You must log in or register to comment.
1 yearWhy stop there? Why not make them 1,000,000%?
Self-destruction or bust.
- LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.eeEnglish1 year
I mean at some point they can hopefully both agree on a number so we can stop getting updates on something that essentially just blocks all trade. But I think Trump and his tiny cock will have to keep adding another 100% forever to compensate.
- Eril@feddit.orgEnglish1 year
To avoid a kindergarten infinity+1 problem, one side should just explicitly ban all trade at some point and not just do it implicitly by bringing tariffs to the moon. 🤷♂️
- tempest@lemmy.caEnglish1 year
I don’t want to block it. I want to see the list of things worth 300 percent or whatever.
- taladar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 year
At that point the 4% are really just in there to annoy people who like round numbers.
- djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish1 year
Me. It’s there to annoy me, and it is succeeding. Now there are two of them? I’m screaming.
- moody@lemmings.worldEnglish1 year
And you know it’s only whole numbers because it would have been silly to have 104.3% tariffs. Unless they’re just rounding it down for appearances.
- professionalbalkan@lemm.eeEnglish1 year
Ah yes. I like my economic outlook the same way I like my coffee.
Dark.
- sasquash@sopuli.xyzEnglish1 year
Billions will suffer just because of one moron. Mankind 2025 is not a step further than 1000 years ago. We are just more.
To be fair it’s not just Trump. 2/3 of congress could step in at any time to take tariff powers away from the president, but they choose not to.
- freebee@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 year
Yeah it’s a bit nuts that in a “democracy” 1 nutcase has all the buttons and can seemingly decide almost anything by “executive order” outside of parliamentary control, not even fake voting on policy in parliament.
- catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish1 year
That happens when the elected legislature decides to stop doing their job in favor of the unitary executive.
- bishbosh@lemm.eeEnglish1 year
They actually can’t they’ve just spent decades packing the judicial system that was meant to hold them accountable, while their opponents watched and did nothing.
- 1 year
They actually can’t take tariff powers away from him because he doesn’t even have tariff powers. He has power over the people who would collect tariffs, and he has instructed them to collect them.
The end result is the same, but I think it’s important to keep noting that he can’t legally do this.
I’m not sure if this is true. It was delegated to the executive branch starting around 1930.
- 1 year
The act that they performed this under is the “International Emergency Economic Powers Act” which allows the president to declare a national emergency and take some other actions if there is an:
unusual and extraordinary threat… to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States
It specially says the powers:
may not be exercised for any other purpose
The Powers include:
(1) At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise— (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit— (i) any transactions in foreign exchange, (ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof, (iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; (B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and.[1] © when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.
Noticeably absent from that list is tariffs. Under the major questions doctrine, the fact that congress did not specifically delegate that power to the executive branch means that it did not do so.
I’m not a lawyer so I can’t interpret the law. However, the judicial branch can and there haven’t been any rulings which have indicated that the president didn’t have the power to set tariffs.
Another law would be needed to be passed so judicial rulings could say the president didn’t have this power.
- catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish1 year
Powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or the people. The Constitution grants the power to impose tariffs, but it does not grant the authority to delegate that power.
I’m sure SCOTUS has ruled that there’s some allowance, but that’s legislating from the bench.
I think our opinions on the law are irrelevant here. The SOCTUS said it’s lawful for the president to impose tariffs. So the only way to change the SOCTUS decision is to pass another law making it explicit that the president doesn’t have these powers.
Hey hey hey, don’t fret. The aristocracy will still be okay. At least, the rarified ultrastocracy will be. Remember, in trying times like these, we all really need to remember to think about the billionaires and their degree of well-being.
China can go without American tat a lot easier than America can go without Chinese tat.
Aight so, we have two huge economic powers in the world and one that’s lesser but still very big. The two huge powers are fighting each other to the death, destroying each others economies as well as their own. Lets go EU Century? 🙏
China is clearly going to win this part, they are not adding tariffs on the rest of the world like Trump is doing, they will win market shares because of this. Trump’s policies are actually speeding up the rise of China as the first power on many points: international free trade, renewable energies and brain drain, for example.
- gnutrino@programming.devEnglish1 year
While that is true, I do think there is an opportunity for the EU to get a real economic and diplomatic boost by strengthen ties with the traditional western allies in the Pacific now that America is torching its bridges there. Whether or not it can manage to get all member states to agree quickly enough to actually take that opportunity is a different matter though…
- 1 year
The problem the EU has is that it sent a lot of its manufacturing jobs to Asia and the US so it’s sectors they won’t be able to capture, but it can hopefully overtake the US for the tech sector…
- TenderHombre@lemm.eeEnglish1 year
France, Greece, Spain, are pretty large economies in the EU, and are all growing. Spain and Greece fairly quickly growing. They have all really strengthen Chinese economic ties kinda hitching themselves to China.
