Tariffs

[PlainName]

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

That "Authorizes the President" to enter into trade agreements for a period of 5 years and was enacted in 1975, so that authorization expired FORTY-FIVE YEARS ago.

That's explicitly stated in the first paragraph, so I imagine you googled for tariff authorization president and just pasted whatever link came up without reading it.

[tggzzz]

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

That "Authorizes the President" to enter into trade agreements for a period of 5 years and was enacted in 1975, so that authorization expired FORTY-FIVE YEARS ago.

That's explicitly stated in the first paragraph, so I imagine you googled for tariff authorization president and just pasted whatever link came up without reading it.

Cyclotron's earlier statement supports that: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tariffs/msg6026713/#msg6026713

On very quickly skimming (i.e. less than speed reading!) his reference, it appears to include many restrictions on the purposes and extent of tariffs that can be imposed by a president. I'm not going to bother to read it in detail, because we will soon-ish see how much separation there really is between the US presidency and US judiciary.

[Cyclotron]

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

That "Authorizes the President" to enter into trade agreements for a period of 5 years and was enacted in 1975, so that authorization expired FORTY-FIVE YEARS ago.

That's explicitly stated in the first paragraph, so I imagine you googled for tariff authorization president and just pasted whatever link came up without reading it.

Cyclotron's earlier statement supports that: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tariffs/msg6026713/#msg6026713

On very quickly skimming (i.e. less than speed reading!) his reference, it appears to include many restrictions on the purposes and extent of tariffs that can be imposed by a president. I'm not going to bother to read it in detail, because we will soon-ish see how much separation there really is between the US presidency and US judiciary.

All of the previous presidents have made tariff decisions using the same legal authorization to do so. I'm surprised you'd argue with the elite folks making the decisions to use the authorization for any purposes. They are the people that would know best as you've pointed out.

You believe there's separation between the Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary? These are all politicians, and to believe anything else is foolish. These are your Elites in the Court making your decisions, so be sure to applaud it no matter what it is.

[tggzzz]

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

That "Authorizes the President" to enter into trade agreements for a period of 5 years and was enacted in 1975, so that authorization expired FORTY-FIVE YEARS ago.

That's explicitly stated in the first paragraph, so I imagine you googled for tariff authorization president and just pasted whatever link came up without reading it.

Cyclotron's earlier statement supports that: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tariffs/msg6026713/#msg6026713

On very quickly skimming (i.e. less than speed reading!) his reference, it appears to include many restrictions on the purposes and extent of tariffs that can be imposed by a president. I'm not going to bother to read it in detail, because we will soon-ish see how much separation there really is between the US presidency and US judiciary.

All of the previous presidents have made tariff decisions using the same legal authorization to do so. I'm surprised you'd argue with the elite folks making the decisions to use the authorization for any purposes. They are the people that would know best as you've pointed out.

You believe there's separation between the Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary? These are all politicians, and to believe anything else is foolish. These are your Elites in the Court making your decisions, so be sure to applaud it no matter what it is.

In what sense are they "my" elites?

Can you explain why you put the word "elite" in there so many times? If it is because you believe that other people are much better qualified than you in such subjects, then I applaud your realism.

Everybody is a politician in their domain, to some degree. It does appear that in the US politics has a very strong influence in appointing the judiciary. That is not good; other countries don't make that mistake to the same degree.

[Cyclotron]

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

That "Authorizes the President" to enter into trade agreements for a period of 5 years and was enacted in 1975, so that authorization expired FORTY-FIVE YEARS ago.

That's explicitly stated in the first paragraph, so I imagine you googled for tariff authorization president and just pasted whatever link came up without reading it.

Cyclotron's earlier statement supports that: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tariffs/msg6026713/#msg6026713

On very quickly skimming (i.e. less than speed reading!) his reference, it appears to include many restrictions on the purposes and extent of tariffs that can be imposed by a president. I'm not going to bother to read it in detail, because we will soon-ish see how much separation there really is between the US presidency and US judiciary.

All of the previous presidents have made tariff decisions using the same legal authorization to do so. I'm surprised you'd argue with the elite folks making the decisions to use the authorization for any purposes. They are the people that would know best as you've pointed out.

You believe there's separation between the Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary? These are all politicians, and to believe anything else is foolish. These are your Elites in the Court making your decisions, so be sure to applaud it no matter what it is.

In what sense are they "my" elites?

Can you explain why you put the word "elite" in there so many times? If it is because you believe that other people are much better qualified than you in such subjects, then I applaud your realism.

