Tariffs

[Analog Kid]

More info on tariffs: just got this email from Discogs, a record cataloging/sales entity. This applies to records (vinyl) and other recorded media:

You may have concerns about whether tariffs and executive orders in the United States could impact how you buy and collect records.

Let’s navigate this together. Here’s everything we know so far.

US Tariffs Should Not Apply to Records and Other Physical Media
Vinyl records, CDs, cassettes, and other recorded media should be exempt from any tariffs under US presidential executive order.

The executive order going into effect on August 29, 2025, removes a long-standing "de minimis" tariff exemption for most goods valued under USD $800. However, this change does not apply to "informational materials” like music media, which are still exempt from tariffs under US law 50 USC 1702(b)(3).

Simply put, music and informational media have always been exempt from tariffs and continue to be so at this time. This means neither sellers nor collectors on Discogs should be charged additional customs fees.

Be Prepared for Potential Delays and Complications
While music and informational media should be exempt, customs and postal carriers may experience delays or mistakes as they adjust to the new requirements. Many national postal services have already announced that they are pausing shipments to the US to better prepare for new requirements. Meanwhile, commercial carriers such as UPS, FedEx, and DHL Express are currently moving shipments into the US, but these options may come at a higher price than usual.

[Cyclotron]

With two contributors posting the majority of words over the last two pages, yet nothing about tariffs, and venturing deeply into politics….

To be clear, tariffs can't be discussed without politics. The one is the tool of the other.

I quite disagree.

Tariffs are a protectionist tool to be used when warranted for industry and job security NOT thrown about willy nilly on all imports and used as a political tool with little real basis for its use.

A jewelers hammer is far more selective than the FBH currently being wielded.

I don't know of anyone who uses tariffs other than politicians. That's why I do not believe you can't separate politics from the topic of tariffs.

Sure but in the current US case, done by executive order whereas in other administrations enacted by majority consensus......aka democracy.

The decisions made by a democratically elected president are also democratic.

Don't fall for the media's misinformation. US law gives the President of the authority to set tariffs without congressional approval.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/10710

Donald Trump 2nd term
Joe Biden kept tariffs created by the first Trump administration and enacted is own by executive order. The list of presidents that have enacted tariffs is a long one.
Donald Trump 1st term
Barack Obama
George W. Bush
Richard Nixon

That's about what I recall.  I can provide you with references if you'd prefer not to look it up.
The current legal battle revolves around the potential limits on this power.

[tautech]

With two contributors posting the majority of words over the last two pages, yet nothing about tariffs, and venturing deeply into politics….

To be clear, tariffs can't be discussed without politics. The one is the tool of the other.

I quite disagree.

Tariffs are a protectionist tool to be used when warranted for industry and job security NOT thrown about willy nilly on all imports and used as a political tool with little real basis for its use.

A jewelers hammer is far more selective than the FBH currently being wielded.

I don't know of anyone who uses tariffs other than politicians. That's why I do not believe you can't separate politics from the topic of tariffs.

Sure but in the current US case, done by executive order whereas in other administrations enacted by majority consensus......aka democracy.

The decisions made by a democratically elected president are also democratic.

Don't fall for the media's misinformation. US law gives the President of the authority to set tariffs without congressional approval.
.........

Sure and other democracies would view such powers as dictatorship.....but what democracy isn't flawed ?

[Analog Kid]

The decisions made by a democratically elected president are also democratic.

You don't actually believe that, do you?
Tell us you don't believe that.

If you do, you're either incredibly naive, or ... I don't know what.

[vad]

US appeals court rules that most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgj7jxkq58o

We will have to wait a few months for the final decision and see whether the US Supreme Court (deleted: is corrupt) upholds the rule of law.

[Cyclotron]

The decisions made by a democratically elected president are also democratic.

You don't actually believe that, do you?
Tell us you don't believe that.

If you do, you're either incredibly naive, or ... I don't know what.

My guy, I'm sorry you aren't following along. The implication was that decisions, in the case of discussion, tariffs passed by Congress are democratic.
Why are they inherently democratic? Well, because the representatives there were elected by a democratic election. The role of president, the last I checked, is also elected by the same process.  Therefore, ceteris paribus.

If you feel the presidential role's authority isn't sourced from the same democratic process, please do educate me.

