I only have three, but this is my dream guitar - the Musima Record hollow body. One day…
2 Likes
It helps that I looked into coinage of circa the 17th century for something I was working on once, and compared to that, the pre-decimal, 20th century British coins are exceedingly straightforward 
2 Likes
That still requires the Approval of Congress, and without that, It’s Invalid; Tariffs are gone.
1 Like
Trump is using a previously approved law to assess a 10% global tariff. If you’ve got a credible cite that this tariff does not exist, post it please.
3 Likes
A fine example of Just because someone said it on the internet, it doesn’t make it true.
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
3 Likes
Tariffs
Are tariffs gone?
2. 
@realDonaldTrumprealDonaldTrumprealDonaldTrumprealDonaldTrump
To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, the Court said that I’m not allowed to charge even $1 DOLLAR to any Country under IEEPA, I assume to protect other Countries, not the United States which they should be interested in protecting — But I am allowed to cut off any and all Trade or Business with that same Country, even imposing a Foreign Country destroying embargo, and do anything else I want to do to them — How nonsensical is that? They are saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee. What license has ever been issued without the right to charge a fee? But now the Court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our Country, a much more powerful Right than many people thought we had.
Our Country is the “HOTTEST” anywhere in the World, but now, I am going in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice. As Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his Dissent:
“Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs issued in this case…Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338).”
Thank you Justice Kavanaugh!
In actuality, while I am sure they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a President’s ability to both regulate Trade, and impose TARIFFS, more powerful and crystal clear, rather than less. There will no longer be any doubt, and the Income coming in, and the protection of our Companies and Country, will actually increase because of this decision. Based on longstanding Law and Hundreds of Victories to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS. The ability to block, embargo, restrict, license, or impose any other condition on a Foreign Country’s ability to conduct Trade with the United States under IEEPA, has been fully confirmed by this decision. In order to protect our Country, a President can actually charge more TARIFFS than I was charging in the past under the various other TARIFF authorities, which have also been confirmed, and fully allowed.
Therefore, effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged, and we are also initiating several Section 301 and other Investigations to protect our Country from unfair Trading practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
8.93k
ReTruths
32.1k
Likes
- Trump has relied on IEEPA to order many of his tariffs, even though that law doesn’t explicitly authorize the president to levy taxes.
Law
Supreme Court put Trump tariffs on a high-fire grill, in bipartisan scrutiny
The administration has promised to replace the outlawed tariffs using other laws where the president’s authority is clearer.
Those other statutes come with more strings attached, though.
Hours after the Supreme Court decision, Trump said he planned to impose a worldwide tariff of 10% using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which is designed to address trade deficits. But under that statute, those taxes can be imposed for only 150 days.
3 Likes
EXACTLY!
So I should have said 55 years not 50, they add up fast. The “Arab Oil Embargo” (not exactly OPEC) came a short time later, it was a fiasco for global economy and set the standard for the fluctuations you mention and made them the “new normal”. I think many eyes are on BRICs, the next decade should be interesting.
3 Likes
Some still blame “greedy corporations” and/or capitalism, as consistently as the sun coming up. They somehow missed the fact that in the post COVID era, virtually anything of an essential nature roughly doubled in cost. It was not greed so much as the dollar (in our case) losing buying power mostly due to government actions.
I was not really buying kits in the high inflation period but over the last year, I have not seen the expected “tariff increase” in prices. Today’s kits are greatly increased in parts count (for better or worse) so there’s that. Kit boxes are larger for a reason. Frankly, I am amazed that kit prices have not gone up more. I can still buy a quality Tamiya Sherman kit for $45 give or take a dollar. That’s not bad.
4 Likes
Taken to the bank.
3 Likes
Obviously I don’t.
When COVID passed, did the government take the staggering amount of money that they had mainlined directly to consumers back? No, they did not. And obviously they could not have replaced the lost productivity that COVID restrictions created.
In short there was more money chasing less product. Inflation will result from this every time.
Yes, healthcare is overpriced. Healthcare is also one of most government-controlled sectors of our economy. Hmm, that’s weird. HC also does not allow people to “shop around” in most cases as you say. You will have a hard time even getting a solid cost from a healthcare provider up front for anything but the most trivial services. The cost might be TEN invoices from ten different entities. So you might make the case that this mix of capitalism, corporatism and socialism works badly, I won’t disagree. Likewise, the third party payer system derails normal market forces. This is not typical of US consumerism though. But what if it were:
Picture me buying “Model Insurance” for…X dollars. My LHS owner says that I NEED kits which cost 10 times X dollars. I agree of course. We’re both angry when the insurance company says that 5 times X is enough. This is pretty much the current HC insurance situation. Anyway, HC is not a normal economic sector.
Capitalism is nothing but free markets. People are free to buy, sell and invest in whatever they want. This tends to be a very responsive model.
Socialism is largely the opposite. Everything is government planned including pay and prices. There is little incentive and ZERO chance of government caring, much less producing what individuals want. A free market economy is the most complex “computer” ever built regarding economic planning. No government bureau can or will come close.
But you are right. Competition is crucial and the HC industry should be improved in that regard. Sorry this was long. I will now swear off such non-model subjects.
3 Likes
I was dismayed to see my new truuck came with KO2s (37x12.5R17) instead of KO3s. Turns out it is a load/weight rating thing.
1 Like
I didn’t care, I was using “stickies” on a 3k lb jeep thing, but boy were they expensive.
1 Like
FYI regarding tariffs: A Canadian manufacturer of 28mm metal game minis just sent out emails that the rate dropped to 10% from 35% for him. I have no info on anything else, just throwing it out there.
1 Like