Everybody is a politician in their domain, to some degree. It does appear that in the US politics has a very strong influence in appointing the judiciary. That is not good; other countries don't make that mistake to the same degree.

I didn't think you'd understand. I'm not here to teach you. Your argument in favor of elitism now you want to feign ignorance of ownership, it is evident to all of us, we see you.

Don't make false claims of some mythical place that somehow makes the argument less accurate.  It's a terrible practice. Just accept that you're wrong and don't make stuff up.

Are you a lonely pensioner sitting out there shaking your fist and shouting at the clouds?

[Cyclotron]

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.

This is commonly known as a strawman argument. I didn't see anyone make an argument that the Americans live in a non-representative democracy.  Shake that fist at the cloud.

[Cyclotron]

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.

We agree here. HR departments are corporate functions. You may have been out of work for a while. They dropped the "Human" part in day-to-day talk of projects.
Humans are just "resources." I am in favor of a meritocracy system, but we disagree on elistism. I recoil strongly from that, as I've been held back by elitists who thought they were better. Strangely, you'd hold a view that, from what I can tell, should be the polar opposite of your beliefs. Aligning you with the likes of Trump and others that believe the elites know best.

[tggzzz]

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.

We agree here. HR departments are corporate functions. You may have been out of work for a while. They dropped the "Human" part in day-to-day talk of projects.
Humans are just "resources."

That started in the 80s.

A good HR person and department is worth their weight in gold. Three of the companies I worked for did have good HR departments - and it showed since the employees were happy and had fun there. I certainly did, for almost quarter of a century. Not sure which is cause and effect; probably a virtuous circle.

Unfortunately that is the exception rather than the rule.

I am in favor of a meritocracy system, but we disagree on elistism. I recoil strongly from that, as I've been held back by elitists who thought they were better. Strangely, you'd hold a view that, from what I can tell, should be the polar opposite of your beliefs. Aligning you with the likes of Trump and others that believe the elites know best.

If you are particularly good at X, then you are by definition elite for the purposes of X. There are and can be no exceptions. Of course, if you are an elite X, that says absolutely nothing about you and Y.

As for being held back by other people, I've never been in a position where that would have been apparent. That's probably because nobody thought in terms of me-better-you-worse, but always thought in terms of "is that a sensible position and argument". Sometimes my argument prevailed, sometimes theirs did. Hence I've never needed an arboriculturist to examine my shoulder.

In addition, such people are only too aware of what they don't know, and are humble outside their area of expertise. The self-selected wannabe-elites are the opposite, and end up defending minor and irrelevant status differences. Fortunately I've been able to avoid such twats.

I'll add that it can be extremely difficult to work with someone that feels they are inferior or superior. They end up being excessively defensive, and rigid, and unable to change their opinion in the face of evidence. As I taught my daughter, "ignorance can be cured, but stupidity cannot".

I know I am at least third rate. How so? There have been people that I listen to carefully particularly when they say I am wrong - because I know I am going to learn something. That makes me second rate. But those people are also in awe at the ability of other people (who I haven't met). Hence I must be at least third rate. However, there aren't many such people, and one of them had a couple of Nobel laureates in the family

[Cyclotron]

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.

We agree here. HR departments are corporate functions. You may have been out of work for a while. They dropped the "Human" part in day-to-day talk of projects.
Humans are just "resources."

That started in the 80s.

A good HR person and department is worth their weight in gold. Three of the companies I worked for did have good HR departments - and it showed since the employees were happy and had fun there. I certainly did, for almost quarter of a century. Not sure which is cause and effect; probably a virtuous circle.

Unfortunately that is the exception rather than the rule.

I am in favor of a meritocracy system, but we disagree on elistism. I recoil strongly from that, as I've been held back by elitists who thought they were better. Strangely, you'd hold a view that, from what I can tell, should be the polar opposite of your beliefs. Aligning you with the likes of Trump and others that believe the elites know best.

If you are particularly good at X, then you are by definition elite for the purposes of X. There are and can be no exceptions. Of course, if you are an elite X, that says absolutely nothing about you and Y.

As for being held back by other people, I've never been in a position where that would have been apparent. That's probably because nobody thought in terms of me-better-you-worse, but always thought in terms of "is that a sensible position and argument". Sometimes my argument prevailed, sometimes theirs did. Hence I've never needed an arboriculturist to examine my shoulder.

