[HN Gopher] Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from 'recipro...
___________________________________________________________________
Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from 'reciprocal' tariffs
Author : tosh
Score : 101 points
Date : 2025-04-12 13:18 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| almog wrote:
| That might explain why Apple's stock was leading the rally
| yesterday...
| techpineapple wrote:
| Wasn't Howard Lutnick on TV recently explicitly saying they
| wanted to bring iPhone assembly here? How is one to understand
| the union of these two perspectives?
|
| https://fortune.com/2025/04/07/howard-lutnick-iphones-americ...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > How is one to understand the union of these two perspectives?
|
| Only one perspective actually matters right now, and it's
| notoriously mercurial.
|
| Administration officials often have about as much knowledge of
| what's to come as we do.
| sidvit wrote:
| Howard Lutnick got pulled from the TV sidelines over stuff like
| this apparently. Bessent is running the show now which is
| probably why they're actually responding to the bond market
| punching them in the face this week
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| He definitely blinked. Also illegal immigrants who work in hotels
| and on farms won't be deported. Weird.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| Who would have guessed.
| BearOso wrote:
| Yeah, they're really exemplifying the "shoot first and ask
| questions later" model.
| vdupras wrote:
| Nothing means anything anymore. This of course will change
| completely on monday, then again on tuesday. Of course in the
| spirit of insider plundering. This circus will go on until we
| hear the magic words "the chocolate rations have been increased
| by 20g".
| ajross wrote:
| Ugh. Note that this is a capitulation. China's retaliatory import
| tariff rate remains in effect, and _they_ get to decide which
| industries to relax, if any. The net effect is that if you 're in
| one of the handful of businesses that export to China, the Trump
| administration threw you under the proverbial bus.
| vdupras wrote:
| While we're at it, China might as well impose a 145% _export_
| tax on phones, computers and chips, just to taunt.
| superkuh wrote:
| Anyone have a readable mirror that contains text?
| jmclnx wrote:
| I cannot read it, but didn't China restrict the export of some
| tech related items as part of their tariffs ?
|
| I remember hearing those items are need to make assemble some
| components needed for some boards.
|
| I hope Wall Street is still hammering this admin. on why these
| tariffs are bad.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Seems a bit anti-business to have an unequal playing field just
| for the star-bellied sneetches. Also silly that those with the
| biggest piles of capital are getting exemptions when the whole
| purpose of this exercise is to spur local investment in
| manufacturing. If anything, small businesses below some threshold
| of revenue/staff should be getting exemptions.
| croes wrote:
| That's how oligarchies work.
| izacus wrote:
| Eastern Europe and large part of Asia to US citizens: "First
| time?"
| bogwog wrote:
| Wdym? It's entirely merit-based, with the 'merit' being $1
| million dollar totally-not-a-bribe dinner with the president:
| https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...
| rqtwteye wrote:
| That's definitely how it looks like
| FranzFerdiNaN wrote:
| America has finally become the banana republic it has accused
| others of being.
| vasco wrote:
| That's a funny way of looking at it because the banana
| republics weren't called that because they were "bananas" or
| something. They were called that to identify which of those
| countries had had state and megacorp interference and
| government toplings, by mostly the United Fruit Company - an
| American company.
|
| Whatever the banana republics were they were turned into that
| by the US's doing, so it's funny that now the term comes back
| home.
| ftorres16 wrote:
| It bears some resemblance to the Imperial Boomerang.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang
| kmeisthax wrote:
| People commenting here about Trump corruption are correct,
| but it's also not _new_. This is regression to the mean.
| America has historically been a highly corrupt nation with
| extreme wealth inequality that _occasionally_ has shocks
| (e.g. Abolitionism, the Progressive movement, WWII) that
| allow liberals to take over and purge the system of
| corruption. If anything, we 've had to deal with and defeat
| (or at least, outlive) smarter and more well-connected
| fascists than Trump.
| integricho wrote:
| not just a bit, this is so unfair and smells of corruption,
| only the richest companies getting exemptions, give me a break.
| this is what organized crime looks like.
| victor106 wrote:
| You are right.
|
| Do you think all the tech CEO's attended his inauguration for
| nothing?
|
| I never imagined I would see such public corruption in any
| western country. I am saying this as someone who supported some
| the current administrations agenda
| giarc wrote:
| The inauguration donations are pretty common across all
| parties, I think the Trump coin launching the day prior was
| the most corrupt.
| sitkack wrote:
| The whole idea of an inauguration donation is gross. No
| president should accept, and no one should offer.
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| Companies aren't getting exemptions. The product categories
| are. The headline is misleading. And while you might already be
| aware of that, most the people responding to you clearly
| aren't.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| The result is still that certain companies are getting
| exemptions for their products while others aren't. And there
| is no real rhyme or reason behind these decisions
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| K. We aren't in disagreement there. Not sure if you're
| giving pushback on something I said.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| True, yet irrelevant. If Apple imports garlic for it's
| cafeteria, that will be tariffed. But those commodity
| categories represent the business of the named companies, and
| those companies represent the majority of the value of
| imports to the US in those categories.
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| It's not irrelevant at all when the headline implies that
| companies were singled out by name. Details matter.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| Because they can't do it, and will be sued, to my
| understanding. I think you're trying to make the admins
| look good.
| jm4 wrote:
| It's total bullshit. Part of my business involves direct import
| and that's now impacted by tariffs. The cherry on top is that
| what I import is not and cannot be produced in the U.S. I
| source a number of other products from suppliers in the U.S.
| and literally every single one of them is impacted by tariffs
| somehow, whether it's ingredients, packaging, etc. that comes
| from somewhere else. Some of my materials originate in the
| Dominican Republic, which is now subject to a 10% tariff,
| although it's more common for others in my industry to source
| those same materials from China. Now that China is
| prohibitively expensive, they will be quickly pivoting to other
| suppliers, which will further drive up prices. Supply chains
| are in chaos right now.
|
| It burns me up that massive companies like Apple and Nvidia get
| a free pass while everyone else is subject to the most brain
| dead economic policy anyone alive today has ever lived through.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| The whole thing strikes me as a bunch of nepobaby/fake
| academic/banker bro advisors who have no idea how the
| physical world works. As much as I think Musk is a bad actor
| at this point, talking to him about supply chains would have
| highlighted how insane this whole plan was from day 1.
|
| My dad is a retired EE who dealt with the 90s offshoring wave
| and described the process of spinning up offshore production
| with a new supplier/factor/product as a 1-2 year process.
|
| Now imagine every producer with China exposure trying to do
| this at the same time dealing with the same limited ex-China
| options? Nothing was happening in the 90 day pause, let alone
| before the 2026 midterms or before the end of his reign in
| 2028.
|
| Complete chaos for American companies who are left with no
| good options other than try to wait it out, and pass on
| excess cost to consumers in interim.
| jm4 wrote:
| It's pure stupidity and most people don't even realize it.
| Last night I met a couple at a country club where I was a
| guest - one of those $100k/yr places - and they asked me if
| my trade partners are charging me more with the tariffs. I
| told them the U.S. government is charging me more with the
| tariffs and my trade partners are charging me more because
| the value of the dollar is down. This was the first time
| anyone told them it's the importer who pays the tariff and
| that it will be passed to the customer in multiples to
| maintain the same profit margin. Man, to be wealthy enough
| to be a member at a place like that and to be able to live
| in ignorant bliss... What a life.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| This is why I don't know if he will/would actually hold
| fast through the turbulence of actually implementing
| anything he's threatened.
|
| Once we eat through inventories and stuff that left the
| ports & currently on the water, prices will go up.
|
| The country went insane when inflation crossed 5%, are we
| really going to do it again.. when the reason for it will
| be so singularly obvious?
| miohtama wrote:
| I have seen country clubs only in movies. Do those places
| really exist and are they as stereotypical as one might
| expect?
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Country clubs aren't terribly different than a Manhattan
| co-op..
| kgwgk wrote:
| "Star-bellied sneetches" maybe, but it's not about "biggest
| piles of capital" as much as about importing things with the
| following codes:
|
| 8471 8473.30 8486 8517.13.00 8517.62.00 8523.51.00 8524
| 8528.52.00 8541.10.00 8541.21.00 8541.29.00 8541.30.00
| 8541.49.10 8541.49.70 8541.49.80 8541.49.95 8541.51.00
| 8541.59.00 8541.90.00 8542
| m348e912 wrote:
| It took me a minute to figure out what you were referring to:
|
| | Code | Description |
|
| |--------------|---------------------------------------------
| ---------------------------------|
|
| | 8471 | Automatic data processing machines (e.g., computers,
| servers, laptops) |
|
| | 8473.30 | Parts/accessories for machines of 8471 (e.g.,
| computer parts) |
|
| | 8486 | Machines for manufacturing semiconductors or ICs |
|
| | 8517.13.00 | Smartphones |
|
| | 8517.62.00 | Data transmission machines (e.g., routers,
| modems) |
|
| | 8523.51.00 | Solid-state storage (e.g., USB drives, flash
| memory) |
|
| | 8524 | Recorded media (e.g., tapes, disks -- mostly
| obsolete) |
|
| | 8528.52.00 | LCD/LED monitors for computers |
|
| | 8541.10.00 | Diodes (not including LEDs) |
|
| | 8541.21.00 | Transistors (<1 W dissipation) |
|
| | 8541.29.00 | Other transistors |
|
| | 8541.30.00 | Thyristors, diacs, triacs |
|
| | 8541.49.10 | Gallium arsenide LEDs |
|
| | 8541.49.70 | Other LEDs (not GaAs) |
|
| | 8541.49.80 | Other photosensitive semiconductors |
|
| | 8541.49.95 | Other semiconductors not elsewhere specified |
|
| | 8541.51.00 | Unassembled photovoltaic cells |
|
| | 8541.59.00 | Other photovoltaic cells/modules |
|
| | 8541.90.00 | Parts for items in 8541 |
|
| | 8542 | Electronic integrated circuits (e.g.,
| microprocessors, memory chips) |
| kgwgk wrote:
| I copied the codes from the actual government
| communication: https://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd
| /USDHSCBP-3db9e5...
|
| As other commenter says, it's interesting that there are
| also exceptions within the exceptions.