[Cyclotron]

US appeals court rules that most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgj7jxkq58o

We will have to wait a few months for the final decision and see whether the US Supreme Court (deleted: is corrupt) upholds the rule of law.

The decisions of the courts will have a lasting impact on the president's authority granted by Congress to enact tariffs.
The real impact may be that it is found that, yes, the law granting this authority is constitutional and that the president has used that authority constitutionally.
It may be found the opposite.

But, if you agree or disagree with the current decision, please let me know the legalities in the ruling that you agree/disagree with.  I have not read the ruling yet. I have not formed an opinion on the ruling, nor will I likely spend a lot of time doing so, given that it will rapidly move to the SCOTUS.  What rule of law are you seeking that the SCOTUS uphold?

[vad]

The decisions made by a democratically elected president are also democratic.

You don't actually believe that, do you?
Tell us you don't believe that.

If you do, you're either incredibly naive, or ... I don't know what.

My guy, I'm sorry you aren't following along. The implication was that decisions, in the case of discussion, tariffs passed by Congress are democratic.
Why are they inherently democratic? Well, because the representatives there were elected by a democratic election. The role of president, the last I checked, is also elected by the same process.  Therefore, ceteris paribus.

If you feel the presidential role's authority isn't sourced from the same democratic process, please do educate me.

The president is not a king and must abide by the law. According to the courts, it is not his fucking business to impose blanket tariffs on other countries. If that’s what he wanted to do, he ran for the wrong office - he should have run for Congress instead.

[vad]

What rule of law are you seeking that the SCOTUS uphold?

I expressed the rule of law in layman’s terms in my previous post. If you wish to review the exact language the court used, you may refer to their official ruling.

[Cyclotron]

The decisions made by a democratically elected president are also democratic.

You don't actually believe that, do you?
Tell us you don't believe that.

If you do, you're either incredibly naive, or ... I don't know what.

My guy, I'm sorry you aren't following along. The implication was that decisions, in the case of discussion, tariffs passed by Congress are democratic.
Why are they inherently democratic? Well, because the representatives there were elected by a democratic election. The role of president, the last I checked, is also elected by the same process.  Therefore, ceteris paribus.

If you feel the presidential role's authority isn't sourced from the same democratic process, please do educate me.

The president is not a king and must abide by the law. According to the courts, it is not his fucking business to impose blanket tariffs on other countries. If that’s what he wanted to do, he ran for the wrong office - he should have run for Congress instead.

I see you. And if SCOTUS says the lower court is wrong?  His party holds control over Congress as well. They can go and enact these tariffs, and you'll be happily in support of them.

[Cyclotron]

I have briefly looked at the court ruling. The court found in a 7-4 decision that some of the tariffs are illegal.
And, they have allowed them to stay in place.

Do we assume this court is political, too? Are the 7 or the 4 justices the corrupt ones?

[tszaboo]

US appeals court rules that most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgj7jxkq58o

We will have to wait a few months for the final decision and see whether the US Supreme Court (deleted: is corrupt) upholds the rule of law.

Oh I've seen this one before
https://youtu.be/RjRn7dmPKGk?si=o264URwpwEJJJETN

[tggzzz]

I do ignore large chunks of information.

We've noticed.

Especially information that conflicts with your desired weltanschaaung.

[vk6zgo]

If we all used our wallets where we often find our moral compasses pointing we all might not be here.

Morality has nothing to do with it. It might have if we were talking about under-the-counter tax-free cigarettes smuggled into the country by organised crime syndicates or stolen goods. But consumers exercising their free right to by goods at a price that suits them is an economic, not moral choice.

I believe you've missed the point. People claim that the orange guy has done "X", and this has enabled China to be more successful. This implies that China's prosperity is wrong. The articles suggest that China's influence in LATAM is bad. The majority of the reason I read that people think China is bad is due to their politics, treatment of humans, and various activities over time that are less than acceptable to people's moral views. 

This is the source of my statement about using your wallet aligned with these moral beliefs.

With what I hear of late about goings on in America there seems to be a rapidly diminishing gap between how China conducts its affairs and how America is. If America can deport one citizen without due process they can not lay claim to a firm stance on the moral high ground.

