benny_profane
Well-known member
lol
"[W]e hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs."
"[W]e hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs."
Last edited:
Jlcpcb and tariffs
- Thread starter Locrian99
- Start date
vigilante398
Authorized Vendor
And that would be important if we had people in power who actually cared what they were legally allowed to do.
Aleph Null
Well-known member
Joy!
jessenator
Well-known member
I'd be more enthused if it turned out to be not yet another distraction from The Big One™.
Speaking of distractions:
Speaking of distractions:
I do think so
wintercept
Well-known member
According to a CNBC article that cites this source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48549#_Ref196320321 states that Trump ended de minimis using the IEEPA, though the Supreme Court ruling makes no mention of de minimis.
In any case, effective July 1, 2027 the “Big Beautiful Bill” will repeal the basis for de minimis exemptions that exists under the US Tariff Act of 1930. The Trump admin has specifically targeted de minimis as a vector for fentanyl being shipped to the US: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-she...-exemption-for-commercial-shipments-globally/
Locrian99
Well-known member
Well a temporary break. 80$ in shipping/tariffs for my 220$ tayda order earlier this week was annoying.
jessenator
Well-known member
Aleph Null
Well-known member
CheapSuitG
The TubeSchemer
I just checked a Tayda order I have in my cart and the shipping/tariffs/fees to collect tariffs are still there.
Vicious C
Well-known member
And will likely remain. Even if they end tariffs, these companies know how much we’re willing to pay now, so guess what?
Wouldn’t it have been night in China about the time your Supreme Court was saying they were illegal tarrifs? It’s not like an instant thing that the court makes a ruling and alarm clocks go off in businesses across the world so shops can change their us tarrif rates…
CheapSuitG
The TubeSchemer
Oh I am aware, just wishful thinking
Stickman393
Well-known member
Yup. Shipments labeled as valued under $800. Now that they have to pay duties on those, it's a whole lot...harder...to...
Huh. Yeah. Nah. Thats just the line they give folks to make it so the people who believe them can feel indignant when folks oppose tariffs: how on earth could *anybody* be against cracking down on deadly fentanyl?
Nah, truthfully: this all comes from a very, *very* irritating economic theory that is overtly focused on a very small subsection of a much larger ecosystem viewed through the lens of a paranoiac.
Basically: trade and currencies. The idea is that the value of different currencies will free float in an economic system in which folks aren't engaging in currency manipulation. Basically: the value of goods traded between different countries will cause the value of the currencies, relative to one another, to shift. One country is doing a lot more exporting? Well, they take in more foreign currency, which increases the supply of that foreign currency, which devalues that currency.
Therefore, the exporting country's currency becomes more valuable as compared to the countries that import from them. And vice versa. So the idea is essentially that all trade surpluses and deficits should equal zero over a long enough period of time...because currency isn't real: it's a debt-based token that exists as a shorthand for "value" that we trade amongst ourselves for *actual* resources based on vague and ever-changing notions of what it is worth.
So...it's these folks, the folks that insist that a nation's currency is *without exception* proportionally valued in comparison to their imports and exports that see trade deficits and cry "foul!". Their accusation is that folks like China are engaging in Currency Manipulation. That is: when a country just outright buys a bunch of another country's currency, flooding that country with their currency and devaluing their currency in comparison to the currency they bought.
Which is a thing that absolutely happens...sometimes. But there's also other reasons why trade deficits occur. Namely because the USD is the world reserve currency...*and that means people are buying USD all the goddamned time*.
Other factors...inertia. The fact that currency is a representation of a soft and squishy and human idea of "value" and "value" is not, for instance, subject to the laws of the physical universe like, say, energy is. It can, as a matter of fact, be created and destroyed. Inertia, contracts, and the imperfections of our interlocking economic systems keep currency values relatively sticky.
To sum it up: folks take an idealized model of how currency would behave if it followed all the rules of *actual* resources (which it doesn't), apply it to the real world, observe that the world doesn't in fact work that way, and immediately decide that the only reasonable conclusion is that other countries are probably cheating us. The bastards.
Which, look: sure. Some of that does absolutely happen. But also: we're the goddamned US of A. And if you know anything about how our government has intervened in Latin American politics on behalf of private interests over the past hundred years and change...it should be fairly obvious that *we don't exactly play by the rules either*.
So, glass houses. Stones. Too many guys that took too many economics courses, convinced themselves of the validity of models that exist within what is...essentially...a social science. And the result?
A, ah, -0.2% change to the trade deficit for 2025 as compared to 2024. To $901.5B from 903.5B.
Boy howdy. Sure licked that problem. Really nailed it. I'm sure the value of the dollar will really be valued appropriately as compared to other country's currencies any day now.
Is there any proof of this? Or is this just sentiment?