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| I'm reaching here but....
|
| Apple has already "committed" to investing in US manufacturing.
| Also, many companies have committed to AI investments on US
| soil which would be heavily NVIDIA dependent. Could be a
| justification for the exemption.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| This is probably the most corrupt, pay to play government in
| the history of the US. Merit has no place here.
| crawsome wrote:
| It's so painful watching this administration be forced to react
| to their preventable mistakes in-real-time with no repercussions.
|
| One thing is throwing and seeing what sticks, but at the seat of
| the presidency, it seems like such an antipattern for leadership.
| And yet, the support is unwavering. It's exhausting.
| northrup wrote:
| oh, they'll be repercussions. We, as a nation, will be paying
| for this for years and years to come.
| sfifs wrote:
| My partner just canceled her trip where she'd have easily
| spent 4-5k in the US economy due to uncertainty in the border
| governance.
|
| A lot of my friends are rethinking sending their children to
| US for college education while Trump is in power and are
| considering European schools. That's probably a few million
| dollars over next 2-3 years potentially lost from the US
| economy from just people i personally know. And no one is
| coming from China.
| chvid wrote:
| What imports of size from China are then under full tariffs?
|
| Seems silly just to mess up a few toy importers.
| SonOfKyuss wrote:
| Auto parts come to mind. Also there are plenty of products on
| shelves at big box retailers like Walmart that are made in
| China and won't fall into the exempted categories.
| ojbyrne wrote:
| Auto parts, but also autos.
| hu3 wrote:
| So Tesla gets a handwave against world conquering BYDs.
| ajross wrote:
| Pointed it out in the other thread, but _this is a capitulation_.
| China imposed retaliatory tariffs that remain in effect! There
| are a handful of businesses that do indeed export to China, and
| the net effect here is that they 've all been thrown under the
| bus. China gets to kill/pick/control them at will now.
| dave4420 wrote:
| How will China react to this, I wonder.
| ajross wrote:
| The horrifying thing is that they don't have to. They hold
| all the cards now. They can drop their new trade barriers at
| will. Maybe they'll ask for concessions. Maybe they'll leave
| them in place to kill off troublesome competitors. Maybe
| they'll coerce the affected companies into selling to
| Chinese-owned interests at a steep discount. Maybe they'll
| just take a bunch of bribes.
|
| This is how a trade war looks. And we're losing. Badly.
| foobarian wrote:
| > They hold all the cards now
|
| What do you mean "now?" With the amount of trade imbalance
| they had the ability to simply block exports at any time.
| It perhaps only works once but it's a very powerful lever.
| pests wrote:
| Isn't that the lever that we pulled on ourselves?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| They will either ignore it or double down with an export tax
| on items in that class.
| est wrote:
| China waits paitiently for the big BOOM of US treasury bond
| in June.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| As a result of that, they got into some really successful
| negotiations with a lot of countries in Asia, Africa, Europe
| and America. I think they want to keep the subject on the
| news for as long as possible.
|
| And then I imagine they'll probably silently drop the
| tariffs, because those are harmful for them.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| This link is better:
|
| https://wccftech.com/trumps-reciprocal-tariffs-have-reported...
|
| Or, the primary source seems to be:
|
| https://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/USDHSCBP-3db9e5...
|
| But you'd have to look up those codes to know they're for PCs,
| smartphones
| instagib wrote:
| Thanks for a great free article.
|
| The title is sensationalism when it should be phone and
| computer associated parts are exempted from tariffs or
| something like that.
| SamuelAdams wrote:
| Actual source:
| https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCBP/bulletins/...
| sleepyguy wrote:
| https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/tariffs-exclusions-exem...
|
| >This latest round of tariff rates is currently set at 125% for
| Chinese goods and a 10% tax on imports from other trading
| partners. China also had an additional 20% tax on its goods that
| began in March, bringing its total to 145%.
|
| Importers of these electronics will no longer face the newest
| taxes, and it cuts the Chinese rate down to 20% for them. The
| exceptions cover $385 billion worth of 2024 imports, 12% of the
| total. It includes $100 billion from China, 23% of 2024 imports
| from there. For these electronics, the average tax rate went from
| 45% to 5% with this rule.
|
| The biggest global exemption is the import category that includes
| PCs and servers, with $140 billion in 2024 imports, 26% of it
| from China. Circumstances may change again, but this benefits AI
| king Nvidia, server-makers like Dell, Hewlett Packard Enterprise
|
| HPE
|
| +2.91% , and Super Micro, and PC makers like Dell and HP
|
| HPQ
|
| +2.49% . The average tax rate went from 45% to 5% here, according
| to Barron's calculations.
|
| The biggest newly exempt category for Chinese goods is
| smartphones, with $41 billion in 2024 U.S. imports, 81% of all
| smartphone imports. A 145% tax on that would be $60 billion, but
| even the new 20% tax is a hefty $8 billion.
| cinbun8 wrote:
| From an outsider's perspective, it's difficult to discern any
| coherent U.S. strategy--assuming one even exists. One day it's a
| 145% tariff on China. The next, it's "Well, it's still 145%, but
| Apple and Nvidia are exempted because their stock prices might
| take a hit." Then comes a 90-day pause, adding to the confusion.
|
| It's not clear whether Jamieson Greer is actually steering this,
| or if any of it was thoroughly thought through.
| ArinaS wrote:
| > " _assuming one even exists_ "
|
| I actually doubt it does. Everyting is just too chaotic to be a
| strategy.
| FabHK wrote:
| Agreed. I think at this point we can discard the assumption
| of 4D chess.
|
| (This is not to say that there aren't some Project 2025 plans
| in the background that parts of the administration are aiming
| to push through.)
| whalesalad wrote:
| chaos is the strategy
| Henchman21 wrote:
| Destruction is the goal.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| If there is a strategy it is probably dominating the news cycle
| with this chaotic bullshit, while they navigate towards the
| real goal in the shadows.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| It's not in the shadows, they're breaking everything that can
| oppose them to try to make the US an autocracy. It's right
| out in the open.
| dkrich wrote:
| There is no plan. Talk tough, reverse under pressure, rinse
| repeat. Anyone surprised must not have watched season one which
| aired in 2019.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| If Trump is America's Napoleon III, who is the world's modern
| Otto von Bismark?
| yareally wrote:
| Probably Putin.
| vdupras wrote:
| I'm curious as to why you chose Napoleon III. The context
| under which he rose to power seem quite different from
| Trump's. America isn't in the middle of a 60-years long
| revolution/counter-revolution cycle. What are the
| similarities?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Conservatives think so.
| crq-yml wrote:
| I'd nominate Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni. As
| authoritarian "president for life" since 1986, he's
| demonstrated some savvy statecrafting amid Africa's
| resource wars and ethnic violence, making the country a
| point of stability and economic growth on the continent.
|
| (Of course, he's got plenty of negatives on the record too.
| But I think in the game of "Great Man History", he's
| already left a big legacy.)
| steveBK123 wrote:
| The "smart trumpers" I know have already staked out the
| entire range of possible outcomes:
|
| 1) He is completely restructuring global trade and decoupling
| us from China which is tough but necessary medicine because
| our biggest geopolitical adversary cannot be our largest
| trading partner
|
| 2) You can't believe half of what he says, he's all bluster,
| he's addicted to deals and will sign some fake deals to score
| a domestic win and we will resume status quo
|
| Like yeah - sounds smart, but which is it?
| netsharc wrote:
| Thinking the status quo will return so easily is like Putin
| pulling out of Ukraine and saying "So we're back to 23rd
| January (Edit/Correction: February) 2022, right, friends?".
|
| The trust in the US (dollar) hegemony has now been eroded,
| and will probably continue until a purge of the regime of
| idiots (not just the oust of one idiot...).
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Well yes, either position was dismissibly stupid.
|
| No president is going to ride out a self-imposed multi-
| year global trade reconfiguration triggering inflation,
| shortages and unemployment.
|
| Nor is putting the genie back in the bottle possible now
| and so even if you return to status quo trade policy,
| you've now spooked the world re: reliability of US as
| partners, US dollar, US debt, etc.
|
| Worst of both worlds really. Incredible self owns over
| and over.
| kowabungalow wrote:
| The goals are petty profit, some extortion, some illegal
| trading. Destroying 80% of the value of the US isn't
| meaningful if he gets to own a lot more of the remainder.
| Everything is profit for the broke real estate conman of
| 2015.
| rat87 wrote:
| 2 ignores all the damage caused in the meanwhile
|
| 1 is wrong because if he wanted to decouple us from China
| he'd lower tarrifs on other countries especially close
| allies
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Right so nothing he is doing is smart or makes sense, and
| the "smart" people who try to put intellectual
| scaffolding around his actions get repeatedly disproven
| by his subsequent actions...
| Applejinx wrote:
| Neither. They're unwilling to concede he's run out of the
| Kremlin and the chaos and damage is the only purpose. The
| only reason he backs down on any of it is because he can't
| afford not to, so he's doing the usual brinksmanship,
| instructed by whoever's telling him to axe those obscure
| aviation safety committees (someone has detailed info), and
| probably hoping he can flee to Moscow at some point.
|
| I don't think he'll be let off the hook, though. He's
| tasked to ruin us well below 'status quo', even for people
| diligently not paying attention.
| jmull wrote:
| > assuming one even exists
|
| Why would you assume that?
|
| I don't know why people keep expecting Trump to be different
| than what he has consistently shown us for all these years.
| There's no subtle plan. There's no long-term plan. He's
| cranking the levers immediately available to him for the drama,
| as he has always done.
|
| People around him may have ideas and plans. They can sometimes
| get him to agree to one of these, but it never lasts long.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I mean, his rich friends made 340 billion in the stock market
| chaos. So I suspect there is at least a vague plan, but it
| has nothing to do with anyone but himself and those who
| support him getting richer. But that's the only plan I think
| Trump has ever had in his entire life, or will ever have.
|
| Like he's just not that deep. He's an incredibly shallow,
| inexperienced, dim, incurious old man who has never worked a
| job in his life, never built anything, never did anything. He
| arrived on top and his greatest achievement in life was
| managing to not lose it, in a country where it is
| specifically very hard to do that.
|
| And hearing his supporters talk about how strong he is is
| just objectively hilarious. Man looks like 4 steepish flights
| of stairs would kill him stone dead.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| I don't like him either, but it's not like accomplished
| nothing: https://www.cnbc.com/2010/11/09/Donald-Trumps-
| Best-and-Worst...
|
| There are some failures in there but also some wins, like
| buying air rights for. Heap and making effective use of
| them.
| jmull wrote:
| You found a puff piece from 2010 to extoll Trump?
|
| (It appears to be a promotional piece for a "CNBC Titans"
| episode featuring Trump.)
|
| I try to assume good intent, which includes not writing
| off the odd things people post as bot-generated, but in
| this case, attributing this to a bot is quite a positive
| spin.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| Maybe it's a puff piece, but it contains examples of what
| he did with his life and businesses. You couldn't write
| an article like that after 2015 or so without it being
| influenced by his disaster of a political career.
|
| My point is, he didn't just sit on daddy's money, he
| actually pulled off a couple of savvy moves. There are
| plenty of other things to criticize him for.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Why would you want an article on someone that excludes
| context from their most impactful and most visible
| decade? It's true that an author today, who knows about
| his 2024 conviction for fraudulently overstating the
| value of his properties, would bring a much more
| skeptical eye to claims about what a success they were.
| Did he seem to be making better deals in 2010 because he
| was better at it then, or because nobody was looking as
| closely at whether they were really good?
| andreygrehov wrote:
| When it comes to global impact, can you even confidently say
| you're being strategic? It almost feels like staying tactical
| is the only viable strategy - there are simply too many
| variables. The chances are high that any strategy you come up
| with is doomed to fail.
