←back to thread

346 points Kye | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
favflam ◴[] No.45016762[source]
This situation feels dumb. I feel like I am watching idiots cheer on someone doing parkor and that person getting his teeth smashed on a wall. Like, what is the point?
replies(6): >>45016813 #>>45016814 #>>45016833 #>>45016847 #>>45016851 #>>45017297 #
philwelch ◴[] No.45016833[source]
De minimis allows people to evade tariffs by simply drop shipping each individual product all the way from China or wherever, so long as the retail price is below the threshold. I’m skeptical of tariffs in general but if you’re going to have them, it makes sense to close the loopholes.
replies(5): >>45016923 #>>45016951 #>>45016987 #>>45017041 #>>45018563 #
someotherperson ◴[] No.45016951[source]
So execute it for China alone. The issue is that these blanket actions are lazy at best and exclusively populist.
replies(2): >>45017191 #>>45017292 #
timr ◴[] No.45017191{3}[source]
> So execute it for China alone. The issue is that these blanket actions are lazy at best and exclusively populist.

Same argument. If there's a country that doesn't get tariffs, that country will very quickly become the leading global exporter to the US. It's the same thing for the "penguin island" that everyone mocked: if you put high tariffs on every place but penguin island, it will soon be Penguin Island Logistics Center.

Setting aside judgment of the tariff policy and the chaotic implementation, it does make sense to make them blanket actions. Much of the byzantine nature of our existing supply chains is due to gaming of international tariff policy.

replies(2): >>45017445 #>>45022871 #
1. someotherperson ◴[] No.45017445{4}[source]
> If there's a country that doesn't get tariffs, that country will very quickly become the leading global exporter to the US

No it won't lol, that's not how international logistics work. You don't just flick a switch overnight. Maybe measured in the order of years... in which case the policies can be adjusted. They clearly think this works for taxing Americans given how huge the tax code is.

> same thing for the "penguin island" that everyone mocked: if you put high tariffs on every place but penguin island, it will soon be Penguin Island Logistics Center

Penguin island was stupid because it reflected how lazy the policies they applied are. It clearly showed that the Trump administration doesn't fundamentally understand what trade deficits are nor does it have an actual, well thought out plan. The only thing Penguin island has in common with this is that both actions are incredibly lazy and superficial. The Trump admin needs to get serious.

replies(1): >>45017571 #
2. timr ◴[] No.45017571[source]
> No it won't lol, that's not how international logistics work. You don't just flick a switch overnight.

I didn't say "overnight". But if you don't think it would happen, you haven't been paying attention: it has been happening for decades. It's not a crazy thing to consider when establishing a tariff policy.

> Penguin island was stupid because it reflected how lazy the policies they applied are. It clearly showed that the Trump administration doesn't fundamentally understand what trade deficits are nor does it have an actual, well thought out plan. The only thing Penguin island has in common with this is that both actions are incredibly lazy and superficial. The Trump admin needs to get serious.

Flinging names ("lazy", "superficial") is not an argument. You've obviously decided that these actions are stupid -- maybe they are! [1] -- and nobody is going to convince you otherwise, but I just gave you a plausible reason that you'd choose to do it this way.

[1] I don't personally like these policies, but I'm willing to admit when something I don't like as a whole makes sense in part.