when you bring something with you still applies, and you might not have anything to worry about at all. Also, when you declare something as "American goods returned", they are not subject to either de minimis rule, even if you send them by mail.
Things you purchased outside the US could qualify as well, if you can prove that you owned them for more than a year while living abroad. But realistically, nobody is going to make a federal case about a box full of old books and underwear...a box full of Louis Vuitton bags and Moncler jackets with tags, on the other hand...
The changes are to the commercial de minimis rule, so AFAIK, the personal $800 exemption when you bring something with you still applies, and you might not have anything to worry about at all. Also, when you declare something as "American goods returned", they are not subject to either de minimis rule, even if you send them by mail.
Things you purchased outside the US could qualify as well, if you can prove that you owned them for more than a year while living abroad. But realistically, nobody is going to make a federal case about a box full of old books and underwear...a box full of Louis Vuitton bags and Moncler jackets with tags, on the other hand...
I tried to mail myself some personal items from Japan once. It was a pain in the ass.
I couldn't find a way to fit all that in the title, so I got 99% there and clarified in the first post. The title still has more resolution toward the full detail than the original title.
Yeah, it's literally the same as the title on the page so I get it, but unfortunately it's a hot-button political issue and people are eager to misinterpret.
I'd suggest something like: "Japan Post stops accepting US shipments over $100."
I'd suggest something like: "Japan Post stops accepting US shipments over $100."
I did that with a slight change: "Japan Post to temporarily stop shipments to US over $100"
To emphasize that it's not in effect yet and that it's to, not from.
edit: Someone went and reverted it to something less clear than everything else
To emphasize that it's not in effect yet and that it's to, not from.
edit: Someone went and reverted it to something less clear than everything else
FWIW I came in from RSS and am glad to see the better title. Maybe not ideal, but as someone living in Japan, I can see what the official title was trying, but failing, to convey. But it is what it is and probably the best in this case. The move itself seems good on both sides since proper logistics from Asia to US has been strong for a long time, there shouldn't really be a strong need for personal shipment of goods.
Every morning I wake up and check to see if it's happened yet.
I'm worried that this could have unforeseen knock on effects or create havoc. Fukushima knocked out global supply chains for parts on cars so for a couple years there were no Honda fits for example (they were missing a necessary but small part). Is there any risk of domino effects having to do with business closures or is it just moronic and annoying?
This is specific to mail service, it does not impact private carriers (fedex, dhl, etc)
The toilet paper shortage during covid lockdowns came from people switching from the stuff stocked in offices to the stuff they buy for home. People switching to alternate carriers could have a similar impact.
We should have something like the federal reserve, but for trade policy. A board of governors nominated and confirmed by the senate in 8 year rotations. Politicians cannot be trusted to craft economic policy. I am dubious that they should be crafting fiscal policy either since theyve shown they cant be trusted with that either
This is power explicitly reserved for Congress, which is being extra-constitutionally seized by the President (on the pretext of "national security") with no public support. The problem here is electing a lawless president and putting the Congress in charge of a GOP which is full of unprincipled cowards from top to bottom, not the institutional framework.
If the answer to a lawless president is a cowardly and corrupt congress, then god help us. Economic policy simply cannot be trusted to politicians whose only incentive is re-election and serving campaign donors
That's true for every aspect of US government and society; having policy set by an elected legislature answerable to the people is how democracy works. If you want things to function better, start electing people who behave honorably and act in good faith and start demanding accountability from your representatives when they don't.
(Also, don't get your hopes up about the Federal Reserve in the current climate. Just like the Supreme Court or the FBI or the EPA or the NIH, the Federal Reserve is only as good as the people in charge, and Trump is doing what he can to seize control and abuse its powers for personal gain.)
(Also, don't get your hopes up about the Federal Reserve in the current climate. Just like the Supreme Court or the FBI or the EPA or the NIH, the Federal Reserve is only as good as the people in charge, and Trump is doing what he can to seize control and abuse its powers for personal gain.)
The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which is still current statutory law, empowers the president to set tariffs. There’s an argument that Congress didn’t have the power to pass that law, but they did.
In my understanding, this is only applicable when "an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten or impair the national security". But "national security" is pretextual in this case.
National security is one of the primary motivations for wanting to protect American industry in the first place; it’s hardly pretextual. And even if it was, the law states that whether or not national security is threatened is up to the judgment of the Secretary of Commerce.
[deleted]
It wouldn’t matter. The Supreme Court has allowed this administration to do whatever they want within the executive branch with the very narrow exception of messing with the Federal Reserve. And tariffs are squarely under congressional authority, but the party currently controlling congress has decided to cede that power to the president.
In theory, most countries are signatories to the Universal Postal Union and World Customs Organization (branches of the UN) to keep the post/customs system humming along.
I tried to read up on their “rules” on this topic and it’s a bunch of wishy-washy hot air other than some standardization of customs declaration forms, and I guess HS codes.
Otherwise the only way you get everyone to agree on something: by getting them to agree on nothing during their junket meetings.
I tried to read up on their “rules” on this topic and it’s a bunch of wishy-washy hot air other than some standardization of customs declaration forms, and I guess HS codes.
Otherwise the only way you get everyone to agree on something: by getting them to agree on nothing during their junket meetings.
Trump's tariffs are already illegal and unconstitutional (though the right-wing Supreme Court won't care). Tariffs are within the purview of Congress. He's been doing all of this through "emergency" declarations.
Semi-related: I make orders from Amazon Japan a couple times a year - shipping to the US isn't cheap but it's nice that Amazon has always handled import taxes/customs/everything else involved in international shipping. Other than taking longer, it's basically the same experience as ordering from Amazon domestically.
It's a shame that the ending of the De Minimis Exemption and other tariff-related stuff from the current administration is going to basically kill off Amazon Japan deliveries to the US.
From my understanding, once De Minimis ends, the delivery guy may ask you to pay import duties when he drops the goods off at your house. This is impractical for so many different reasons - what if I'm not home? How do I verify the import taxes? If I miss the carrier and don't pay, what happens to my order?
It's a shame that the ending of the De Minimis Exemption and other tariff-related stuff from the current administration is going to basically kill off Amazon Japan deliveries to the US.