| jonplackett wrote:
| This is the only explanation that has made sense to me so far.
| And it makes even more sense based on these exemptions.
|
| https://www.instagram.com/share/_jW_V1hwM
|
| This is Senator Chris Murphy explaining it's not economic
| policy, it's an attempt to blackmail corporations into
| submission by making a deal with him in return for sanctions
| relief.
|
| Keep an eye out for what Apple and nvidia might have agreed to
| give.
| zzzeek wrote:
| co-sign, it's the King's Tax (as Murphy had explained in a
| different video I watched of his). it's that simple. also it
| was a giant elephant to make everyone forget that they just
| exposed an entire military action over Signal in a completely
| illegal and extremely incompetent way.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I'm British so not that knowledgeable about us politics
| beyond the big players.
|
| How well known is Murphy? I'd never heard of him until I
| saw this video but he seems very impressive and much more
| electable than Biden or harris.
| zzzeek wrote:
| he's a US Senator. Senators are very important here
| jonplackett wrote:
| Yeah I get that he's a senator! I mean how much in the
| public eye is he. Would a random person know who he is?
|
| We have hundreds of Members of Parliament here in the UK,
| but probably only 10 that most people could name.
|
| I wondered how big his public profile is.
| jraines wrote:
| Most Senators are not well known nationally (sadly)
| unless they've either:
|
| - done a non-negligible Presidential campaign
|
| - been born from a famous family
|
| - the press either love them or love to hate them
|
| - have a leadership position and/or are conspicuously
| ancient
|
| Relentless self-promotors are a superset of 3, the ones
| who succeed
|
| Unfortunately being sensible, cooperative, or good with
| policy isn't on the list
|
| It can occasionally work for state Governors
| poink wrote:
| I think Bernie Sanders is the only current senator I'd
| expect a random American to know. Murphy might make the
| top 5 highest profile senators but you wouldn't know him
| if you don't pay attention to politics at all.
| ImJamal wrote:
| Murphy isn't well known.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| He's getting more well known pretty fast, over all this.
| His explainer videos of what's going on and why it's so
| dangerous are often kinda boring and basic if you're a
| politics nerd-but that's great, because we don't need to
| be told, it's the folks who _aren 't_ politics nerds who
| need to be educated on this stuff.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| About as well known as a politically active Lord would be
| in the UK. The general public probably doesn't recognize
| his name, anyone interested in politics does.
| unclebucknasty wrote:
| It's exactly what it is. And, the seemingly haphazard,
| unpredictable nature of it is a feature, serving as perfect
| cover:
|
| "Why these exemptions?"
|
| "Who knows? None of it makes sense."
|
| But, of course, it does.
|
| It's also consistent with other, publicly-wielded cudgels,
| like the law-firm extortions under threat of executive
| orders.
| sitkack wrote:
| People should be more alarmed of these law firms, they will
| be used as his private army.
| fundad wrote:
| I'm sure the richest corporations are rushing to retain
| these firms in an attempt to be on the winning side.
| rotexo wrote:
| I think his private armies are going to be his private
| armies. Think Wagner group, to be deployed domestically
| and in central/South America.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| As opposed to his _public_ army, which he actually does
| control as President of the United States. I'm alarmed of
| that.
| belter wrote:
| People should be more alarmed, the bar does not expel the
| lawyers at those firms from the profession. They must be
| breaking every misconduct rule.
|
| "The ABA rejects efforts to undermine the courts and the
| legal profession" -
| https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-
| archives/2...
|
| Rule 8.4: Misconduct: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/
| professional_responsibili...
| FabHK wrote:
| "Nice smartphone business you have here..."
| vFunct wrote:
| Which didn't really work since what exactly are US tech
| companies giving Trump in exchange for eliminating tariffs?
|
| And are only large corporations expected to play? I import
| shopping bags from Chinese manufacturers from my store, like
| millions of other small businesses do. What exactly are we
| supposed to offer Trump?
| mcmcmc wrote:
| Bribes
| blitzar wrote:
| Buy a meal at Mar-A-Lago, $5mil a plate.
| mindslight wrote:
| The second worst part is the actual food on the plate is
| just a dumped out bag from McDonalds.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| > And are only large corporations expected to play? I
| import shopping bags from Chinese manufacturers from my
| store, like millions of other small businesses do. What
| exactly are we supposed to offer Trump?
|
| You'll eventually be buying them, for more than you pay now
| but less than the imported price, from a large US company
| that bribed whoever Dear Leader is at the time, for
| exemptions.
| prng2021 wrote:
| I keep seeing these explanations of "4D chess". It's Donald
| Trump. He has absolutely no idea what he's doing when it
| comes to economic policies. Unless you believe he can see
| into the future of how other world leaders would react and
| consistently outsmart everyone else, there's no 4D chess
| being played.
| aswanson wrote:
| Occams razor. It's Donald Trump, I've known he was a joke
| since the late 80s. In middle school. Baffling to see
| millions of people think reality TV is real and give him
| nuke codes.
| lttlrck wrote:
| I knew he was a joke in the lates eighties at middle
| school - in the UK. Baffling indeed. I am US citizen now
| - equally baffling on some days...
| rescripting wrote:
| This isn't advanced negotiation tactics, it's mafia style
| negotiation tactics, which are 100% in character. See the
| law firms now providing him with 100s of millions in pro
| bono work to avoid punitive executive orders.
| spwa4 wrote:
| They never mentioned if they are providing "him" - as in
| the US government, or "him" as in Donald Trump, 100s of
| millions in pro Bono work ...
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Articles said causes supported by Trump.
| enaaem wrote:
| Imagine a mob trying to extort you while also stabbing
| himself and having a beef with the whole city at the same
| time.
| unclebucknasty wrote:
| No, it's not 4D chess, and neither is extorting companies
| with tariffs, extorting law firms with threats of executive
| orders, or hammering universities by withholding funds.
|
| It's all blunt-force checkers that any simpleton with power
| can easily understand.
| hackernewds wrote:
| hard to attribute to competence what you can attribute to
| malice. just as law firms are being squeezed for $600
| million of services through extortion, this is Mafia
| mentality as well where first something is held hostage and
| then negotiated for. given the parties involved, I would
| even assume that there is personal benefits staked in this,
| and lots of insider trading of course
| netsharc wrote:
| I learned that "4D chess" just means, "I see the 3
| dimensions, I can't explain what's happening, but I guess
| they can, because they have that extra dimension.".
|
| At this point it's something like 100D chess, because 99
| levels of "Why?" have been explained by "because they're
| morons" but the defenders keep believing there's an extra
| dimension...
| jonplackett wrote:
| Exactly but this is NOT economic policy
| fundad wrote:
| Yeah he's obviously in no state to decide on policy. We
| don't know who is running things but it's not him, a number
| of factions moving the direction a little bit in their
| favor whenever they get the opportunity. And of course
| there is massive insider trading going on too.
| derefr wrote:
| What about believing that he's a particularly-easily-
| manipulated patse (esp. when it comes to things he doesn't
| care about), and so this is someone else playing 4D chess
| _through_ him?
|
| For all the accusations of fascism, nobody seems to
| remember that a key feature of fascism is a corporate-cabal
| shadow government that legitimizes its activities/policies
| by puppeteering the "real" government to both execute and
| justify them.
| whatshisface wrote:
| That's what German industrialists were hoping to achieve
| through Hitler, but they didn't end up with anything like
| it.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Trump is determined to be remembered by history for his
| bold moves and "greatness". There is no 4D chess here.
| There is no such thing as 4D chess.
|
| At best, he's using these tariffs as a temporary means to
| exert pressure and watching how others respond to them,
| almost like acting like the crazy man with a gun to make
| people a little more willing to negotiate terms more
| favorable for the gunman. At least as a matter of intent,
| anyway. The actual effect is another matter.
| belter wrote:
| How can somebody even entertain the idea is able the hold
| the concept of Chess, much less 4D, while at the same time
| being aware he nominated Matt Gaetz for Attorney
| General...Let that sink in for a while...
|
| "In 2020, Gaetz was accused of child sex trafficking and
| statutory rape. After an investigation, the United States
| Department of Justice (DOJ) decided not to charge him. In
| December 2024, the House Ethics Committee released a report
| which found evidence that Gaetz paid for sex--including
| with a 17-year-old--and abused illegal drugs during his
| tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives."
| joak wrote:
| Completely agree no 4D chess here. Just a guy that wants to
| keep the attention on him, one day is kissing Russia's ass,
| the next day when "peace" is failing, it's tariffs, etc etc
| no strategy at all, just a show to stay on first page day
| after day.
| gbil wrote:
| This assumes that he has more power than the tech companies
| on the everyday life and I wonder if that is really the case.
| As I'm not located in the states, I'm very much interested to
| hear from a US resident if that is really the case.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| A tech company can't shoot me with impunity under
| "qualified immunity". Put me in jail, harass me because I
| don't look like a belong in my own neighborhood, take my
| property under civil forfeiture without a trial...
| hedora wrote:
| They can permanently ban you from the economy though.
| disqard wrote:
| You're right about these most serious adverse outcomes,
| but don't forget what could happen if you (say) randomly
| get your Big Tech account locked/suspended/banned for
| some reason that was ultimately erroneously flagged by an
| AI, and then cheerfully executed at scale.
|
| The examples you provided are more fundamental and I
| won't trivialize them, but making you lose your "keys to
| your own digital space" is a very real power they have
| over you.
| dtquad wrote:
| >This assumes that he has more power than the tech
| companies
|
| lol
|
| Even the San Francisco city council is bullying American
| tech companies and tech executives.
|
| The power of US tech companies is vastly overstated.
| bluedevilzn wrote:
| The biggest mistake tech companies have done over the
| past 2 decades is not spending enough money lobbying.
| Every other industry manages to stay under the radar by
| continuing to pay both sides. Tech industry never got
| involved in politics so they were easy targets for
| politicians on minor issues.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _The biggest mistake tech companies have done over the
| past 2 decades is not spending enough money lobbying._
|
| What does "enough" look like?
|
| https://www.datawrapper.de/_/Ldiwf/
| pseudalopex wrote:
| > This assumes that he has more power than the tech
| companies on the everyday life
|
| How?
| gbil wrote:
| From the perspective of a citizen's everyday life who
| sees that their life is getting more expensive and
| consumes information from a curated essentially list -
| eg. Instagram, fb etc - from the operator of that
| platform. I don't think that the average person in the
| states - like in my European country - watches tv or buys
| a newspaper. In this context is the PR and hence effect
| from the government more than that of the tech companies
| ?
| forinti wrote:
| I think the most probable outcome is that Trump causes enough
| trouble to incite the whole country against him.
|
| I don't see him completing his term. He's going to be
| impeached.
| gscott wrote:
| The rich have always blamed others for the growing wealth
| gap.
|
| Americans often point to outside forces instead of holding
| the government accountable.
|
| Years of messaging have trained people to support tariffs,
| spending cuts, and even anti-immigrant policies--despite
| the need for labor.