China became more successful through American policies long before Trump. That was not an accident. America is ruthless in developing policies that suit its own interests. Just because what once suited the purpose  no longer does is not the fault of China. China is not without blame for doing the same either. China has structural problems which will slow its growth in the near future. Namely a rapidly aging population much as Japan has gone through in the last twenty years. Declining birth rates in the first world countries is putting the brake on growth and will continue to do so. Immigration was one way for countries to bolster the younger demographics and attempt to forestall the effect of a declining working age populace. Trump's immigration policies suit his support base now but will come back to bite them for sure.

Trump is merely accelerating the decline of the American Empire. Comparing to historical timeframe for prior empires to collapse I have heard 80 years quoted. How much quicker it actually happens is going to be something to watch. Whether it is debt or internal conflict or the rise of an external power who can say.

What "citizen" did you hear was deported without due process? Wasn't it Australia that removed a visa holder for not having a COVID vaccine?  Oh my.

The visa holder referred to was told well in advance of the requirement to have the Covid Vaccination. On arrival, he hadn't done so & refused to do so, consequently, he was put on the plane home.

I recall reading of the human rights issues around the 2024 immigration laws passed in Australia. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/28/australia-passes-harsh-new-anti-migration-laws.

And the "West" is and has been in decline. Australia included.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-a-wealthy-country-in-gentle-decline-exposing-itself-to-danger/

ASPI, who publishes the "Aspistrategist" has over time, locked itself into a somewhat "hawkish" stance towards China, & a reliance on te military industry for a large part of their finance, so is not widely relied upon in Australia to project an unbiased opinion.
In any case, the article is poorly argued, especially comparing Australia to Argentina, which has been a "basket case" for at least 80 years.

None of this is on point to the argument, though.

[wilfred]

I see you. And if SCOTUS says the lower court is wrong?  His party holds control over Congress as well. They can go and enact these tariffs, and you'll be happily in support of them.

That would be the constitutional way to do it. Trump's party holds both the house and the senate. How hard can it be? Why not just do that in the first place and then they'd be more solidly locked in and business and consumers wouldn't be frozen with uncertainty. Whether or not tariffs are going to be the panacea trump thinks they will has been muddied by the colossal dog's breakfast he's made of their introduction.

[tggzzz]

Elitism prevents true meritocracy. Trust is earned through merit. You should investigate these two concepts in more depth and understand the differences.

Trust is indeed earned through merit.

Elitism is a consequence of meritocracy, since nobody can be good at everything. The elite are those that have earned trust in a given topic.

[vk6zgo]

In my reading, the last three Presidential elections (Trump, Biden, Trump) were decided more by voting against the loser than by voting for the winner.

...
For me, this line of reasoning leads to the outcome that people left their homes and went to vote for a person they don't like because the opposition was that bad.

Anecdotally that seems to be the case, but obviously my sample is very limited.

That has some profound implications if true. I doubt it, though.

Some people regard voting as a civic duty, and hence will always vote. There's no reason to doubt it.

In Australia, it is quite literally, that! You get fined for not doing so----it is a piffling fine, but seems enough to nudge people into not only voting, but into reading a bit about the issues.
The "biggie" is that it also makes willfully preventing a citizen from performing that civic duty an offence.

[vk6zgo]

Harris was appointed, not democratically selected, as the representative for the Democrats.

Remember the UK's experience with Liz Truss. She was voted for by the members of the Conservative party (not just MPs and peers), and was so disastrous that she lasted only 50 days before being ejected. In that time she crashed the UK economy with her libertarian economic policies and inept management. Famously, her premiership was outlasted by a head of lettuce.

Nowadays nobody in the UK has any time for her whatsoever, but she appears to be trying to peddle her credentials in the US. I expect some people will listen to her because they like her accent.

So, it is best if the candidates are chosen by colleagues who know how they work/fail, not by the party rabble.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62750866
https://inews.co.uk/news/media/liz-truss-lettuce-joke-explained-uk-shortest-serving-prime-minister-1925884

You do realize the implications of what you're saying, right?  The people shouldn't be trusted to select their leaders. That Harris being chosen by her peers was best, and she turned out so awful that people didn't vote for Trump; they voted against Harris.

There's a political system often used to demonize the current US administration, which selects its leaders from within its ranks rather than from the people, at least in the primary historical examples I'm aware of.

I'm glad the US kicked the British to the curb and selected our methods myself. It's a 250-year-old experiment that's still going.

Wrong. Read again, more carefully this time.

Skilled people should select plausible alternatives, and then unskilled people can choose between the alternatives.