From my understanding, once De Minimis ends, the delivery guy may ask you to pay import duties when he drops the goods off at your house. This is impractical for so many different reasons - what if I'm not home? How do I verify the import taxes? If I miss the carrier and don't pay, what happens to my order?
I don't know what Amazon specifically will do (didn't know they allowed international shipments to begin with!), but the customs process via any normal carrier is that you get a bill when your items arrive at the port of entry.
You pay the bill, the item is released, and you get it a few days later. FedEx, for example, does the whole thing online.
You pay the bill, the item is released, and you get it a few days later. FedEx, for example, does the whole thing online.
FedEx in my case paid the bill to customs, shipped me my item, and then secondary sent me a bill to pay for the customs fees after I had already received the item.
They don't want shipments stuck in port because storage there is expensive.
They don't want shipments stuck in port because storage there is expensive.
Yeah, they'll do that up to a certain amount. Obviously, they're taking a risk that way.
here in Canada, ordering from the states was already a royal pain, as the dutys were applied more or less arbitrarily at the border, but getting some camera part or other little doohicky from china, is cheap and reliable, if wierd and of completely unknown delivery date.
I cant imagine ordering from the states now, selling to maybe, but it would be a pay up front no returns, buy some insurance and pray kinda offer.
Didn’t it already end for China? They just add the tax on top of the shipment price and pre-pay it.
The European post services are complaining that there's not yet an electronic system set up for them to pay these tariffs on the recipient's behalf.
If it's through Amazon they would probably just add the import taxes to your order.
Otherwise, you'll get a notice from USPS/UPS/FedEx in advance to pay the import tax online (or at post office), and then they'll deliver it.
Otherwise, you'll get a notice from USPS/UPS/FedEx in advance to pay the import tax online (or at post office), and then they'll deliver it.
I saw, I think in another comment thread here, that US customs doesn't allow sending into the US with unpaid tariffs and then having the US recipient pay the tariff. That's how it works in the UK (at least for personal shipments) and I assumed everywhere. I'm guessing that's why they'd suspend shipments here, because they'd have to deal with all the logistics of paying the tariff themselves, and presumably charging the local sender.
edit: someone changed it to a cropped form of the page title that's even less informative. I tried.
I had to redo the headline a bit to fit and accurately represent the overall picture.
Some key details copied from the post:
>> "Therefore, starting August 27 (Wed.), in line with other national postal operators, we will temporarily suspend the acceptance of postal items (small packets, parcels, and EMS (goods)) to the United States that contain the following items:"
>> "Individual gifts with a content value exceeding 100 US dollars
>> "Goods intended for sale for consumption"*
>> "In addition, we will continue to accept letters, postcards, printed matter, EMS (documents), and postal items (small packets, parcels, and EMS (goods)) containing gifts between individuals with a value of less than US$100."
>> "As an alternative to the above suspension of acceptance, our international courier service, UGX (U-Global Express), can handle shipments in compliance with U.S. customs regulations: UGX (U-Global Express)" [1]
[1] https://www.post.japanpost.jp/int/UGX/index_en.html
I had to redo the headline a bit to fit and accurately represent the overall picture.
Some key details copied from the post:
>> "Therefore, starting August 27 (Wed.), in line with other national postal operators, we will temporarily suspend the acceptance of postal items (small packets, parcels, and EMS (goods)) to the United States that contain the following items:"
>> "Individual gifts with a content value exceeding 100 US dollars
>> "Goods intended for sale for consumption"*
>> "In addition, we will continue to accept letters, postcards, printed matter, EMS (documents), and postal items (small packets, parcels, and EMS (goods)) containing gifts between individuals with a value of less than US$100."
>> "As an alternative to the above suspension of acceptance, our international courier service, UGX (U-Global Express), can handle shipments in compliance with U.S. customs regulations: UGX (U-Global Express)" [1]
[1] https://www.post.japanpost.jp/int/UGX/index_en.html
This situation feels dumb. I feel like I am watching idiots cheer on someone doing parkor and that person getting his teeth smashed on a wall. Like, what is the point?
The implementation is also needlessly fumbled. All these shippers are suspending their service temporarily because this is all so rushed. Normally there would be larger lead times for changes like this and shippers and importers could adjust their processes and businesses with less friction.
And that's not even accounting for the fact that there is little reason to believe that many of these changes might never actually take effect or be rolled back soon. So much cost that could have been avoided!
And that's not even accounting for the fact that there is little reason to believe that many of these changes might never actually take effect or be rolled back soon. So much cost that could have been avoided!
Unfortunately, Americans chose to elect an administration which is either unwilling to learn why a federal bureaucracy has to move slowly sometimes, or who is actively leveraging that precedent to undo it.
It's like letting the idiots on here claiming you can build twitter in a weekend run our country.
Anyone who spend 30 seconds thinking would understand that spinning up the logistics to collect hundreds of millions if not billions of payments would take some real doing. Instead, we're gifted mr "it's obvious and easy".
Anyone who spend 30 seconds thinking would understand that spinning up the logistics to collect hundreds of millions if not billions of payments would take some real doing. Instead, we're gifted mr "it's obvious and easy".
This is one of the larger effects of Trump's rule-by-EO approach that I think people are coming to realize:
The US government moves slow and the US is big. Big-and-slow can be planned for. Big-and-fast cannot be planned for and is, in fact, hugely disruptive.
Apart from all other parameters, the US does poorly with tyrannical-style rule because it's bad for business.
The US government moves slow and the US is big. Big-and-slow can be planned for. Big-and-fast cannot be planned for and is, in fact, hugely disruptive.
Apart from all other parameters, the US does poorly with tyrannical-style rule because it's bad for business.
You could rule by EO and just have them take effect further out, no?
And, indeed, it could be argued that past administrations have done that. Congressional deadlock has been an issue in the US for quite some time, and the administration has to go on anyway. Off the top of my head, I am reminded of Obama essentially ceding control of marijuana policy to the states by making it clear to the ATF that prosecuting federal possession crime in states that had legalized the drug was legal, within their authority... And a short path to locking in a desk job at their current level indefinitely.
But when previous administrations did this, they (usually, as far as I know) consulted with domain experts on predictable consequences and set timelines to factor that in. This administration seems to have "effective immediately" as the only timeframe it's aware of.