In addition, such people are only too aware of what they don't know, and are humble outside their area of expertise. The self-selected wannabe-elites are the opposite, and end up defending minor and irrelevant status differences. Fortunately I've been able to avoid such twats.

I'll add that it can be extremely difficult to work with someone that feels they are inferior or superior. They end up being excessively defensive, and rigid, and unable to change their opinion in the face of evidence. As I taught my daughter, "ignorance can be cured, but stupidity cannot".

I know I am at least third rate. How so? There have been people that I listen to carefully particularly when they say I am wrong - because I know I am going to learn something. That makes me second rate. But those people are also in awe at the ability of other people (who I haven't met). Hence I must be at least third rate. However, there aren't many such people, and one of them had a couple of Nobel laureates in the family

We agree further, but there is a nuance here that I would like to point out. I do not subscribe to elitism, and our prior arguments centered on that concept. I certainly recoil from that for many reasons, and also due to my experience. As for being elite or a top person in my field/sport, I believe others whom I respect would make such claims. I would expect there are many that would claim I'm elite in a few fields that I maintain cycles in.

However, there's further nuance in our arguments that we may have missed each other due to the inherent antagonistic tendencies that arise from the competition of argument. 

You said a few things in this post that make me believe you understand this and are in favor, but in prior posts, it either wasn't clear or simply my argument was ignored. A person who has achieved an elite status in their field or sport does not mean they are good at anything outside of the well-defined area. There were numerous examples previously, but I'll use a new one, which I believe is a simplified example.  A sports team, especially one that is at the top, is made up of elite players. None of them might be able to coach a game or even be a part of the team. They may, by familiarity, believe that they can, and people without familiarity may find it easily plausible that this elite athlete would be great at coaching their sport.

An elite politician, if I dare say there's such an animal, would likely not be the best person to select another politician.

The example of how the US voting system, at least for the presidency, can be subverted by elitism is through the perversion of the Electoral College. There have been several recent examples in the news and opinions that support perverting it. In prior years of the US, it was. Landowners and others were bestowed rights that not everyone received. Men, and whites.  Elitism is a slippery slope and is way too easy to be manipulated for evil to be a good concept.

My day job is a career where I get paid for my opinion. I have held this or similar roles for 15 years or more. But I'm never sure my opinion is the best. I often tell people that my opinion and money will buy you a coffee/tea, but you'd better be sure to have the money.

[tggzzz]

You said a few things in this post that make me believe you understand this and are in favor, but in prior posts, it either wasn't clear or simply my argument was ignored. A person who has achieved an elite status in their field or sport does not mean they are good at anything outside of the well-defined area. There were numerous examples previously, but I'll use a new one, which I believe is a simplified example.  A sports team, especially one that is at the top, is made up of elite players. None of them might be able to coach a game or even be a part of the team. They may, by familiarity, believe that they can, and people without familiarity may find it easily plausible that this elite athlete would be great at coaching their sport.

Some people do fall into that trap. Some people fall into that trap about their own infallibility; Linus Pauling is the classic example.

An elite politician, if I dare say there's such an animal, would likely not be the best person to select another politician.

Maybe maybe not; it depends. While you will never get a flock of politicians to agree on the single best leader, they damn well ought to be able to avoid selecting people that will be complete duds, e.g. the UK's Liz Truss.

The example of how the US voting system, at least for the presidency, can be subverted by elitism is through the perversion of the Electoral College. There have been several recent examples in the news and opinions that support perverting it. In prior years of the US, it was. Landowners and others were bestowed rights that not everyone received. Men, and whites.  Elitism is a slippery slope and is way too easy to be manipulated for evil to be a good concept.

In the US people tend to regard their systems and institutions as The Best, Holy, and Infallible. In reality, while they may have been an excellent advance on the state of the art, the state of the art has advanced since then. The electoral college was probably necessary when horses and canoes were the main forms of transport and communication, but trains and the telegraph aren't exactly novel any more.

I used to think that the UK's "unwritten constitution" was preferable to the US constitution, since "do what you know is the right thing" is preferable to "arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of pin".

Then Boris Johnson and Liz Truss managed to become PM, destroy equilibrium and not have anything useable to put in its place. That showed why unwritten != good.

Then T'rump manifested himself, and is completely ignoring whatever bit of the US constitution gets in his way. That shows the limits of a written constitution: it requires people to actually follow what's in the constitution. It remains to be seen to what extent the USA's good features will remain in the future.