|
| The real issue isn't spending, it's taxation. And we've let
| China ignore WTO rules for too long. Trump should've
| targeted tariffs at China alone--but he is the president,
| not me.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| About 30-40% of the country will stand behind the cult of
| Trump no matter what he does. With that power, almost every
| single Republican politician is afraid of getting
| primaried. Trump has already been impeached twice and it
| went nowhere.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| If he's impeached, it will be after midterms change the
| composition of the house. He will be acquitted in the
| Senate though
| throw310822 wrote:
| Sorry, but what would have been the consequences of the
| tariffs on Chinese imports? Do you imagine American citizens
| having to pay twice or more for an iPhone (or not getting one
| at all) because of Trump? Not being able to afford a new
| laptop, because of Trump? Not being able to buy all the cheap
| consumer electronics, because of Trump? The "blackmail"
| (except it's simply the consequences of his own actions) goes
| two ways here- see also the TikTok debacle: or how to explain
| to hundreds of millions of enraged Americans that they cannot
| use their favourite social network because of Trump.
| proggy wrote:
| What's interesting to me is that in this horribly corrupt
| state of affairs we find ourselves in, there are thousands
| upon thousands of smaller businesses that are not able to
| seek redress the way a megacorp like Apple or Nvidia can.
| Your run-of-the-mill office furniture importer doesn't have
| the same ability to book up a dinner and pay the requisite
| multi-million dollar lobbying fee as a Silicon Valley
| magnate. In the before times, these folks would form interest
| groups and lobby Congress as a unified front, but at the
| moment it seems as though that doesn't work anymore. It
| doesn't take imagination to see a highly noncompetitive,
| post-capitalist future where only the goods from megacorps
| are exempted, and the goods from medium sized businesses are
| taxed to oblivion, destroying any semblance of free markets.
| standardUser wrote:
| If this is an attempt at blackmail it appears to be failing.
| It's only been a few days and Trump has already unilaterally
| capitulated on several major positions. Unless he's
| blackmailing himself, the 'plan' is backfiring.
| belter wrote:
| "Trump to investors: My policies will never change" -
| https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-investors-my-
| policies...
| belter wrote:
| > Keep an eye out for what Apple and nvidia might have agreed
| to give.
|
| Well we know Nvidia did give a million dollars already:
|
| "A $1M-per-head dinner at Mar-a-Lago is how you get AI chips
| to China" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43652504
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| Tracking-free link:
| https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIALTQjMKma
| loudmax wrote:
| The term for this is extortion.
|
| The last time tariffs were this high, it led to rampant
| corruption as companies would pay off customs officers. This
| was one of the reasons for switching to an income tax. For
| the current administration this possibility counts as a major
| opportunity to generate personal wealth.
|
| But this isn't the only reason for the policy. For someone
| who is at heart a coward, bullying and brandishing raw power
| over others is its own reward. That reason enough for the
| policy, and damn the consequences for the nation.
| pkulak wrote:
| The plan is to make every country and CEO grovel at the feet of
| the boss to be exempted from the tariffs. I'd say it's
| corruption, but it's more like a protection racket.
|
| I wonder what these companies had to offer?
| TheSwordsman wrote:
| As an American, I regret to inform you that you're trying to
| use logic to understand a situation where it seems like logic
| wasn't used (in terms of the economic impact). These are the
| same fuckwits that tried to claim a trade deficit is the same
| as a tariff.
| coliveira wrote:
| That's how corruption works in a banana republic. Good things
| for my friends, hell for everyone else. It is the furthest you
| can be from free trading capitalism that the US was preaching
| while it was good for them.
| vFunct wrote:
| There is no planned strategy. Planning requires learning about
| entire systems, and Trump isn't smart enough to do that. He can
| only act on things placed before him. If he sees foreigners
| making money by selling into the US, he has to raise tariffs on
| it. There is no second order, third order, or any deeper level
| of understanding of what's going on. It's purely superficial
| action, on things Trumps eyes sees, not what his brain sees.
| There is no brain in there that can predict what would happen
| if tariffs were raised. He can only raise tariffs.
|
| To be smart is to have systemic understanding, and Trump & the
| Republicans are incapable of that.
|
| It's exactly what happened in his first term, when he got rid
| of the nation's pandemic preparedness because why would anyone
| ever need that, right?
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Every company that wants an exemption has to pay. It's a
| personal tax system.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _it's difficult to discern any coherent U.S. strategy--assuming
| one even exists_
|
| The strategy is to keep everyone unsure what might come next.
|
| It's like in boxing. When you hit your opponent and leave them
| confused and uncertain what you might do next, you use that to
| your advantage and keep on hitting. It's how you "win."
|
| As if there are any winners here.
| Flip-per wrote:
| He isn't really hitting an opponent though, he is mainly
| hitting the U.S.
| grey-area wrote:
| The US is what needs beaten into submission so he can rule
| over the ruins.
| ranger207 wrote:
| It's vibe governing, just like any other populist government
| stefan_ wrote:
| Import Chinese battery: 145% tariff
|
| Import Chinese battery inside Chinese laptop: 20% tariff
|
| Import Chinese battery inside Vietnamese laptop: 0% tariff
|
| Truly this will bring back American manufacturing!
| tobias3 wrote:
| The factories will be disassembling the laptops, taking out
| the batteries. Then the empty laptops will be sent back to
| China. That will increase exports to China as well.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That's another patronage angle. When the feds buy Lenovo
| laptops, they have to comply with TAA. So they ship the
| laptops to Texas, "materially transform" them, package and
| ship to the customer.
|
| You can be sure some crony owns the company that screws the
| display and puts stickers on the laptop with minimum wage
| workers.
| voisin wrote:
| The strategy is to sow fear and uncertainty to drive capital
| from stocks to government bonds and drive down the bond yield.
| Bessant is pretty clear about this. Once they get the bond
| yields down and refinance a lot of the short term debt into
| longer term debt they free up operating budget. Combine with
| Elon's DOGE cutting costs and Lutnick raising some capital from
| tariffs, and it is a pretty good strategy. I don't agree with
| Trump's policies generally nor am I American, but this is a
| good short term strategy.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| It's not a good short term strategy at all. If that's really
| the goal, their left and right hands need to have a chat
| because one of them's going to make the deficit way worse, so
| if the other's goal is to "free up operating budget" by
| reducing debt service they really ought to get on the same
| page, because anything "freed up" is going to be eaten by the
| other bullshit they're doing.
|
| Besides, this is a wildly expensive way to go about it. The
| harm to receipts from the economic uncertainty will blow a
| hole in the federal budget and leave states reeling (to say
| nothing of the "other hand" making cuts at the IRS, which
| will also be a net cost)
| deng wrote:
| > I don't agree with Trump's policies generally nor am I
| American, but this is a good short term strategy.
|
| This strategy has failed spectacularly, as bond yields are
| still up and treasuries are sold like crazy. US treasuries
| are no longer seen as safe havens. People rather invest in
| gold or treasuries from other countries which are not led by
| a corrupt government. Buying US treasuries is now seen as
| "lending Trump money", and since Trump runs the US economy
| exactly like he ran his companies, where IIRC he defaulted on
| debt at least six times, US treasuries are now a rather risky
| investment.
| ojbyrne wrote:
| Great strategy, except its not working. Bond yields are up
| (probably because foreigners and foreign countries are
| selling US bonds). DOGE cost cuts are insignificant. Raising
| capital from tariffs doesn't seem to be working because
| they're really taxes, and Americans don't like taxes.
| foogazi wrote:
| > but Apple and Nvidia are exempted because their stock prices
| might take a hit
|
| They already took a hit - which they monetized by both ways
| codedokode wrote:
| Can we use Occam's Razor and assume that nobody knows what
| would be the optimal tariff rates and if you don't have a
| reliable mathematical model the only choice you are left with
| is experimentation and A/B tests.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| I'd say it's clear that none of it was thoroughly thought
| through at the least.
| theropost wrote:
| Million dollar "dinners' seem to help.
|
| https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...
| jayd16 wrote:
| I think its crystal clear there is no actual plan.
| TZubiri wrote:
| "Well, it's still 145%, but Apple and Nvidia are exempted
| because their stock prices might take a hit."
|
| That's a massive misread. You are confusing the direction of
| influence between secondary public stock markets and federal
| executive orders.
|
| The tariffs are supposed to strengthen self sufficiency, and
| discourage imports of stuff the US can do on their own.
|
| Chip manufacturing, (which by the way is often only the
| manufacturing and not the design or IP of the chips), is an
| exception for whatever reason, may be labour costs, but it may
| also be that chips are a mineral heavy and diverse product, so
| it's one of the few products where autarky isn't feasible or
| very rewarding.
|
| And there would be situations without exemptions where the US
| may have been incentivized to import the raw materials and
| rebuild megachip factories, of which there are only like a
| dozen in the world, creating a huge output inefficiency due to
| political reasons on two fronts.
|
| Exceptions are reasonable.
| rpgbr wrote:
| The plan: What if we ran the richest, more powerful country on
| history as if it were a giant meme stock geared to benefit
| those in charge?
| joe_the_user wrote:
| To understand this, I think you have to neither overestimate or
| underestimate Trump and Musk.
|
| Both Trump and Musk seem be to essentially ideologues,
| visionary tough-talkers, who have actually succeed (or appeared
| to succeed) to various endeavors through having underling who
| work to shape their bluffs into coherent plans. This works well
| for various as long as the delicate balance of competent
| handlers and loud-mouthed visionaries is maintained.
|
| The problem is the process of Trump winning, losing and then
| winning again all him to craft an organization and legal
| framework to put forth he vision uncorrected, unbalanced and
| lacking all guardrails.
|
| And that's where we are.
| gotorazor wrote:
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technology/apple-nvidia-dell...
| lightedman wrote:
| Other businesses not exempt from these tariffs should sue for
| violation of equal protection. Equal protection under the law
| means equal treatment under the law and this absolutely is not
| equal treatment at all.
| mppm wrote:
| This is pretty much how I expected this to play out, at least for
| now. Trump acts all tough and doesn't back down _publicly_ , but
| China _actually_ doesn 't back down. So what happens is that some
| businesses get exemptions to mitigate the impact. Then some fine
| print gets changed about how the rules are enforced. Like,
| suddenly it turns out that Kiribati is a major electronics
| supplier to the US :)
|
| End result - US economy takes a hit, China takes a smaller hit.
| Trade balance widens further, most likely. The rich get richer,
| while many small companies struggle to survive.
| jmull wrote:
| > doesn't back down publicly
|
| Seems like he has been backing down publicly all week. Quickly
| too.
|
| This has been a massive catastrophe, though I suspect you're
| right about the end result.
| mppm wrote:
| Maybe publicly was not the right word. What I really meant is
| that the nominal 145% rate will remain in effect, so he can
| continue to pretend that the tariffs are still there and
| still hurting China, while he makes "minor adjustments" to
| protect American businesses.