But when previous administrations did this, they (usually, as far as I know) consulted with domain experts on predictable consequences and set timelines to factor that in. This administration seems to have "effective immediately" as the only timeframe it's aware of.
Nah, that's unfair! "Two weeks" seems to be a very popular timeframe as well.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken
- H. L. Mencken
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
- Winston Churchill [disputed]
- Winston Churchill [disputed]
What's your alternative?
I'm serious.
(Mine is multi-member ranked voting (NOT IRV)).
I'm serious.
(Mine is multi-member ranked voting (NOT IRV)).
Can’t get into details in a forum comment, but I’ll say that whatever we have in most of the Western world ain’t very democratic. It is a spectrum, that currently skews very hard towards plutarchy.
The positive thing about having a king is that there was only one head to cut when things got out of hand.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44887634
I’m no monarchist, but it’s about time to have a serious discussion about political philosophy instead of hiding behind the “Western representative democracy is the best we can do” cliché.
The positive thing about having a king is that there was only one head to cut when things got out of hand.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44887634
I’m no monarchist, but it’s about time to have a serious discussion about political philosophy instead of hiding behind the “Western representative democracy is the best we can do” cliché.
> only one head to cut when things got out of hand.
History has been showing time and again that it's an illusion. Bad governance structures and corruption get entrenched, and gladly plead allegiance to a new king.
History has been showing time and again that it's an illusion. Bad governance structures and corruption get entrenched, and gladly plead allegiance to a new king.
One alternative that has been tried (and is, arguably, still being tried) is Constitutional Republic.
The difference is that some things get hammered into a Constitution and are indisputable without a significant process. That counterweights the populist "half of everyone is below average" effect.
Someone convinces a whole bunch of people that maybe slavery is actually super useful sometimes? Thirteenth amendment. A city wants to yank guns from people because everyone is panicking about shootings? Second amendment. Disney wants copyright to last forever because they're Disney? "securing for limited Times" phrasing in the Constitution. And so on.
It has its own weaknesses but one advantage is that change comes slower. This can be a problem when the past is on the wrong side of history, but it's a nice-to-have feature when the political temperature turns up and the odds of moving fast (and breaking things) increase.
It's probably a good thing that no matter how dumb any given American is, they can't legally sell themselves into slavery (even if they can get damn close).
The difference is that some things get hammered into a Constitution and are indisputable without a significant process. That counterweights the populist "half of everyone is below average" effect.
Someone convinces a whole bunch of people that maybe slavery is actually super useful sometimes? Thirteenth amendment. A city wants to yank guns from people because everyone is panicking about shootings? Second amendment. Disney wants copyright to last forever because they're Disney? "securing for limited Times" phrasing in the Constitution. And so on.
It has its own weaknesses but one advantage is that change comes slower. This can be a problem when the past is on the wrong side of history, but it's a nice-to-have feature when the political temperature turns up and the odds of moving fast (and breaking things) increase.
It's probably a good thing that no matter how dumb any given American is, they can't legally sell themselves into slavery (even if they can get damn close).
> Someone convinces a whole bunch of people that maybe slavery is actually super useful sometimes? Thirteenth amendment.
Actually the thirteenth amendment explicitely allows slavery to exist in a case a whole bunch of people (maybe even yourself) think is super useful.
Actually the thirteenth amendment explicitely allows slavery to exist in a case a whole bunch of people (maybe even yourself) think is super useful.
I was handwaving around the exception for criminals, but I concede your point: it's an oversimplification to say slavery is strictly illegal.
(One can also make some interesting arguments around the notion of the draft).
(One can also make some interesting arguments around the notion of the draft).
> The difference is that some things get hammered into a Constitution and are indisputable without a significant process.
Yes, but there's an alternative 'significant process' which is to simply have a political party capture the body which interprets the constitution, and then an elite group of powerful insiders captures the political party, and then you're just an oligopoly but with additional steps.
Yes, but there's an alternative 'significant process' which is to simply have a political party capture the body which interprets the constitution, and then an elite group of powerful insiders captures the political party, and then you're just an oligopoly but with additional steps.
Definitely. But, for what it's worth, that's a process that takes decades and requires an electorate profoundly asleep at the wheel. Like one that fumbles an election during a pivotal year that decides the timbre of their judicial system for a generation.
Certainly not impossible though.
Certainly not impossible though.
"Democracy" is the form of government; you are speaking of voting systems, which are an implementation detail, and not in the same natural category. "Alternatives to democracy" are things like despotism, monarchy, communism, fascism etc.
Aristocratic republics have been doing quite well for some time: Florence, Venice, Genoa in the Mediterranean, much of the Hanseatic league and places like Novgorod, and later the Dutch Republic, in the north.
It's a spectrum. If we're being pedantic, the US is already not a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic.
It has always been a constitutional republic by design; its status as a representative democracy is the result of a tradition of electoral college voters deciding to be "faithful" and listen to their constituents (overriding them is to my understanding a constitutional right).
I don‘t think it is a spectrum either (if we are even more pedantic), or at least no a linear scale spectrum, but rather a system of government where democratic institutions ensure certain rights and privileges to common citizens and residents. So maybe a multidimensional spectrum where if you fail to meet a vaguely defined and constantly evolving threshold you are not a democracy.
The USA today will probably (and hopefully) not be considered a democracy by some future standard. Disqualifications may include:
* limited suffrage,
* limited or unequal access to health care and education for a significant portion of the population,
* convoluted voting system where certain demographics have little to no chance to pursue public office,
* large constituencies,
* non-state territories/districts with little to no representation at the national level,
* unincorporated populated areas, with little to no representation at the local level,
* a lack of clear separation of power between the different democratic institution,
* failure to enact popular policies,
* police violence,
* the death penalty,
* a large wealth gap,
* a lack of consumer protection,
* a lack of worker rights,
* failure to prosecute the rich and powerful for their crimes,
* a large nuclear armed military which constantly engages in imperialist actions,
* failure to respect the sovereignty of other states,
* etc.
I think describing this system as a Democratic Republic offers no insight into whether it is democratic or not (or how democratic it is on this spectrum). Republic just means that there is a president which holds some the executive power.