[Cyclotron]

In the US people tend to regard their systems and institutions as The Best, Holy, and Infallible. In reality, while they may have been an excellent advance on the state of the art, the state of the art has advanced since then. The electoral college was probably necessary when horses and canoes were the main forms of transport and communication, but trains and the telegraph aren't exactly novel any more.

I do not believe that the US holds any particular nationalistic views any more so than any other nation. At least the ones I've read and certainly the ones I've visited, which are numerous. Being what I assume to be a Brit, just ask the French how much better they are than you, for example.

The best parts of the US are our ability to change while governed by a pretty clear document. Many people, even US citizens, often think that the Constitution grants citizens Rights. It does not. The Constitution of the USA reserves all rights to the people and only restricts the government. This means that it is relatively easy to change even the oldest and most endearing things that some people may hold dear.

The right to freedom of speech, for example, is explicitly written in the Bill of Rights, but people often mistake it as an enumeration of rights, which it is not. It was a list of absolute things that could never ever be trampled by the government.  The fathers of the nation believed the will of the people was the supreme law of the land. Is this a perfect nation? No, it's not. We even started it out as a means to form a more perfect union. That goal is never reached.

It may be fair that, in your experience, you have dealt with US people who placed their nation first. I wouldn't say that's a horrible thing, but it certainly does go against people's sensibilities regarding the adornment of modesty. On the other hand, people of different nations have expectations of the US that are at least interesting if not unreasonable. Why not apply the same level of scrutiny to other countries? 

In this thread alone, there have been examples of people unwilling to discuss the overall views on tariffs, immigration, and the geo-politics involved, instead claiming that this thread is about "Trump and the USA."  I understand that the US changes make the topic of interest, but its discussion isn't limited to the US by any means. In fact, the whole reason for the changes is what the US, as well as other nations, believes are unfair trade situations.

[Cyclotron]

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.

Honestly, I'm shocked by how many people are experts on the US Constitution. I have a friend who is a constitutional lawyer and a retired judge who doesn't know for sure on some of these topics, but there are plenty of people here who are really sure. Trump didn't just invent tariffs or the application of them by a sitting president. His use in a larger sense is under scrutiny and working its way through courts with justices who should be constitutional experts.

If your wish is for the Congress to enact a law that grants these explicit permissions to Trump or that they apply the tariffs directly, you may very well and likely will regret it if they do. Trump's approach has been erratic and meandering, but he has demonstrated a willingness to make deals and settle matters.

I'm not an expert, but it would be easier to make a deal with the US at this time. If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, which some believe is likely, or if it does not and Congress passes a law, things will change. Trump will be given much higher levels of power and force in either case.

And waving your expertise in the US Constitution in front of that will not do well.

[wilfred]

And waving your expertise in the US Constitution in front of that will not do well.

I'm no US constitutional law expert and never claimed to be. I'm an Australian and have no skin in this game. I see comment from prominent law professors and take what sounds reasonable.

I don't really care what the US does beyond the old adage "When the US sneezes the world catches a cold". As for a willingness to make deals I'll dispute he has made any real deals of lasting substance. And if the "deals" are on questionable legal footings then has anything really been settled? The problem is these deals are unsettled and unsettling to markets and trade. It could unravel just as fast. Take the example when the tariffs were paused because of a bond market wobble. That could still happen again and the US debt is not under control. Plenty can still go awry.

[Cyclotron]

And waving your expertise in the US Constitution in front of that will not do well.

I'm no US constitutional law expert and never claimed to be. I'm an Australian and have no skin in this game. I see comment from prominent law professors and take what sounds reasonable.

I don't really care what the US does beyond the old adage "When the US sneezes the world catches a cold". As for a willingness to make deals I'll dispute he has made any real deals of lasting substance. And if the "deals" are on questionable legal footings then has anything really been settled? The problem is these deals are unsettled and unsettling to markets and trade. It could unravel just as fast. Take the example when the tariffs were paused because of a bond market wobble. That could still happen again and the US debt is not under control. Plenty can still go awry.

The implication, when you state that one way is "the Constitutional way," is that you have some knowledge or authority. There are many ways to restate that without making a claim. You could even have been clear and said that you've read prominent law professors' assessments that claim these things.

What dispute do you have that he has made real deals? You believe they are fake?

Remember, out of the host of challenges to the president's tariffs, only some are at issue and will be moved to SCOTUS for final decision.
Even then, the courts know better than to roll them back.  They didn't.  The tariffs remain. I would suspect that they will remain even if SCOTUS finds against the president. They will place a stay on it till Congress decides. All of this will keep the chaos in the market much longer. So, as I said, be careful what you wish for.