| A1vis wrote:
| The media coverage seems a bit weird to me. The primary source
| was released 12 hours ago, but when I did a bit of research 4
| hours ago I only saw a few reports from dubious Chinese sources
| like this:
| https://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/1277768.html
|
| Then about 2 hours ago all major media outlets were covering it.
| joe_guy wrote:
| You're likely seeing the effect of timezones.
|
| It was announced at 11pm and American news companies didn't
| feel it urgent enough to report before their usual morning
| weekend staff's shift.
| ojbyrne wrote:
| Love the timing.
| pcurve wrote:
| Not full exemption. They're still subject to the 20% tariff
| (instead of the ridiculous 145%) so Trump can save his face.
| CapsAdmin wrote:
| I was trying to find out of this is still the case.
|
| How did you reach that conclusion?
| giarc wrote:
| Smartphones getting exemptions? Didn't the administration talk
| about how American's would be tightening screws on iPhones as
| they brought back these jobs? I'm starting to think they don't
| know what they are doing.... /s
| grandempire wrote:
| Are the tariffs good or bad?
| perihelions wrote:
| This reads to me as "we're doubling-down on 145%+ tariffs for
| everyone else".
|
| This is getting frighteningly close to a Russian-style economy.
| As in, a handful of powerful, connected "insiders" will be
| allowed to operate businesses, and will dominate... while
| everyone else gets wiped out, by acts of government. The furthest
| system possible from the free-market paradigm that built the
| American economy as it stands today.
|
| Russia is not a prosperous nation.
| hackernewds wrote:
| It opens up avenues to all sorts off oligarchy style bribery
| and lack of market competition. ultimately, the country will be
| looted, since the most successful businesses will not thrive on
| its merits
| aswanson wrote:
| His crypto coin also allows anyone to bribe him anonymously.
| It's incredibly corrupt.
| jader201 wrote:
| > _a handful of powerful, connected "insiders" will be allowed
| to operate businesses, and will dominate... while everyone else
| gets wiped out, by acts of government_
|
| Note that this is not an exemption for companies, but an
| exemption for goods:
|
| > _A new list of goods to be exempted from the latest round of
| tariffs on U.S. importers was released, and it includes
| smartphones, PCs, servers, and other technology goods, many of
| which are assembled in China._
| redserk wrote:
| It isn't really cheap or easy to build a PC or smartphone
| business with name recognition...
|
| Nor is it cheap or easy to build a company that would likely
| be able to appeal tariff exemptions...
| ojbyrne wrote:
| It's exactly as easy or cheap to build a smartphone or PC
| business as it was a month ago. The headline is misleading.
| jrflowers wrote:
| I like the way that you phrased "I agree with you, it is
| not cheap or easy" here
| asadotzler wrote:
| So all anyone has to do to qualify is produce some of the
| most complicated electronic devices and components in the
| history of the world at the largest scale possible, without
| which there is zero chance of being sustainable or
| competitive, and then they can benefit from the gifts to the
| established giants?
|
| What a gift. What a great idea. That'll surely spur
| innovation and domestic production and have no effect to
| further insulate the giants from competition.
| eastbound wrote:
| And if you build your tech in US, well, you are
| disadvantaged because you have to pay the tariffs on every
| component you import from China.
|
| So it's actually an incentive to build in China.
| ojbyrne wrote:
| So is your component in the list from a comment below -
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43665766
|
| Then you don't pay the tariff.
| iAMkenough wrote:
| Aluminum isn't a component, but you would pay a tariff on
| importing it to build with it.
| rvnx wrote:
| The other benefit of building in China is that you will
| get unrestricted access to Europe and other markets
| Gud wrote:
| Why is this downvoted? This is factual.
|
| Electronic imports, no/low tariffs.
|
| Import material to produce electronics, high imports.
| jader201 wrote:
| > _without which there is zero chance of being sustainable
| or competitive_
|
| It seems like some of these comments are missing how
| competition works.
|
| Competition happens within the same type(s) of goods, not
| across them.
|
| That is, the companies making the goods still affected by
| tariffs aren't in competition with the companies making
| goods now exempt by tariffs.
|
| Yes, its true that they will have a better chance at
| thriving under these exemptions, but whether they thrive or
| not should have little impact on the other companies.
|
| To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of this decision --
| or any of the tariffs, for that matter.
|
| I'm just simply arguing that competition isn't really the
| angle to use to argue against this particular decision.
| const_cast wrote:
| > Competition happens within the same type(s) of goods,
| not across them.
|
| Not true, for example smart phones replaced home
| computers for most people. Those are two very different
| goods, but since they can accomplish the same thing for
| the average person they end up competing.
| nabla9 wrote:
| This reeks "pay to play" very typical for banana republics.
|
| Donations to presidential inauguration fund to get access to
| the president was already tradition in the US. Trump government
| just exploits it without shame.
| joshuanapoli wrote:
| This is a populism move, not pay-to-play. The imminent
| reality would have been this: many Americans will want to
| take a vacation to Canada to get a deal on their phone. That
| just doesn't make sense.
| koolba wrote:
| > many Americans will want to take a vacation to Canada to
| get a deal on their phone. That just doesn't make sense.
|
| If they're following the law they'd have to declare the
| purchase when they come home.
| joshuanapoli wrote:
| Of course, I would declare the purchase, but I imagine
| not everyone would.
| acdha wrote:
| Yes, but people don't always follow the law. CBP reported
| a spike in people smuggling eggs last month, and the
| margin on iPhones is a lot more tempting.
| foogazi wrote:
| Where do you see the populism in favoring Apple, Nvidia,
| Dell ?
| ojbyrne wrote:
| There is no favoring of Apple, Nvidia or Dell. The
| headline is misleading. "and others" is doing a lot of
| heavy lifting.
| joshuanapoli wrote:
| The exclusion is by category: Smartphones, laptop
| computers, memory chips, machines used to create
| semiconductors, flat screen TVs, tablets and desktop
| computers. Apple, NVidia, and Dell are simply examples of
| some companies that will "benefit" (be harmed less).
| bitsage wrote:
| The prevailing school of economic thought in America, until
| Nixon, is actually what Trump idealizes. Protectionism from
| outside "threats", on the basis of security and sufficiency,
| and a loosely regulated internal market. In comparison, Russia
| has a lot of regulatory capture and straight up corruption that
| stifles the internal market.
| asadotzler wrote:
| There's no "regulatory capture and straight up corruption" in
| the US, that's for sure /s
| energy123 wrote:
| The Russia comparison is the corruption, not the
| protectionism.
| bitsage wrote:
| I'd understand if these exemptions applied to companies and
| not industries. For comparison, Putin unilaterally
| nationalizes and sells off companies to benefit his inner
| circle. The US isn't nationalizing AMD and selling it to
| Nvidia at the behest of Jensen.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Yet. They are still in the process of consolidating
| control over the government, the law, and universities.
| Once that's done, they will move on to corporations. It's
| been 2 months and change, give them time.
| const_cast wrote:
| > I'd understand if these exemptions applied to companies
| and not industries.
|
| Same thing, these companies essentially run these
| industries and nobody else can get in.
|
| If you want to make a competitor to Nvidia it would take
| you 20 years if you started RIGHT NOW. Hope you have a
| few hundred billion dollars lying around :P
|
| The distinction between domains and companies fully
| disappears in an oligarchy.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| We're building a hybrid of Italian Fascist and a Argentinian
| Peronist like state.
|
| The desire for transactional wins and power overshadows all.
| Trump will unironically ally himself with a turd like Elon, or
| a turd like the UAW dude who glazed him on "Liberation Day".
| The state control of business is missing... perhaps we'll see
| that develop with Tesla.
|
| It's a weird movement, because the baseline assumption is that
| the country is ruined. So any marginal win is celebrated, any
| loss is "priced in" politically.
| grey-area wrote:
| Well these tariffs are a great opportunity for state control
| and corruption, companies are bribing him already.
|
| Every dictatorship is unhappy in its own way but they all
| involve:
|
| Myth of the strong man dictator
|
| Erosion of rule of law
|
| Undermining independent judiciary
|
| Arbitrary detention and arbitrary enforcement of laws
|
| Separate paramilitary groups
|
| There are signs of all of this in the US just now.
| grandempire wrote:
| I didn't know HN was coming around to how regulation and
| bureaucracy are anti-competitive.
| xbmcuser wrote:
| The US economy was not built on a free-market. US private
| capitalists have been built on a free market; now that their
| profits are under attack because they are being outcompeted by
| China, so they are running away with the ball. American economy
| real growth, where most white Americans gained wealth, came
| after World War II, where it was government led and controlled.
| It was the same for Europe, where they had to rebuild all that
| was destroyed after the war. It was all mostly government
| controlled and financed.
|
| The problem today is that US and European capitalists are in
| power and do not want to admit that the Chinese economic model
| of government-controlled economic direction, though not
| perfect, would work better and help all the world's people
| rather than the select few. As China becomes the dominant
| economy, the rest of the world has to follow to stay
| competitive. So these are the death knell of a dying economic
| and government system. The US had the chance to bring real
| change for the people with Bernie Sanders, but that was
| scuttled by the capitalist non-democratic forces, allowing for
| the rise of Trump. US citizens have been hoodwinked by linking
| socialist thought, where caring about your fellow man is
| undemocratic, i.e., socialism.
| dtquad wrote:
| >the Chinese economic model of government-controlled economic
| direction, though not perfect, would work better
|
| You want the US government to provide more subsidies to US
| tech companies so they can stay competitive? Because that is
| what China is doing for its tech sector.
| throw310822 wrote:
| Why not if it brings long term benefits to the country?
|
| Better than putting that money in the military, isn't it?
| xbmcuser wrote:
| You only look at the surface China is subsidizing
| everything but at the same time forcing the companies to
| share the wealth created with all of its populace not just
| the company and company share holders.
|
| Subsidizing companies is not the problem not sharing the
| wealth with the workers is the problem. US not subsidizing
| it companies is bullshit fed to you. As Boeing, Tesla,
| SpaceX, Microsoft from the tel-cos to the power suppliers
| to banks and hedge fund all have been subsidized by
| American tax payers or are still being subsidized with and
| you get share buybacks. Americans are being bullshitted
| into loosing their social and healthcare subsidies in favor
| of giving it to corporations but the sharing back of the
| wealth in conveniently forgotten
| Igrom wrote:
| >You only look at the surface China is subsidizing
| everything but at the same time forcing the companies to
| share the wealth created with all of its populace not
| just the company and company share holders.
|
| Do you have in mind any examples that make your case the
| strongest? In particular, examples caused by subsidy to
| the company, and not to the population[1].
|
| [1] like this one:
| https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/202501/content_6997459.htm
| const_cast wrote:
| The US already subsidizes these companies, sometimes more
| severely.
|
| The problem is these companies are thieves, mostly. They
| just take the money and pocket most of it. Infrastructure
| be damned.
|
| And when the house of cards inevitably tumbles down, they
| don't pay the price. The gains are private, but the losses
| are public.