There is far more insight into calling the USA a capitalistic aristocracy, a two party state, a militaristic imperial superpower, a flawed, unequal, and underrepresented democracy, a police state, etc.
The USA today will probably (and hopefully) not be considered a democracy by some future standard. Disqualifications may include:
* limited suffrage,
* limited or unequal access to health care and education for a significant portion of the population,
* convoluted voting system where certain demographics have little to no chance to pursue public office,
* large constituencies,
* non-state territories/districts with little to no representation at the national level,
* unincorporated populated areas, with little to no representation at the local level,
* a lack of clear separation of power between the different democratic institution,
* failure to enact popular policies,
* police violence,
* the death penalty,
* a large wealth gap,
* a lack of consumer protection,
* a lack of worker rights,
* failure to prosecute the rich and powerful for their crimes,
* a large nuclear armed military which constantly engages in imperialist actions,
* failure to respect the sovereignty of other states,
* etc.
I think describing this system as a Democratic Republic offers no insight into whether it is democratic or not (or how democratic it is on this spectrum). Republic just means that there is a president which holds some the executive power.
There is far more insight into calling the USA a capitalistic aristocracy, a two party state, a militaristic imperial superpower, a flawed, unequal, and underrepresented democracy, a police state, etc.
> Disqualifications may include
I don't see why; many of those have nothing to do with what I would understand the concept of "democracy" to entail.
I don't see why; many of those have nothing to do with what I would understand the concept of "democracy" to entail.
I am predicting (and hoping) that the concept of democracy will continue to shift towards ever greater inclusion and increased human rights as it has in the past two centuries, and a future vision of democracy would disqualify the current system as undemocratic for some of the points above.
Just like how we don’t view pre-civil rights USA as democratic by modern standards. For example, we would never consider a country with legalized slavery to be democratic today. Similarly a future concept of democracy is unlikely to consider a country which practices the death penalty to be democratic by that hypothetical future standard.
Just like how we don’t view pre-civil rights USA as democratic by modern standards. For example, we would never consider a country with legalized slavery to be democratic today. Similarly a future concept of democracy is unlikely to consider a country which practices the death penalty to be democratic by that hypothetical future standard.
I would consider a country with universal suffrage, direct democracy, and legalized slavery to be a Democracy. It's unlikely and pretty shitty, but it's certainly a Democracy.
This twisting of definitions is the same thing happening to "racist". Some people only consider what was previously called "systemic racism" to be the singular definition of "racism" and pretend the old definition does not exist.
This twisting of definitions is the same thing happening to "racist". Some people only consider what was previously called "systemic racism" to be the singular definition of "racism" and pretend the old definition does not exist.
I wouldn’t, and neither would most people, and neither would most in academia. At some point (probably around the 1960s) both human rights and equal rights became integral to the concept of democracy. You may not like it, but that is how most people (and most academics) use the concept. The standards for human rights and equal rights are also evolving and today includes stuff like indigenous rights, equal access, universal education, etc.
In the 1970s people were debating whether Apartheid South Africa was democratic or not (it obviously wasn’t; not even by the standards of the time) and today people are debating whether Israel is a democracy (again; it obviously isn’t) but if we apply the standards of the 1940s to both Apartheid South Africa, and today’s Israel, they would both be considered democratic.
And just to clarify, the concept of racism is equally evolving. Much of what we consider racist today would not have been considered racist in the 1980s. The (then considered non-racist) behavior of the 1980s was equally harmful as the same behavior today. But humanity has simply learned, and updated the concept of racism to include this behavior. This is the nature of knowledge and the human experience, we learn more things, and adjust our concepts to fit with our ever increasing knowledge.
In the 1970s people were debating whether Apartheid South Africa was democratic or not (it obviously wasn’t; not even by the standards of the time) and today people are debating whether Israel is a democracy (again; it obviously isn’t) but if we apply the standards of the 1940s to both Apartheid South Africa, and today’s Israel, they would both be considered democratic.
And just to clarify, the concept of racism is equally evolving. Much of what we consider racist today would not have been considered racist in the 1980s. The (then considered non-racist) behavior of the 1980s was equally harmful as the same behavior today. But humanity has simply learned, and updated the concept of racism to include this behavior. This is the nature of knowledge and the human experience, we learn more things, and adjust our concepts to fit with our ever increasing knowledge.
No learning, and if fact, no stable control, is possible without negative feedback.
Voters are bound to a make serious mistake time to time, and make conclusions from the outcome. This negative feedback is vital, as long as it's not fatal. (That latter seems to be needing serious attention lately.)
Voters are bound to a make serious mistake time to time, and make conclusions from the outcome. This negative feedback is vital, as long as it's not fatal. (That latter seems to be needing serious attention lately.)
It is. The original claim was that De minimis exceptions were being used to ship drugs into the USA from (insert hand wavy racist statements here about anything South of Texas). Then it was "because unfair". Then they terminated de minimis for all countries.
I don't think anyone is cheering. At least most of the people cheering are starting to realize it's actually their face planting into the cement.
I don't think anyone is cheering. At least most of the people cheering are starting to realize it's actually their face planting into the cement.
OutOfHere(1)
If you're honestly asking what's the point, the literal answer is the entire federal government has realigned itself to support Trump's ego. That's literally its entire purpose now, without exaggeration. If something is bad for Trump's ego, it will not happen no matter how good it is for the country. Conversely, if Trump wants something to happen, it's going to no matter how bad it is for the rest of us. Or at least that's how they see it.
Tariffs are happening because it's an idea he came up with 40 years ago when he was in his prime and it stuck to him.
And no one is doing anything to stop the tariffs, despite everyone knowing better, because the people in power can't tell him "no", because that would hurt his ego. You see what he does to people who hurt his ego? They get mocked on social media, deported to a foreign gulag, they and/or their spouse gets fired, their company gets investigated or loses grants, or their house gets raided by the FBI.
So everyone has to go along with it no matter how dumb it is.
Tariffs are happening because it's an idea he came up with 40 years ago when he was in his prime and it stuck to him.
And no one is doing anything to stop the tariffs, despite everyone knowing better, because the people in power can't tell him "no", because that would hurt his ego. You see what he does to people who hurt his ego? They get mocked on social media, deported to a foreign gulag, they and/or their spouse gets fired, their company gets investigated or loses grants, or their house gets raided by the FBI.