I read it, in much disbelief, I must say. I can't believe anyone in this day and age would suggest an elitist system of "Qualified people make the decisions."

I can only assume that I am wrong because you say so. You didn't provide any reasonable explanation, any examples, or show any willingness to counter my argument.

Many of the POTUS's cabinet were never elected to an office, but simply selected by one person with the elected houses "rubber stamping" that selection.

Cabinet members in "Westminster System" parliaments are all elected members of that parliament.

The "Primary" system of selecting candidates in the USA is arguably more democratic than the internal selection done by parties in other countries, but it carries the baggage of voters having to "register" as Democratic or Republican supporters, demolishing the concept of a "secret vote" at the real elections.
If I vote in an Australian election, nobody knows who I voted for!

[tggzzz]

In my reading, the last three Presidential elections (Trump, Biden, Trump) were decided more by voting against the loser than by voting for the winner.

...
For me, this line of reasoning leads to the outcome that people left their homes and went to vote for a person they don't like because the opposition was that bad.

Anecdotally that seems to be the case, but obviously my sample is very limited.

That has some profound implications if true. I doubt it, though.

Some people regard voting as a civic duty, and hence will always vote. There's no reason to doubt it.

In Australia, it is quite literally, that! You get fined for not doing so----it is a piffling fine, but seems enough to nudge people into not only voting, but into reading a bit about the issues.
The "biggie" is that it also makes willfully preventing a citizen from performing that civic duty an offence.

I was vaguely aware that some places have such laws, but I'm surprised Australia is one of them. Do you know why they chose to deviate from the UK tradition?

The inability of Merkins to imagine that other countries can be different never ceases to disappoint me. One of the worse example on this forum was somebody who simply could not understand that in many places it is extremely difficult to add EV charging points to houses. He refused to believe that, even when given streetview pictures and asked where they could be sited. Basically he couldn't comprehend that some places where people live are rather different to the US midwest.

[tggzzz]

Harris was appointed, not democratically selected, as the representative for the Democrats.

Remember the UK's experience with Liz Truss. She was voted for by the members of the Conservative party (not just MPs and peers), and was so disastrous that she lasted only 50 days before being ejected. In that time she crashed the UK economy with her libertarian economic policies and inept management. Famously, her premiership was outlasted by a head of lettuce.

Nowadays nobody in the UK has any time for her whatsoever, but she appears to be trying to peddle her credentials in the US. I expect some people will listen to her because they like her accent.

So, it is best if the candidates are chosen by colleagues who know how they work/fail, not by the party rabble.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62750866
https://inews.co.uk/news/media/liz-truss-lettuce-joke-explained-uk-shortest-serving-prime-minister-1925884

You do realize the implications of what you're saying, right?  The people shouldn't be trusted to select their leaders. That Harris being chosen by her peers was best, and she turned out so awful that people didn't vote for Trump; they voted against Harris.

There's a political system often used to demonize the current US administration, which selects its leaders from within its ranks rather than from the people, at least in the primary historical examples I'm aware of.

I'm glad the US kicked the British to the curb and selected our methods myself. It's a 250-year-old experiment that's still going.

Wrong. Read again, more carefully this time.

Skilled people should select plausible alternatives, and then unskilled people can choose between the alternatives.

I read it, in much disbelief, I must say. I can't believe anyone in this day and age would suggest an elitist system of "Qualified people make the decisions."

I can only assume that I am wrong because you say so. You didn't provide any reasonable explanation, any examples, or show any willingness to counter my argument.

Many of the POTUS's cabinet were never elected to an office, but simply selected by one person with the elected houses "rubber stamping" that selection.

Cabinet members in "Westminster System" parliaments are all elected members of that parliament.

The "Primary" system of selecting candidates in the USA is arguably more democratic than the internal selection done by parties in other countries, but it carries the baggage of voters having to "register" as Democratic or Republican supporters, demolishing the concept of a "secret vote" at the real elections.
If I vote in an Australian election, nobody knows who I voted for!

And rubber stamping under threat of retaliation if they did not. Mobster rule.

Why do Americans think they live in a democracy? They don't, and there never has been a true democracy - even the closest example (Athens) only allowed a tiny minority (the citizens) to vote at all. Americans and other countries live in a representative democracy, and there are some distinctly dubious methods employed when selecting the representatives.