Neither party in the US wishes to constrain the debt. That's been evident for a very long time. The US spends enormous amounts of money.  The current president has made a lot of cuts and continues to do so, and those are being challenged in the courts, too.

It does appear that you care though.

[wasyoungonce]

Well I'm screwed...just repaired 2 Telescope controllers (pwr surge) trying to send back to owner USA (i'm in Australia) and Aust Post no longer sending parcels to USA, nor is UK.   

I've repaired and returned many of these over the years......now its a self inflicted kick to the head.

Only method is now DHL/UPS/Fedex   Frankly their prices are outrageous (profiteering) and they still might add tariffs....Cannot get an answer from Aust Post if parcels are shipping?  Anyone?

[tggzzz]

Well I'm screwed...just repaired 2 Telescope controllers (pwr surge) trying to send back to owner USA (i'm in Australia) and Aust Post no longer sending parcels to USA, nor is UK.   

I've repaired and returned many of these over the years......now its a self inflicted kick to the head.

Only method is now DHL/UPS/Fedex   Frankly their prices are outrageous (profiteering) and they still might add tariffs....Cannot get an answer from Aust Post if parcels are shipping?  Anyone?

I hate to say it, but is that your problem? I presume you have talked to the other party.

[wasyoungonce]

oh yes they know I'm looking at all options, ......sigh   What a cluster

[tggzzz]

oh yes they know I'm looking at all options, ......sigh   What a cluster

Would they consider funding you to hand carry them to the US and install them? I'm presuming you wouldn't be concerned about being detained by the ICE thugs.

[wasyoungonce]

I wish …but that’s a no.  Sadly

[Cyclotron]

oh yes they know I'm looking at all options, ......sigh   What a cluster

I have read that the Australian post is working on a solution, but does not have an ETA.

Did you quote the cost up front, and you're responsible for the cost of shipping back?  Is it challenging to use the other services?
I understand the cost difference, but typically, that's a burden on the buyer of the services.

Would they consider funding you to hand carry them to the US and install them? I'm presuming you wouldn't be concerned about being detained by the ICE thugs.

Were these LEOs "thugs" during their employment, doing the same job across several administrations? I see this name-calling as demonizing. Some folks have taken this to mean its ok to go DOX officers: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/29/ai-unmasking-ice-officers-00519478

When is it ok to DOX people? Seems reasonable to do to "thugs" I guess.

[tggzzz]

There is a class of people who actively like and participate in racist thuggery, especially in the USA. There is a class of people who are, for want of a better phrase, uniform fetishists. Under normal circumstances they are unlikely to be able to be employed by law enforcement agencies.

The speed with which the new bodies were recruited implies they couldn't have been too fussy.

ISTR reading reports to the effect that many new recruits had a, um, chequered background. No, I haven't searched for those again.

A member here PMed me with an anecdote that he had worked with a technician who was sacked for racist jokes and wearing a swastika. He found employment with ICE.

So were my statements "demonising"? To some extent yes, but they contain too much truth for comfort.

[tycz]

Well I'm screwed...just repaired 2 Telescope controllers (pwr surge) trying to send back to owner USA (i'm in Australia) and Aust Post no longer sending parcels to USA, nor is UK.   

I've repaired and returned many of these over the years......now its a self inflicted kick to the head.

Only method is now DHL/UPS/Fedex   Frankly their prices are outrageous (profiteering) and they still might add tariffs....Cannot get an answer from Aust Post if parcels are shipping?  Anyone?

Auspost US bound services are off 'until further notice'. You can get reasonable rates for the couriers if you book it through an intermediary like Interparcel.

[Sorama]

How could one work for ICE without being a criminal or a person with a very, very bad attitude ?
Intrinsically bad persons.

[tszaboo]

How could one work for ICE without being a criminal or a person with a very, very bad attitude ?
Intrinsically bad persons.

Does ICE enforce the tariffs or this is just a non sequitur off topic comment from you, shaming people, federal agents, that you never met?

[Sorama]

How could one work for ICE without being a criminal or a person with a very, very bad attitude ?
Intrinsically bad persons.

Does ICE enforce the tariffs or this is just a non sequitur off topic comment from you, shaming people, federal agents, that you never met?

Your reply certainly does not come without surprise, on the contrary.

If one needs ‘to see’ a person that beats others, knowing very well he doesn’t know a shit about, then yes, he has a bad personality as in criminal.


I don’t need to see a scumbag to verify if he is a scumbag.