So everyone has to go along with it no matter how dumb it is.
I read an article in Foreign Affairs that calls this "personalism."
This one I presume? https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/new-dictators
Notice the date -- 2016. This has been brewing for a long time, and I will never forgive / forget that the people who recognized it and called it out early [1] were mocked and ridiculed to no end. They were shunned in their professions, called alarmists, and liars. But they were right the whole time, they were just ahead of the curve. If we had just listened to them, this could have all been avoided.
[1] https://medium.com/@Elamika/the-unbearable-lightness-of-bein... (also from 2016, as far as I know the first person to make the connection between Trump's narcissism and his inevitable attempt to become a dictator. She predicted January 6 five years before it happened just by pattern matching his personality disorder to dictators of the past).
Notice the date -- 2016. This has been brewing for a long time, and I will never forgive / forget that the people who recognized it and called it out early [1] were mocked and ridiculed to no end. They were shunned in their professions, called alarmists, and liars. But they were right the whole time, they were just ahead of the curve. If we had just listened to them, this could have all been avoided.
[1] https://medium.com/@Elamika/the-unbearable-lightness-of-bein... (also from 2016, as far as I know the first person to make the connection between Trump's narcissism and his inevitable attempt to become a dictator. She predicted January 6 five years before it happened just by pattern matching his personality disorder to dictators of the past).
De minimis allows people to evade tariffs by simply drop shipping each individual product all the way from China or wherever, so long as the retail price is below the threshold. I’m skeptical of tariffs in general but if you’re going to have them, it makes sense to close the loopholes.
So execute it for China alone. The issue is that these blanket actions are lazy at best and exclusively populist.
> So execute it for China alone. The issue is that these blanket actions are lazy at best and exclusively populist.
Same argument. If there's a country that doesn't get tariffs, that country will very quickly become the leading global exporter to the US. It's the same thing for the "penguin island" that everyone mocked: if you put high tariffs on every place but penguin island, it will soon be Penguin Island Logistics Center.
Setting aside judgment of the tariff policy and the chaotic implementation, it does make sense to make them blanket actions. Much of the byzantine nature of our existing supply chains is due to gaming of international tariff policy.
Same argument. If there's a country that doesn't get tariffs, that country will very quickly become the leading global exporter to the US. It's the same thing for the "penguin island" that everyone mocked: if you put high tariffs on every place but penguin island, it will soon be Penguin Island Logistics Center.
Setting aside judgment of the tariff policy and the chaotic implementation, it does make sense to make them blanket actions. Much of the byzantine nature of our existing supply chains is due to gaming of international tariff policy.
> If there's a country that doesn't get tariffs, that country will very quickly become the leading global exporter to the US
No it won't lol, that's not how international logistics work. You don't just flick a switch overnight. Maybe measured in the order of years... in which case the policies can be adjusted. They clearly think this works for taxing Americans given how huge the tax code is.
> same thing for the "penguin island" that everyone mocked: if you put high tariffs on every place but penguin island, it will soon be Penguin Island Logistics Center
Penguin island was stupid because it reflected how lazy the policies they applied are. It clearly showed that the Trump administration doesn't fundamentally understand what trade deficits are nor does it have an actual, well thought out plan. The only thing Penguin island has in common with this is that both actions are incredibly lazy and superficial. The Trump admin needs to get serious.
No it won't lol, that's not how international logistics work. You don't just flick a switch overnight. Maybe measured in the order of years... in which case the policies can be adjusted. They clearly think this works for taxing Americans given how huge the tax code is.
> same thing for the "penguin island" that everyone mocked: if you put high tariffs on every place but penguin island, it will soon be Penguin Island Logistics Center
Penguin island was stupid because it reflected how lazy the policies they applied are. It clearly showed that the Trump administration doesn't fundamentally understand what trade deficits are nor does it have an actual, well thought out plan. The only thing Penguin island has in common with this is that both actions are incredibly lazy and superficial. The Trump admin needs to get serious.
> No it won't lol, that's not how international logistics work. You don't just flick a switch overnight.
I didn't say "overnight". But if you don't think it would happen, you haven't been paying attention: it has been happening for decades. It's not a crazy thing to consider when establishing a tariff policy.
> Penguin island was stupid because it reflected how lazy the policies they applied are. It clearly showed that the Trump administration doesn't fundamentally understand what trade deficits are nor does it have an actual, well thought out plan. The only thing Penguin island has in common with this is that both actions are incredibly lazy and superficial. The Trump admin needs to get serious.
Flinging names ("lazy", "superficial") is not an argument. You've obviously decided that these actions are stupid -- maybe they are! [1] -- and nobody is going to convince you otherwise, but I just gave you a plausible reason that you'd choose to do it this way.
[1] I don't personally like these policies, but I'm willing to admit when something I don't like as a whole makes sense in part.
I didn't say "overnight". But if you don't think it would happen, you haven't been paying attention: it has been happening for decades. It's not a crazy thing to consider when establishing a tariff policy.
> Penguin island was stupid because it reflected how lazy the policies they applied are. It clearly showed that the Trump administration doesn't fundamentally understand what trade deficits are nor does it have an actual, well thought out plan. The only thing Penguin island has in common with this is that both actions are incredibly lazy and superficial. The Trump admin needs to get serious.
Flinging names ("lazy", "superficial") is not an argument. You've obviously decided that these actions are stupid -- maybe they are! [1] -- and nobody is going to convince you otherwise, but I just gave you a plausible reason that you'd choose to do it this way.
[1] I don't personally like these policies, but I'm willing to admit when something I don't like as a whole makes sense in part.
Exports have a country of origin declared.
If I post something from Denmark to Canada, they want to know the origin of the goods. If it's China, the China tariffs (if any) apply rather than the Denmark/EU ones.
If the declaration is incorrect, the goods can be siezed or returned.
Penguin Island is a nature preserve (the whole thing), no one is building anything.
If I post something from Denmark to Canada, they want to know the origin of the goods. If it's China, the China tariffs (if any) apply rather than the Denmark/EU ones.
If the declaration is incorrect, the goods can be siezed or returned.
Penguin Island is a nature preserve (the whole thing), no one is building anything.