[vk6zgo]

Of course I'm elitist. The myth that everybody is equal is a pernicious destructive force. You will never be my equal.

We know what happens when arts graduates and MBAs dictate how software is developed, etc, etc, etc.

Or maybe you think a lawyer should determine that your prostate cancer (the most common male camcer) needs to be treated, and how. Personally I'd prefer an oncologist to offer me suitable alternatives and let me choose.

Thank you so much for outing yourself so eloquently. You are 100% correct, I believe. I will not, and I will never wish to be, your equal.

Precisely!

Now, would you be content if a lawyer chose your prostate cancer treatment? Because that's the consequence of being rabidly anti elitist.

Precisely what? You know what they call the doctor who barely passed medical school and the lawyer who barely passed the bar on the 20th attempt?
You attribute blindness, but are blind to your own. On the contrary, I want to select my treatment. Thank you very much. You keep trusting your elite peeps.
Jones was elite, drink the kool-aid.

Precisely: we are not equals and never will be equals - even though lazy populist statements and HR-droids frequently state that everybody is equal.

You appear to be being perverse in deliberately ignoring what I wrote. Either that or your comprehension skills need honing. Re-read the highlighted statement.

I'm afraid I have to disagree.
We are equal---we are definitely not interchangeable, though!
In any case, the aspiring candidates in a US style "Primary" have been well filtered by the "elites" of their party. Fred the local plumber won't get a "look in".

In Oz, Fred can stand as an Independent & maybe win his seat.

[tggzzz]

Of course I'm elitist. The myth that everybody is equal is a pernicious destructive force. You will never be my equal.

We know what happens when arts graduates and MBAs dictate how software is developed, etc, etc, etc.

Or maybe you think a lawyer should determine that your prostate cancer (the most common male camcer) needs to be treated, and how. Personally I'd prefer an oncologist to offer me suitable alternatives and let me choose.

Thank you so much for outing yourself so eloquently. You are 100% correct, I believe. I will not, and I will never wish to be, your equal.

Precisely!

Now, would you be content if a lawyer chose your prostate cancer treatment? Because that's the consequence of being rabidly anti elitist.

Precisely what? You know what they call the doctor who barely passed medical school and the lawyer who barely passed the bar on the 20th attempt?
You attribute blindness, but are blind to your own. On the contrary, I want to select my treatment. Thank you very much. You keep trusting your elite peeps.
Jones was elite, drink the kool-aid.

Precisely: we are not equals and never will be equals - even though lazy populist statements and HR-droids frequently state that everybody is equal.

You appear to be being perverse in deliberately ignoring what I wrote. Either that or your comprehension skills need honing. Re-read the highlighted statement.

I'm afraid I have to disagree.
We are equal---we are definitely not interchangeable, though!
In any case, the aspiring candidates in a US style "Primary" have been well filtered by the "elites" of their party. Fred the local plumber won't get a "look in".

In Oz, Fred can stand as an Independent & maybe win his seat.

If two items (including people) are equal, then one can be substituted for the other. The shift from "Personnel Department" to "Human Resources" encouraged management to believe the concept that people were fungible objects, and to treat them as such. Revolting. Dehumanising. Destructive.

Hence, and for other reasons, I strongly oppose the concept that you and I are equal. But it is essential to note the limitations of that statement, and to listen to what I didn't say.

I do strongly believe in equality of opportunity, and have fought for it.

Believing in equality of outcome is Harrison Bergeron territory; I encourage everyone to speed-read https://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/items/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron.pdf .

[themadhippy]

Cabinet members in "Westminster System" parliaments are all elected members of that parliament.

Not quite,they can  be a member of the house of lords,which is an unelected house here in the uk , as in the case of mandelson,cameron and sevral others

[vk6zgo]

Cabinet members in "Westminster System" parliaments are all elected members of that parliament.

Not quite,they can  be a member of the house of lords,which is an unelected house here in the uk , as in the case of mandelson,cameron and sevral others

Can you slot in "usually".

My experience is, of course, in the Australian context, where our "upper house" (as they like to think they are), the Senate, are all elected members.

Back in the day, prior to Federation, the idea of Australian Nobles was touted, but was laughed to scorn as a "Bunyip Aristocracy".

[themadhippy]

Can you slot in "usually".

Its another loophole in our constitution were cabinet ministers dont have to be a member of parliament.