|
| US companies always favor tomorrow, not next week. They
| look to enriching themselves NOW. But in doing so they take
| on a debt. They put everything on a metaphorical credit
| card. Eventually the competition is too hot and they have
| to pay their debt very quickly, and they shutter despite
| their subsidies and long-running success.
| ponector wrote:
| >>Chinese economic model of government-controlled economic
| direction, though not perfect, would work better and help all
| the world's people rather than the select few
|
| Is it better? For some reason average European lives better
| then Chinese, inequality is also not so huge
| 01100011 wrote:
| No. This reads as capitulation by Trump who is now finding out
| his long held, half-baked economic theories are wrong. Trump
| got spanked by the bond market and realized how weak his
| position was. He can't walk it all back overnight without
| appearing even weaker than he already is. He's going to slowly
| roll back most consequential tariffs to try to escape blame for
| damaging the economy.
| numa7numa7 wrote:
| This is it exactly. And all the people who are calling Trump
| a 4cd chess master and a genius are in my opinion highly
| influenced by his propaganda.
|
| They have a Trump Derangement Syndrome in a worship sense.
| amelius wrote:
| Trump's Reality Distortion Field.
| spacemadness wrote:
| I'm completely over the tech industry falling over itself
| to bootlick and apologize away everything we've seen play
| out recently. The Cloudflare CEO, Matthew Prince, recently
| posted on X trying to explain the strategy and likely calm
| investors fears:
| https://x.com/eastdakota/status/1909822463707652192
|
| "They're not stupid. I know enough of the players involved
| to know they're not idiots."
|
| "They're not just in it for themselves. I get that this has
| become non-conventional wisdom, but I am going to assume
| for this that the goal isn't merely grift."
|
| TLDR: don't worry, it's 5D chess. Keep on bootlicking your
| way to success while your stock gets trashed by these
| policies and we double down on anti-science rhetoric which
| will hasten our decline. I guess most of these leaders will
| have cashed out before it all implodes.
| someoldgit wrote:
| Trump's next book: "The Art of the Fold".
| rvnx wrote:
| "Gambling with your savings"
| aswanson wrote:
| Exactly. I hope our government can survive the next 4 years for
| criminal investigations into this era. We can't become Russia.
| Herring wrote:
| Trump won the popular vote. I don't think this is going away
| without a major demographic shift, time probably measured in
| decades.
| sylos wrote:
| Tinfoil hat time, I don't think the man claiming everyone
| else cheated and who got caught cheating in a previous
| election got all his votes in a legal manner
| aswanson wrote:
| All the data suggests the opposite. He wasn't in a
| position of power at the time; the federal government was
| controlled by the democrats. Elections are run at the
| state level and are so disparate procedurally that Russia
| gave up trying to flip them directly. There has been no
| discrepancy between exit polls and the results. We have
| to face the fact that this is who the United States
| chose, and this is who a significant portion of the
| electorate is ok with.
| danaris wrote:
| Elections are, in many if not most states, run
| _electronically._
|
| I don't know about you, but I certainly don't trust all
| the companies that make the voting machines. For
| instance, does Musk own stock in some of them? Do their
| owners vote Trump?
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Conflicts of interest are not evidence of fraud.[1]
|
| [1]
| https://bsky.app/profile/mattblaze.org/post/3lmgt4ufllc26
| aswanson wrote:
| Voting machine integrity was litigated in the election
| trump lost. Fox, trump's propaganda organ, had to pay
| $781 million because they could not substantiate claims
| of electronic fraud. There are adversarial reviews of
| voting data at all levels, and audits done at the
| physical and electronic level. 60 lawsuits found no
| evidence of fraud. You can't just say, "I think this
| might have happened because it sounds sinister." There is
| a ton of legal, procedural, monitored, and reviewed data
| that overwhemingly makes the case that electronic voting
| fraud did not happen. If you have evidence to the
| contrary, present it. Otherwise, its just vibes.
| tekla wrote:
| Wait, do you also think Biden won because of voter fraud?
| vkou wrote:
| He won the popular vote in a year when incumbents across
| the world ate shit at the polls because of COVID inflation.
|
| The US had the _smallest_ drop in support for an incumbent
| party.
| tekla wrote:
| And yet he still won
| acdha wrote:
| He won by a single point, when 30% of the population didn't
| vote. It's not good for the future of the country that he
| got anywhere as many votes as he did but we should remember
| that an emboldened minority is still a minority.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| A large minority is still large. And not voting is a
| signal of apathy. Not opposition.
| amelius wrote:
| Might be true, but a president is a president for all,
| not just those who voted for him.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| How would this platitude apply to this discussion even if
| Trump believed it?
| alienthrowaway wrote:
| > Trump won the popular vote.
|
| He did not, he got <50% of the total votes at final tally.
| People who parrot this are under-informed, or lying to
| claim a mandate his administration lacks.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| The person who received the most votes is the popular
| vote winner.
| tekla wrote:
| 74,749,891 v 77,168,458 for Trump. Last time I checked,
| thats winning the popular vote
| pseudalopex wrote:
| What crimes were committed and could be prosecuted under the
| Supreme Court's immunity ruling?
| amelius wrote:
| Market manipulation?
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/well-timed-
| options-...
|
| (Besides, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's
| Russian oligarch friends were among these traders.)
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Pausing tariffs was an official act. The Supreme Court
| ruled courts could not consider presidents' motives for
| official acts.
| amelius wrote:
| But what about leaking information about it?
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Leaking is vague. What part of what law?
| amelius wrote:
| It's not vague. I'm not a lawyer but usually cases of
| trading with insider information are taken very
| seriously. It's theft, basically. And the scale here is
| enormous.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Leaking, insider trading, and theft are different. And
| laws contain specific definitions.
| amelius wrote:
| There is evidence of him tweeting insider information.
|
| Again I'm not a lawyer, and I don't care what law is
| applicable here. But surely this warrants further
| investigation.
| aisenik wrote:
| It's very clear that the system of Constitutional
| governance has been intentionally broken. It is very common
| for authoritarian regimes to have compliant judiciaries and
| broad legislative control.
|
| Effective restoration and reconstruction of Constitutional
| governance will necessarily be dramatic. It's still doable,
| but optimism is more of a survival strategy than an obvious
| conclusion at this stage.
| dev_l1x_be wrote:
| I thought this is what happened during covid already. We wiped
| out a large number of small businesses.
|
| https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/fre...
| vkou wrote:
| Small businesses die and start all the time.
|
| It's unsurprising that more of them would die during a
| massive recession and a global pandemic.
|
| Those numbers are meaningless without a similar count of
| small businesses opening.
| jtthe13 wrote:
| I gather you haven't started your own business, or did
| yours start and die repeatedly?
| amelius wrote:
| Speaking of which, what are the tariffs for Russia?
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| Oh, we don't need tariffs for Russia. But we put them in for
| Ukraine. - the Republican administration
| ponector wrote:
| What about penguins? Are they going to get a tariff
| exemption?
| eej71 wrote:
| There will be a new aristocracy. The aristocracy of pull.
| #iykyk
| ModernMech wrote:
| It's not the _furthest_ thing from the American economy as it
| stands today, but the inevitable conclusion of the "free-
| market" capitalism we've been practicing over the past number
| of decades.
|
| Donald Trump is the poster child of American capitalism gone
| _right_ , he's an aspiration for wealthy capitalists across the
| nation. Generally people have felt that if only we could get an
| American businessman like Trump in charge of the country,
| running things the way a _true_ capitalist would (as opposed to
| how those dirty awful communists /socialists tend to run
| things), then the country would start going right for a change.
|
| Well now we have that, and in short order the country has
| Russian-style crony capitalism from the top. This would not
| happen in a country that actually cares about free markets. But
| we don't. Everything we consume is owned by like 10 companies.
| If you want to get a start in the market you have to get access
| to capital they control, or meet regulations they set, because
| they've captured the government regulators through bribes.
|
| Trump is just taking this whole system of favoritism we've been
| living under and making it official. I for one am for it
| because honestly people pretending there is no corruption is
| worse than the corruption at this point.
| pstuart wrote:
| > Donald Trump is the poster child of American capitalism
| gone right
|
| This is the same guy who went bankrupt 3 times, including a
| casino?
|
| The same guy who'd be as rich as he is today if he had
| invested the funds bequeathed by his father?
|
| The one who had a TV show based on him that was incredibly
| manipulated to make him appear richer and wiser than he
| really is?
| ModernMech wrote:
| They don't put the reality on the poster.
| g0db1t wrote:
| * stood yesterday
| icedchai wrote:
| This certainly is a surprise. :eyeroll:
| techpineapple wrote:
| How bananas is it that Trump ran against big tech and now big
| tech is the winner while mom and pop shops are the losers.
| dhx wrote:
| Exempt items are:
|
| 8471: Computers.
|
| 8473.30: Computer parts.
|
| 8486: Semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
|
| 8517.13.00: Smartphones.
|
| 8517.62.00: Network equipment.
|
| 8523.51.00: Solid state media.
|
| 8524 and 8528.52.00: Computer displays.
|
| 8541.* (with some subheadings excluded): Semiconductor components
| EXCEPT LEDs, photovoltaic components, piezoelectric crystals).
|
| 8542: Integrated circuits.
|
| The 8541.* category exclusions are interesting. Does the US self-
| produce all required quantities of LEDs and piezoelectric
| crystals and doesn't need to import those? Is the exception on
| photovoltaic components to discourage American companies from
| producing solar panels?
|
| [1] https://hts.usitc.gov/search?query=[INSERT HEADING CODE HERE.
| EXAMPLE: 8471]
| ghusto wrote:
| Slightly off-topic, but is the result of the USA tariff "trade-
| war" mean that we get to trade at a discount with China in
| Europe? What I mean is, since it's cheaper for China to trade
| with us in Europe now, does that mean we gain some bargaining
| power?
| mrweasel wrote:
| One danger is that all the cheap Chinese crap will be
| redirected at Europe. It does have to upside of cheaper goods
| for Europe overall, which is fine for everything we don't make
| and which is overall adding value. The risk is that we also get
| all cheap plastic junk, unless EU regulations can keep it out
| environmental concerns.
| jopsen wrote:
| I suspect that trade policy is one of the core competences of
| the EU.
|
| And countries arguing for particular tariff policies and
| getting cutouts is widespread EU past time.
| seafoamteal wrote:
| Has the Proton CEO acknowledged just how farcically off base he
| was when he said the GOP was the party of small businesses?
| wwweston wrote:
| Demand for Proton services is probably up.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| I was thinking about this yesterday and how stupid a comment it
| was to make.
| righthand wrote:
| Why is no one highlighting how this is repeating history 8 years
| ago? I don't get it, there's this magical reporting gap where all
| of this is new strategy but it's the exact same strategy. Why
| don't we acknowledge this instead of searching for some new
| angle?
|
| Here are a bunch of links from 2018/2019:
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/13/apple-dodges-iphone-tariff-a...
|
| https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/investing/t052-s001-14-s...
|
| https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/07/trump-tariff-threat-...
|
| https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/trumps-tariff-str...