The words you're looking for are "substantial transformation" [1].
Exporters in country A (with high tariffs on exports to USA) ship partially completed products to country B (with no/lower tariffs to USA), and then do some manufacturing step. Country B then exports completed products to USA.
China was doing this extensively via Mexico under the USMCA [2]. It's not a matter of debate.
[1] https://www.trade.gov/rules-origin-substantial-transformatio...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i3Y14TNqCI
Exporters in country A (with high tariffs on exports to USA) ship partially completed products to country B (with no/lower tariffs to USA), and then do some manufacturing step. Country B then exports completed products to USA.
China was doing this extensively via Mexico under the USMCA [2]. It's not a matter of debate.
[1] https://www.trade.gov/rules-origin-substantial-transformatio...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i3Y14TNqCI
China isn’t the only country that drop ships.
De minimis is used a lot more by individuals than by corporations. People shouldn't have to pay tariffs on necessary medicines or any other items for personal non-commercial use.
Tariffs aren't even justified, as they're anti-free-market, anti-capitalistic, and the government provides no extra services. It's equivalent to an illegal federal sales tax. If anything, the government has been cutting major services.
Tariffs aren't even justified, as they're anti-free-market, anti-capitalistic, and the government provides no extra services. It's equivalent to an illegal federal sales tax. If anything, the government has been cutting major services.
But at least ensure you can then get paid... Which seems to be hang here. Failure to tell how to pay those tariffs...
Baby, bathwater. For every person abusing it by splitting shipments (easily detectable and prosecutable) I'd bet there are many more taking their first small steps into entrepreneurship with goods or parts worth $100 or $500.
Splitting shipments is different from drop shipping. Splitting shipments would be if, instead of moving a whole container of goods from a Chinese warehouse to a US warehouse, you just mail each item over by itself. Drop shipping is when you mail each item directly to the end customer.
Yes, that's why I wrote 'splitting shipments'. I don't think drop shipments to a bunch of different customers should be tariffed, that's why the de minimis exception exists in the first place.
Yeah dodge the steel tariffs in small envelopes!
I don’t see why we should allow 0% imports but be shut out of exports. Yes yes according to some chart this is actually a good thing but I find it unfair.
For centuries the theory was mercantilism which is the highest imbalance of trade in your favor is good.
The last century was Keynesian “deficits don’t matter” where taken to its conclusion, the worst possible imbalance is good, because that means they have to reinvest their dollars which supports the US, blah blah.
I’m open to the experiment where targeting a balanced trade with all countries as the goal. Using tariffs where imbalances exist, especially when countries arbitrarily lock your goods out of their markets, is a tool for fixing this.
One reason the US is so fucked up for the lower and middle classes is our global reserve currency and how it provides increasing pressure on the dollar and slowly deindustrializes our society. This has been pushing us towards ever more radical politics
For centuries the theory was mercantilism which is the highest imbalance of trade in your favor is good.
The last century was Keynesian “deficits don’t matter” where taken to its conclusion, the worst possible imbalance is good, because that means they have to reinvest their dollars which supports the US, blah blah.
I’m open to the experiment where targeting a balanced trade with all countries as the goal. Using tariffs where imbalances exist, especially when countries arbitrarily lock your goods out of their markets, is a tool for fixing this.
One reason the US is so fucked up for the lower and middle classes is our global reserve currency and how it provides increasing pressure on the dollar and slowly deindustrializes our society. This has been pushing us towards ever more radical politics
My middle school 7th grade civics class told me that this conversation happens in Congress in Congressional hearings.
I get to hear my Rep ask questions. There is a Congressional research office that acts as a kind of neutral arbiter of truth allowing for evidenced based instructions. Then, after weeks or months, a consensus builds and Congress passes a law and tells the President what to do (hence Congress=Article ONE -> two).
Now, I get to watch a single person dictating tax rates and dumb twitter threads doing a horrific job replacing what I described above.
I could debate you on the merits of your comment, but my real point is that before you wreck the lives of millions of people, you should make sure most people are onboard with all the consequences (1st order and 2nd order effects).
I get to hear my Rep ask questions. There is a Congressional research office that acts as a kind of neutral arbiter of truth allowing for evidenced based instructions. Then, after weeks or months, a consensus builds and Congress passes a law and tells the President what to do (hence Congress=Article ONE -> two).
Now, I get to watch a single person dictating tax rates and dumb twitter threads doing a horrific job replacing what I described above.
I could debate you on the merits of your comment, but my real point is that before you wreck the lives of millions of people, you should make sure most people are onboard with all the consequences (1st order and 2nd order effects).
Our middle school 7th grade civics classes taught us a heavily simplified version of civics suitable for 7th graders. The canonical story of how legislation works bears no resemblance to, for example, the process around NAFTA when some of us were in 7th grade - Congress was not invited to participate in negotiations nor permitted to substantially amend the agreement.
Trump is able to this this because the other branches of government are not stopping him, because his party has control and he is a very strong executive.
A prior historical US example would be FDR, who my teachers growing up simply adored, who strong armed many aggressive executive policies through and radically reshaped America for a century.
A prior historical US example would be FDR, who my teachers growing up simply adored, who strong armed many aggressive executive policies through and radically reshaped America for a century.
> The last century was Keynesian “deficits don’t matter” where taken to its conclusion, the worst possible imbalance is good, because that means they have to reinvest their dollars which supports the US, blah blah.
You're blaming the wrong economist. Keynes believed that trade deficits are a big problem and tariffs are an effective policy to remediate them.
You're blaming the wrong economist. Keynes believed that trade deficits are a big problem and tariffs are an effective policy to remediate them.
> I’m open to the experiment where targeting a balanced trade with all countries as the goal
Do you mean balanced trade as a whole, so it would be OK to have deficits or surpluses with individual countries as long as the total surpluses match the total deficits? Or do you mean trade with each individual country should be balanced?
Do you mean balanced trade as a whole, so it would be OK to have deficits or surpluses with individual countries as long as the total surpluses match the total deficits? Or do you mean trade with each individual country should be balanced?
I would be interested in balancing trade with each individual country, with magnitude of deficit taken into account (i.e. a tiny island country would have vastly less impact than China).