All to say, I think the EU is more likely to lean China than US, and if there is disagreement it will put great strain on the EU as a whole.
They just put 25% tarrifs on the US so I guess these are interesting times if nothing else.
- Shortstack@reddthat.comEnglish1 year
China has an entire globe for a market. Us Yanks rely on china as our main supplier for nearly everything, because ‘made in America’ prices are unrealistic to compete with
- Patrikvo@lemmy.worldEnglish1 year
Great, we’ll end up with American refugees arriving in ductape boats on one coast and Chinese refugees in Temu boats on the other. Europe is going to get really crowded.
The duct tape is from China so I don’t think there will be that many boats
- floofloof@lemmy.caEnglish1 year
Take Canada with you, and do it before the USA and Russia figure out their joint plan of attack on us all.
- LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.eeEnglish1 year
I mean that’s essentially what this does. I will of course still pay 1000% on on my “please XI. Please invade the US t-shirts” but that’s mosyt just me trying to send a message to XI.
- taladar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 year
But it works, T for Trump, T for Tariffs, T for Trade,… and it is world-wide and sort of works with other uses like “World War Z”
Well it is not world wide. It is America vs the world. All others act normally (kinda). So it is USA’s next setup of Oil Wars.
- 1 year
Only 84%? Those are rookie numbers Winnie, not even past 100% I guess the CCP doesn’t have the grit and determination of the states.
- 🇨🇦 tunetardis@lemmy.caEnglish1 year
I can’t find where I read this now, but my recollection is that in the previous round of tariffs, China not only implemented tit for tat counter-tariffs which I imagine Trump had been expecting, but took some additional measures like export controls on rare earths. Like it or not, they basically own the global market and Trump had no answer to that other than to threaten even more tariffs. And here we are.
- Ziggurat@jlai.luEnglish1 year
I am going to grab some pop-corn, and may-be even a Lyra, if I have to watch the world burn, let at least enjoy-it
And glad to be in Europe, where we’ll just be hit by the turbulence rather than the main blast
So let’s consider an extreme situation, based on the following premise.
- The US imposes tariffs on the whole world (except its new eastern allies) to make companies come to the US, where they won’t face tariffs.
So I’m lead to think eventually those same companies migrating to the US will become isolated from the rest of the consumer world (EU and rest of Europe, British Commonwealth, China, Mexico and many more) due to tariffs being applied on the US, if not full trade ban in some cases, and be restricted to US and Russian markets… With underperforming products because the US doesn’t have the independent production capabilities it thinks it does. Ironically funny.
And that’s not even mentioning the internal disadvantages in this whole process, like white supremacy disguised as anti-DEI, having to constantly kiss the ring for a chance at tax exemptions (which are not guaranteed), and selling to a presumably poor consumer base with a few ultra-rich in the mix.
Make it make sense. And make me some popcorn and bring me my 3D glasses. 🤷♂️
- Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.netEnglish1 year
Few companies will migrate to the U.S., as it’s wholey a disadvantage at this point.
The U.S. is unstable, is actively isolating itself from global markets, requires higher wages, and is run by a psychopath with a cult following.
Everything about it makes it bad for business, so business that can afford to are going to bail and stick with actually sensible countries.
This is an implosion.
China has the edge, here. Its communist single-party system and centralized planning allow them to quickly adapt. The US, as a democracy, moves slower making it harder to change. I think China knows this, and they’re betting the U.S. will cave first.
Pro-Tip, and I’ve been burned on this too…
Whenever you link to a “Live Update!” story, they are GOING to change the headline on you. Sometimes multiple times.
Not your fault, but it runs you afoul of rule 1, headline must match article.
“Live updates on the global markets: China raises retaliatory tariff on the US to 84%”
I’m not going to just knee jerk remove it because it’s clear you aren’t editorializing, but please fix it soon so we don’t have to remove it.
- NobodyElse@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 year
So if the poster doesn’t constantly monitor the article and continually update their post title, the post will be removed? Even if it’s clear that they aren’t editorializing?
Isn’t this a case of the letter of the rule not reflecting the intent and you should just let it slide (or better yet update the rule)? Why strictly enforce a rule that you know doesn’t make sense?
- 1 year
It’s probably better to put a specific tag, and then a disclaimer. Or make Lemmy dynamically source the post name from the article every two hours for like three days.
This is why I don’t just knee jerk remove mismatches when it’s clear it’s not bad faith.
And, yeah, when I posted up the live update on the Myanmar earthquake, I was checking it hourly. Mostly for updates on the story, but also changes.
Can there be some form of exception, maybe prefixing the title with “Live Update:” and it affords some grace to changing titles?
Yeah, I generally give 8-12 hours on removal unless it’s obvious editorializing.
- prairiemoonchild@lemm.eeEnglish1 year
I fixed. My bad man! Just woke up this morning and thought I’d post and was away from social media for a bit!