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-delay-tariff-increases...
|
| https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/19/hundreds-of-chines...
|
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/china-threatens-retalia...
|
| https://www.cfr.org/blog/trumps-tariffs-are-killing-american...
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| The articles you've linked are about threats of 10% to 25%
| tariffs in the context of active trade negotiations between the
| US and China. Here, there's an actually imposed tariff of 145%
| and no talks at all as far as has been reported. It's not the
| same situation.
| djeastm wrote:
| Wow you had these at-the-ready, didn't you. Thanks.
|
| *I've read through a few of these and it seems like perhaps
| Trump still thinks it's 2018/19, but China's position has only
| gotten stronger.
|
| It seems the attempt to jack up tariffs so high this time was a
| bluff to "show" how strong we can be, but he miscalculated on
| how shaky the stock/bond markets actually currently are and the
| financial players know we're not in a position to go it alone.
|
| And China knows this and they know they can wait us out. I
| believe it will be considered a misstep, at best and a
| catastrophe at worst.
| standardUser wrote:
| The tariffs from 8 years ago were a seemingly rational policy
| and were largely upheld by the Biden administration.
|
| These tariffs look designed to rapidly eject the US from the
| global economic order and hand over the reins to China. Though
| saying they were "designed" at all seems extravagantly
| generous.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| So we are exempting all the tech transfer & natsec risk items but
| maintaining new embargo-level tariffs on cameras, children's
| toys, and t-shirts.
|
| Makes a lot of sense if you don't think about it.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Art of the deal.
| randcraw wrote:
| Art of the bribe, actually.
| inverted_flag wrote:
| I've noticed that the pro-trump posters have been quiet on this
| site recently, pretty funny.
| fells wrote:
| Because, in reality, they voted for his regressive cultural
| policies, not his regressive economic policies.
|
| Though in November I'm sure they were telling us how good he
| would be on the economic front.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| It's funny, (well, not _funny_ ) because the social issues
| are the ones where the toothpaste doesn't go back in the
| bottle. Progress over the long run only goes in the right
| direction, there's no path to undoing broad acceptance of
| homosexuality just like we'll never go back to forbidding
| interracial marriage or women voting.
|
| So the top 1% will benefit economically from the right being
| in power, but the rest will spend the rest of their lives mad
| about whatever the current social change is, regardless of
| who's in power.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Progress _seems_ to only go in the right direction on
| social issues, because people are very good at developing
| reasons why the social views they happen to hold are the
| objectively correct ones. As any advocate will talk your
| ears off about, open borders used to be the consensus
| position, until 150 years of immigration restrictions
| convinced people that it 's not realistic to just let
| anyone move wherever they'd like.
| cmurf wrote:
| The corruption is the plan. The tariffs are the boot on
| everyone's neck. Carve outs based on friend, foe, and bribes
| adjust the pressure. This will be on-going and capricious.
| qgin wrote:
| Not something you would do if there was any chance of a larger
| deal near term
| throw0101d wrote:
| There are valid reasons for tariffs:
|
| * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good
|
| Especially when it comes to certain areas of the economy:
|
| > _Democratic countries' economies are mainly set up as_ free
| market economies with redistribution, _because this is what
| maximizes living standards in peacetime. In a free market
| economy, if a foreign country wants to sell you cheap cars, you
| let them do it, and you allocate your own productive resources to
| something more profitable instead. If China is willing to sell
| you brand-new electric vehicles for $10,000, why should you turn
| them down? Just make B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat
| apps, sell them for a high profit margin, and drive a Chinese
| car._
|
| > _Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS
| and advertising platforms and chat apps aren't very useful for
| defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about
| manufacturing would have been_ years before the war, _except you
| weren't able to anticipate and prepare for the future.
| Manufacturing doesn't just support war -- in a very real way,_
| it's a war in and of itself.
|
| * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now
|
| > _China has rapidly established itself as the world's dominant
| shipbuilding power, marginalizing the United States and its
| allies in a strategically important industry. In addition to
| building massive numbers of commercial ships, many Chinese
| shipyards also produce warships for the country's rapidly growing
| navy. As part of its "military-civil fusion" strategy, China is
| tapping into the dual-use resources of its commercial
| shipbuilding empire to support its ongoing naval modernization_
|
| * https://www.csis.org/analysis/ship-wars-confronting-chinas-d...
|
| But none of the current "reasons"--which may simply be
| rationalizations / retcons by underlings for one man's fickle
| will--really make much sense:
|
| * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/all-the-arguments-for-tariffs-...
| lazyeye wrote:
| I think we need to also consider that "conventional economic
| thinking" got us into this mess (de-industrialized, vulnerable
| economy, hollowed out working/middle class, enormous
| debt/deficit). There never seems to be any accountability for
| this though. I suspect it's because a particular section of
| society has done very well from the status quo.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _(de-industrialized, vulnerable economy, hollowed out
| working /middle class, enormous debt/deficit)._
|
| The debt/deficit is on politicians (and the public who votes
| them in). See also issues with US Social Security (Canada was
| on a similar path, but the government(s) sorted things out in
| the 1990s).
|
| At least for the US, it has not de-industrialized, as exports
| have never been higher. It makes a smaller portion of total
| GDP, but that's because of growth of other sectors; and a
| smaller portion of the workforce, but that's because of
| automation:
|
| * https://www.csis.org/analysis/do-not-blame-trade-decline-
| man...
|
| The largest problem nowadays is probably housing costs, and
| that has nothing to do with trade, but is about things like
| NIMBY and zoning.
|
| If you want more than "a particular section of society" and
| more folks to benefit look into redistribution, which plenty
| of conventional economists will happily agree with.
| djeastm wrote:
| > a particular section of society has done very well from the
| status quo
|
| Name me a country where this is not the case. The only thing
| we've failed to do is educate enough of our people to prosper
| as a deindustrialized nation. That and failed to protect our
| democracy.
| timewizard wrote:
| > we've failed to do is educate enough of our people to
| prosper as a deindustrialized nation
|
| What education did we give them to prosper as an
| industrialized nation? It seems to me that the population
| was able to discover that and benefit from it entirely on
| their own. Why do they need "education" to "prosper" in
| current conditions?
|
| Aren't we currently living in the most educated time
| already? That is we have more people going to and
| graduating from college than ever before. What is currently
| missing? Do we need to force everyone to go to college?
| What about those who don't graduate? They just won't ever
| be able to prosper?
|
| > That and failed to protect our democracy.
|
| I think a little more than half the country would disagree
| with this assessment.
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| I think we've promoted little else besides de-
| industrialized degrees. That's why it's going to be so hard
| to ramp up again. How many kids think it's cool to get a
| textile engineering or materials science degree vs
| marketing or software engineering?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The US didn't have a de-industrialized or vulnerable economy
| before Trump. And by the extent it was hollowed out, it's
| because of blatant corruption, not "conventional economic
| thinking".
|
| You don't even have a point about the deficit. While there
| are plenty of economic schools that will give you high
| deficits, the US didn't get his by following any of those
| either.
| beardyw wrote:
| Perhaps the task of rewriting history needs to start right away.
| Havoc wrote:
| And in ~24hr policy will zigzag again
|
| It's not like businesses need to plan or anything so this is
| great
| cantrecallmypwd wrote:
| Welcome to technofeudalism.
| jeswin wrote:
| I am among the few who think it might eventually prove itself a
| good idea.
|
| To start with, Europe has no good cards to play. Ultimately,
| Europe will side with the United States while it builds self-
| sufficiency on several fronts, especially defense. Europe also
| recognizes that the complete relocation of production capacity
| into China wasn't good in the long run; it's just that they had
| no ability to act on their own.
|
| The US has repeatedly suggested publicly that it's not entirely
| about tariffs, and more might have been said privately. The
| tariffs the EU and Britain will drop are probably not what the US
| is after; what the US wants is to reduce global demand for
| Chinese manufacturing. Europe will find it easier to sell this--
| bringing manufacturing back and protectionism even at the cost of
| say, welfare and environment--to the public due to the violent
| shakedown over the past two weeks, as well as what happened with
| Ukraine and Russia. Ongoing European emergency measures to
| increase defense spending will be followed by incentives to
| rebuild strategic industry--like how China supported civilian-
| military partnership with policy.
|
| Meanwhile the Indian government is already looking for ways to
| replace Chinese imports with US imports, where it can [1]. Japan
| and North Korea will follow suit; Trump is already saying that
| Korea needs to pay for US troops.
|
| The US is (in my view) on solid footing here. At the very least,
| they get better trade deals from everyone else--Europe, India,
| Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc. A number of companies will move
| production back into the US, and the government can prioritize
| those with more military value (chip-making, batteries, cars,
| shipbuilding [2] , etc.). And if the US can convince others to
| start decoupling from China, this will weaken Chinese
| manufacturing capacity.
|
| Given the pain it's going to inflict in the short term, Trump is
| the only person who could have started this trade war. There
| might have been ways to do this without such a shake-up, but I am
| not convinced that this was a stupid move.
|
| This was an anti-China move right from the beginning, disguised
| as an outrage against everyone's tariffs.
|
| [1]:
| https://www.financialexpress.com/business/industry/replace-c...
|
| [2]: https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-
| economy/article/3306177/u...
|
| To clarify: none of this is China's fault. They did a fantastic
| job for their country, pulling hundreds of millions of people out
| of poverty.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I think EU will be fine, it really depends on how much the US
| cares about advancing Russian interests.
|
| Long game, the UK may transform into being a sort of vassal of
| the US, assuming it survives as an entity. The EU interest may
| align more with China. If the US is de-empathizing NATO, they
| need a counterweight to the Russia/US axis.
|
| It's the end of pax americana, and the future is more
| uncertain.
| oa335 wrote:
| China is the EUs largest export market. I'm not so sure the EU
| will align with the US here.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > at the cost of... welfare
|
| If politicians no longer care about winning elections, then
| they might campaign on this.
| walterbell wrote:
| Per Bloomberg, 20% fentanyl tariff on China still applies and
| these categories may yet receive their own unique tariff,
| https://archive.is/jKupW
|
| The exemption categories include components and assembled
| products,
| https://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/USDHSCBP-3db9e5...
| 8471 ADP (Automatic Data Processing) Machines: PCs,
| servers, terminals. 8473.30 Parts for ADPs: keyboards,
| peripherals, printers. 8486 Machines for producing
| semiconductors & ICs: wafer fab, lithography. 8517.13
| Mobile phones and smartphones. 8517.62 Radios, router,
| modems. 8523.51 Radio/TV broadcasting equipment.