Tariffs artificially increase costs of goods with another country. That should incentivize purchasing the goods from other countries, with the cheapest being our own. Of course we have very high labor costs, and lack a huge supply chain, and on and on. But China only 50 years ago had very little of the same, and America systematically de-industrialized, teaching other countries, moving the kit, and so on, until we lost the ability to make things at scale cheaply ourselves. But the same thing can happen in reverse, there is nothing inherently impossible about having Americans build and run factories, with the benefit of robots and AI and all the latest tools.
Tariffs artificially increase costs of goods with another country. That should incentivize purchasing the goods from other countries, with the cheapest being our own. Of course we have very high labor costs, and lack a huge supply chain, and on and on. But China only 50 years ago had very little of the same, and America systematically de-industrialized, teaching other countries, moving the kit, and so on, until we lost the ability to make things at scale cheaply ourselves. But the same thing can happen in reverse, there is nothing inherently impossible about having Americans build and run factories, with the benefit of robots and AI and all the latest tools.
I don't see how balancing with each individual country makes sense.
Suppose for example the US needs to buy some natural resource from country X, which the US uses to build something that it sells to country Y at a very large profit. Suppose that the US doesn't export anything that country X needs or wants.
Balancing trade with X would mean cutting back on importing that natural resource, which would cut back on how much the US can build to sell to Y.
There will almost certainly also be loops in the graph of imports and exports. Things like A exports to B exports to C exports to A, with A, B, and C all having net balanced trade, but with each have a trade surplus with one of the others and a trade deficit with one.
If they all tried to force balanced trade with tariffs they just all end up paying more with no actual change in trade except possibly a reduction all around in the volume of trade.
Suppose for example the US needs to buy some natural resource from country X, which the US uses to build something that it sells to country Y at a very large profit. Suppose that the US doesn't export anything that country X needs or wants.
Balancing trade with X would mean cutting back on importing that natural resource, which would cut back on how much the US can build to sell to Y.
There will almost certainly also be loops in the graph of imports and exports. Things like A exports to B exports to C exports to A, with A, B, and C all having net balanced trade, but with each have a trade surplus with one of the others and a trade deficit with one.
If they all tried to force balanced trade with tariffs they just all end up paying more with no actual change in trade except possibly a reduction all around in the volume of trade.
This would be an optimization problem and there would need to be far more nuance. But the goal would be balance, without persistent overwhelming differences in trade deficits.
Another reason is the weird fetish for pumping the spoils of the strong dollar into medical middlemen and tax cuts for billionaires.
I see an argument for tax cuts everywhere. Taxes are literally brakes on financial transactions. The number 1 way to slow down your economy is to tax every transaction possible as highly as possible. It is an interesting thought experiment to eliminate income and sales taxes, and try to only finance the government via tariffs.
How we redirect money to the medical system is so completely insane it must be the #1 place politicians get their graft from. It’s just so insane
How we redirect money to the medical system is so completely insane it must be the #1 place politicians get their graft from. It’s just so insane
> I see an argument for tax cuts everywhere. Taxes are literally brakes on financial transactions. The number 1 way to slow down your economy is to tax every transaction possible as highly as possible. It is an interesting thought experiment to eliminate income and sales taxes, and try to only finance the government via tariffs.
Then you don't actually see an argument for tax cuts everywhere. What you want is a tax that you agree with, that disproportionately affects people you don't care about.
Then you don't actually see an argument for tax cuts everywhere. What you want is a tax that you agree with, that disproportionately affects people you don't care about.
My preferred way would also to be to eliminate expenditures, but failing that, redirecting taxes in a way that grows the US internal economy as much as possible, and incentives the re-industrialization simultaneously, is an interesting experiment.
Everybody wants to reindustrialize yet I don’t see a lot of people signing up to work in a factory. Why don’t you go be the change you seek?
Eliminating US government expenditures would obliterate the entire economy overnight.
I would not literally eliminate expenditures but as we cut the total taxation we similarly reduce spending 1 for 1
The font rendering on this site is crazy, I guess traditional Japanese fonts like MS PGothic always render bitmaps at smaller sizes. It's fine when zoomed in (or on HiDPI displays i guess). Is it just assumed that Japanese users have better fonts installed?
Same in the Netherlands. PostNL halted all box shipments to the US last Friday. Only allowing envelopes to go through.
They planned to support the new regulations before, but pulled the plug last Friday.
They planned to support the new regulations before, but pulled the plug last Friday.
I don't get the $100 threshold they're setting? What's the logic behind accepting small packages when suddenly everything is above de minimis?
Went from #1 on the frontpage to >30 in under 10 minutes, impressive: https://hnrankings.info/45016517/
[deleted]
Why is English on Japanese sites frequently rendered with that font?
Also true of vinyl records and pottery out of the UK and EU. The people I buy from are just not doing it. Some stuff I've already paid for and now I'm having to pay the difference.
Technically, it's not tariffs on the records. But DHL isn't caring about that at all. To just staff up essentially overnight, the records are going from ~$20 shipping to ~$80 shipping. 4x! And I have to pay them, not the company. No telling how long it's on the docks either.
The potter in the UK that I like is just plain not dealing with it as it's a 1 man shop. Can't get it no matter how much I want to pay.
Just so disappointed.
Technically, it's not tariffs on the records. But DHL isn't caring about that at all. To just staff up essentially overnight, the records are going from ~$20 shipping to ~$80 shipping. 4x! And I have to pay them, not the company. No telling how long it's on the docks either.
The potter in the UK that I like is just plain not dealing with it as it's a 1 man shop. Can't get it no matter how much I want to pay.
Just so disappointed.
How can you be an American and not be embarrassed by this? Is stopping the "woke mind virus" really that important to you?
For some people yes, no matter the cost, as long as cruel things happen to people they don't like, it's worth everything and if you asked them whether or not this matters, they will tell you no, because America doesn't need anyone else.
Consider that the people who believe in “woke mind virus” aren’t intelligent enough to know what a virus even is, then they’re too unintelligent to understand why they should be embarrassed.
> Consider that the people who believe in “woke mind virus” aren’t intelligent enough to know what a virus even is
A lot of HNers are gonna disagree with you on this, Paul Graham is one of those people very concerned about the "woke mind virus".
A lot of HNers are gonna disagree with you on this, Paul Graham is one of those people very concerned about the "woke mind virus".
Is he really concerned about it, or is he using concern about it as a political tool?
Turns out if you subvert, mock and disenfranchise people long enough at some point they have enough.
We've heard ad nauseam that the rich need to pay their fair share.
This goes for importers as well. Pay your taxes.
The real substance of these complainers is that they can no longer dodge import fees thru de minimis exemptions. Tough luck. Pay your fair share.
This goes for importers as well. Pay your taxes.
The real substance of these complainers is that they can no longer dodge import fees thru de minimis exemptions. Tough luck. Pay your fair share.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> "we will continue to accept letters, postcards, printed matter, EMS (documents), and postal items (small packets, parcels, and EMS (goods)) containing gifts between individuals with a value of less than US$100."
So no, "mail" is not suspended. More accurate headline please.
So no, "mail" is not suspended. More accurate headline please.
Ecommerce of millions of people are facing a huge disruption.
Think of Brexit. Commerce still happens between the UK and Europe, but there is a massive show-stopping level of friction now because people need to do Customs. That is a lot of paperwork. Millions of people are not used to this and many small businesses will get wiped out.
Think of Brexit. Commerce still happens between the UK and Europe, but there is a massive show-stopping level of friction now because people need to do Customs. That is a lot of paperwork. Millions of people are not used to this and many small businesses will get wiped out.
And this is worse than Brexit. As in that case both sides had very clear rules and processes already in place. It was significant new overhead and there might not have been border capacity. But at least how everything could be done was clear.
Silicon Valley is in a mad panic, left wondering if bulk shipments of Tenga Eggs will be affected.
Hot take: good
The de minimis treatment has been abused beyond original intent. Specifically by China, but you can't fix that without fixing the general case.
Fast fashion and other low-value drop air shipping across oceans is ecologically insane: as a planet we literally can't afford to keep doing this. And the US, by virtue of population + relative consumer wealth, is the biggest customer for this.
Furthermore, the inability to reliably screen low-value packages is a problem. To wit, I should not be able to order illegal drugs on the internet and have them delivered by the federal postal system to my door without inspection.
Unfortunately, the way to actually address this requires thoughtful regulation (Congress+customs), modernization and funding of enforcement at scale (Congress+customs), and doesn't produce a quick win... so isn't going to be done.
More likely, it's used as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations, then the problem is declared "won", then it's back to business as usual.
The de minimis treatment has been abused beyond original intent. Specifically by China, but you can't fix that without fixing the general case.
Fast fashion and other low-value drop air shipping across oceans is ecologically insane: as a planet we literally can't afford to keep doing this. And the US, by virtue of population + relative consumer wealth, is the biggest customer for this.
Furthermore, the inability to reliably screen low-value packages is a problem. To wit, I should not be able to order illegal drugs on the internet and have them delivered by the federal postal system to my door without inspection.
Unfortunately, the way to actually address this requires thoughtful regulation (Congress+customs), modernization and funding of enforcement at scale (Congress+customs), and doesn't produce a quick win... so isn't going to be done.
More likely, it's used as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations, then the problem is declared "won", then it's back to business as usual.
On the general point about fast fashion etc. I don't disagree, but vague haphazard unclear regulation no one knows how to comply with is not "good" in any way. It's sloppy banana republic (McDonalds republic?) governance that's making a joke out of the entire country. I'm not American so I don't really care as such, but you know... it's not good. It's just bad governance on a very basic level.
Well this is how Chinese shippers on Amazon were able to sell goods so cheaply; in addition to the U.S. subsidizing Chinese mail costs. This will lead to a more fair and just system in the future. While the halt may seem like a bad thing, the dictation of global commerce means it's really symbolic. They can't withhold mail forever
Small D2C packages aren't necessarily worse ecologically than a big US retailer importing a bunch of junk to store in warehouses and maybe sell to customers (else landfill).
There's a very thin possibility window where the inefficiencies of individual packaging + shipping don't outweigh the efficiencies of bulk importing, even accounting for bulk wastage.
If we want to argue the former, I'd say we need to start with non-negotiable 100%-biodegradable, 0%-plastic packaging.
If we want to argue the former, I'd say we need to start with non-negotiable 100%-biodegradable, 0%-plastic packaging.
This. It’s well past time to fix this. We can live without Temu for a little while.
there is a literal energetic meaning to borders and frontiers and barriers IN GENERAL
from mitochondrial gradients pushing ions through a hole to make a protein complex spin so to chain double phosphate groups in ADP molecules into triple ATP molecules thereby storing energy.
all the way up to an international entities controlling flows of goods and people across borders with the goal of maximizing corporate and government profits (storing/collecting energy)
i.e. utilizing the energetic gradient caused by citizens and people and families trying to meet each other across the border including sending each other goods, flavors, candies, etcs
from mitochondrial gradients pushing ions through a hole to make a protein complex spin so to chain double phosphate groups in ADP molecules into triple ATP molecules thereby storing energy.
all the way up to an international entities controlling flows of goods and people across borders with the goal of maximizing corporate and government profits (storing/collecting energy)
i.e. utilizing the energetic gradient caused by citizens and people and families trying to meet each other across the border including sending each other goods, flavors, candies, etcs
Apparently ending the de minimus exemption is closing the grey market for e.g. sunscreen; places that used to sell Japanese sunscreens on American shelves no longer are.
There's a frustratingly long list of goods that the US decided to put requirements on in previous generations, and then stopped maintaining. Sunscreen is one; other countries have invented sunscreens that feel better on your skin than the old styles, but aren't yet approved in the US. Motorcycle helmets are another. You may have seen the MIPS system - the yellow slipliner that's become popular in bicycle helmets. Scientists have realized that rotational impact leads to concussions and similar brain damage, but prior helmets only protected against naive impacts. Europe now requires helmets to protect against rotational damage. The US requires that manufacturers self-assert that they meet a very old standard that ignores rotational impact. They do not recognize Europe's new standard.
Closing these de minimus exemptions is making it harder for discerning consumers to buy higher quality goods than are currently available in the US right now. Protectionists are going to see this as a win.
More background on helmet standards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BUyp3HX8cY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76yu124i3Bo