| 8524 2-way radios. 8528.52 Computer monitors and
| projectors (no TVs). 8541.10 Diodes, transistors
| and similar electronic components 8541.21 LEDs
| 8541.29 Photodiodes and non-LED diodes 8541.30
| Transistors 8541.49.10 Other semiconductors that emit light
| 8541.49.70 Optoelectronics: light sensors, solar cells
| 8541.49.80 Photoresistors 8541.49.95 Other semiconductor
| devices 8541.51.00 LEDs for displays 8541.59.00 Other
| specialized semiconductor devices 8541.90.00 Semiconductor
| parts: interconnects, packaging, assembly 8542
| Electronic ICs
|
| Industrial-scale workarounds were developed for previous tariffs,
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43652823. Such loopholes
| will need to be addressed in any new trade agreements.
| codedokode wrote:
| > 8486 Machines for producing semiconductors & ICs: wafer fab,
| lithography.
|
| Does US buy them from China too?
| walterbell wrote:
| Unlikely. The exclusions above are for reciprocal tariffs
| from all countries, i.e. China 0%
| reciprocal + 20% (fentanyl) + 2018-2024 rates non-China
| 0% reciprocal
| wraaath wrote:
| Here's the set of categories exempted from the tariffs (via
| perplexity) Original source:
| https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCBP/bulletins/...
| Backup: https://archive.is/el9Mz
|
| via Perplexity:
|
| 8471: Automatic data-processing machines and units thereof,
| including computers, laptops, disc drives, and other data
| processing equipment.
|
| 8473.30: Parts and accessories for automatic data-processing
| machines, such as components used in computers.
|
| 8486: Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor
| devices or electronic integrated circuits.
|
| 8517.13.00: Mobile phones (cellular telephones) or other wireless
| network devices.
|
| 8517.62.00: Communication apparatus capable of connecting to a
| network, such as routers and modems.
|
| 8523.51.00: Solid-state storage devices (e.g., flash drives) used
| for recording data.
|
| 8524: Recorded media, such as DVDs, CDs, and other optical discs.
|
| 8528.52.00: Flat-panel displays capable of video playback,
| including monitors and televisions.
|
| 8541.10.00: Diodes, including light-emitting diodes (LEDs).
|
| 8541.21.00: Transistors with a dissipation rate of less than 1
| watt.
|
| 8541.29.00: Other transistors not specified elsewhere.
|
| 8541.30.00: Thyristors, diacs, and triacs used in electronics.
|
| 8541.49.10 to 8541.49.95: Semiconductor devices such as
| integrated circuits (ICs) categorized by specific types or
| functions.
|
| 8541.51.00: Semiconductor devices designed for photovoltaic
| applications (solar cells).
|
| 8541.59.00: Other semiconductor devices not elsewhere classified.
|
| 8541.90.00: Parts of semiconductor devices or electronic
| integrated circuits.
|
| 8542: Electronic integrated circuits, including microprocessors
| and memory chips.
| 42772827 wrote:
| As if the US would make the propaganda machine / spy device /
| tracker more expensive
| CodeCrusader wrote:
| Seems like the tariffs are becoming a lot more complicated, and
| it is possible that it is happening by design
| enaaem wrote:
| Tariffs can be very expensive to enforce, so you want to keep
| it as simple as possible.
| dashtiarian wrote:
| It actually feels nice to see US people having a taste of the
| kind of government their intelligence service force other nations
| to have by coups, except that it does not feel nice at all. I'm
| sorry guys.
| throw0101d wrote:
| There are valid reasons for tariffs:
|
| * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good
|
| Especially when it comes to certain areas of the economy:
|
| > _Democratic countries' economies are mainly set up as_ free
| market economies with redistribution, _because this is what
| maximizes living standards in peacetime. In a free market
| economy, if a foreign country wants to sell you cheap cars, you
| let them do it, and you allocate your own productive resources to
| something more profitable instead. If China is willing to sell
| you brand-new electric vehicles for $10,000, why should you turn
| them down? Just make B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat
| apps, sell them for a high profit margin, and drive a Chinese
| car._
|
| > _Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS
| and advertising platforms and chat apps aren't very useful for
| defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about
| manufacturing would have been_ years before the war, _except you
| weren't able to anticipate and prepare for the future.
| Manufacturing doesn't just support war -- in a very real way,_
| it's a war in and of itself.
|
| * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now
|
| > _China has rapidly established itself as the world's dominant
| shipbuilding power, marginalizing the United States and its
| allies in a strategically important industry. In addition to
| building massive numbers of commercial ships, many Chinese
| shipyards also produce warships for the country's rapidly growing
| navy. As part of its "military-civil fusion" strategy, China is
| tapping into the dual-use resources of its commercial
| shipbuilding empire to support its ongoing naval modernization_
|
| * https://www.csis.org/analysis/ship-wars-confronting-chinas-d...
|
| But none of the current "reasons"--which may simply be
| rationalizations / retcons by underlings for one man's fickle
| will--really make much sense:
|
| * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/all-the-arguments-for-tariffs-...
| owenversteeg wrote:
| I'm not seeing anyone discuss this here, so I figured I'd raise
| an important point: this style of tariffs is crushing for US
| manufacturing. While a universal tariff with no exceptions
| incentivizes domestic manufacturing, a selective tariff with
| specific industry exceptions is absolute poison.
|
| You might think, as the authors of this exemption did, "well then
| we will exempt computer parts." Then people will simply import
| the parts. But if you manufacture those parts in the US, you are
| suddenly at a massive disadvantage. Your computer parts factory
| likely runs using a large amount of imported raw materials,
| imported machines, and imported tooling, and there are no tariff
| exemptions for those broad categories... so you're screwed.
| Oftentimes there is no reasonable domestic substitute. You will
| go out of business in favor of someone importing the parts, which
| now happens tariff-free under an exemption. That's why, generally
| speaking, tariff exemptions are deadly to domestic manufacturing.
| jopsen wrote:
| Even universal tariffs with no exceptions is a problem.
|
| Many things cross US/Canada/Mexico border in the process being
| manufactured. And tariffs will stack up.
|
| Many advanced products (tech/chip, etc) are not entirely made
| in any single place. Some stuff is imported, and some is
| exported again, and tariffing the world, will also make the
| world tariff you.
|
| I think this is all around bad. Best case scenario the US has
| elected a president who decided to burn all political capital,
| alliances and credibility in search of a slightly better deal.
|
| Doing this sort maximum pressure economic extortion style
| policies, *might* getter you a slightly better deal. But at
| what cost?
|
| Can EU countries buy US military equipment, when it turns out
| that the US will withhold support for equipment we've bought
| and paid for, in order to pressure a democracy, fighting for
| its existence, into surrender.
|
| Trump may get a win in the headlines, because everyone thinks
| he'll go away if he get a win.
| EasyMark wrote:
| So the broligarchs get an escape hatch and everyone else
| (particularly the middle class) has to pay up to appease the ego
| of the worst president in US history? This seems like a bad
| economic and very undemocratic plan that we're getting here.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| In a dark sense this is probably perfect for him.
|
| He announces big tough tariffs on China, his base claps, hoots
| and hollers. He quietly walks it back via internal memo to CBP on
| a Friday night.
|
| His base gets to see him be tough on China, without actually
| suffering any consequences of goods shortages or price increases.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/xQGXr
| howard941 wrote:
| They're called reciprocal but the Chinese tariffs on US goods
| looks like they're gonna stay. That and dumping our bonds doesn't
| bode well for the rest of us.
| api wrote:
| So we are going to... uhh... tariff and try to repatriate a lot
| of lower value less strategically important manufacturing while
| giving up on higher value strategic stuff like chips?
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| It's not even a week since Secretary of Commerce Lutnick was
| explaining how he wants to bring back millions of jobs 'screwing
| the little screws in iPhones' to Amercia ?
|
| There is really a good chance that we will develop a deep
| understanding of how the French Revolution happened and why they
| went straight to guillotines.
| kristopolous wrote:
| They gave every strong indication of their incompetence
| possible - over years. A bunch of people said "yay for
| incompetence" and here we are.
|
| These are the people who score in the bottom 20% and make up
| conspiracy theories on how they were right and it's the
| establishment who's wrong.
|
| Any random person waiting at a bus stop would likely have
| managed things better.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| It's not that they are managing it badly that I'm talking
| about.
|
| It's that they manage it in a way to maximize their personal
| profits, with an absolute disregard of the ordinary folks.
|
| Tariffs are one example - none of it makes sense, but
| companies still pay millions for a 'dinner at Mar-a-Lago' to
| get a favorable treatment.
|
| What's hapening with law firms is even more disgusting.
|
| I get the feeling that a lot of Democrats and 'real'
| Republicans thinks that he will get what he wants and then
| they just wait out 4 years. It's an almost 80 years
| narcissist, who doesn't care about people nor law, and who
| dreams about becoming a King. It only gets worse from here,
| not better.
| kristopolous wrote:
| See if that was the case there'd be more coherency. There's
| these days where multiple are asked a question, each answer
| is a shocking departure from policy and they all contradict
| and then a judge comes out and is like "wtf".
|
| So not even cynicism is supported by the evidence.
|
| I mean they're also pillaging of course. Incompetent and
| malicious. Both are possible
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| The idea that you could "bring industry back" into the US with
| blanket tariffs is delusional and demonstrates a complete
| ignorance of the complexity of economic ecosystems and
| industrial culture. It takes a long time for sustained
| expertise and the needed supply chains to grow and form and
| mature in an economy.
|
| You could argue that perhaps a selective application of tariffs
| might help the formation of such domestic industry, but tariffs
| are not something to wield lightly.
| belter wrote:
| "I don't know how you can be that stupid. How do you get to be
| president and then you're stupid?" - Donald
| Trump (actual quote)
| stevenwoo wrote:
| They just spouted two different justifications, jobs will come
| back to America, and robots will do the jobs. I guess the most
| generous explanation is jobs for people making robots in
| America by combining the two separate statements, but that's
| not even close to what they said.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| Nothing about the tariffs make any sense. The want to use the
| tariffs to negotiate with countries but also say they want to
| use tariffs to bring back manufacturing. If you are using
| tariffs to negotiate then once the country gives you what you
| want, you have to lift the tariff thus the free market keeping
| manufacturing overseas. If you want to bring back manufacturing
| then you can't use the tariff to negotiate.
|
| I am genuinely at a loss at how his supporters don't understand
| this.
| stevage wrote:
| Not to mention no one is investing in manufacturing if the
| economic conditions to support it get changed every day or
| two.
| latexr wrote:
| > I am genuinely at a loss at how his supporters don't
| understand this.
|
| His supporters value blind loyalty and obedience, not logic.
| They don't stand _for_ themselves, they stand _against_
| others. They'll gladly suffer if they think the other side is
| getting it worse. They're the perfect target to be exploited.
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| Typical cult leader stuff: say and do increasingly
| indefensible and nonsensical stuff to isolate your true
| believers even more.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| It's the looting of America while they use the same old racial
| ideologies so their supporters don't break rank even under
| abuse.
| senderista wrote:
| The French Revolution didn't go "straight to guillotines", not
| even close.
| aoeusnth1 wrote:
| One of the most surprising things about this announcement is that
| it didn't happen during business hours where the insiders could
| buy call options before hand.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Insiders already bought call before market close on the
| previous day.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-12 23:00 UTC)