Tracking toy tariffs

f7c21595-fac2-437d-8485-5b5df1f44994_text.gif
 
The Toy Association sponsored the egg roll at the White House. And multiple smaller companies are suing. It will end. The only question is the damage it's caused.
 
They could at least try to make it less obvious that Trump and his cronies are doing all this to play the market and make themselves richer at the expensive of literally the entire world.



Buttmunch said:
I just read an article that says China’s plastic industry is in a real pickle as there is one critical ingredient they need that’s virtually only available from the US. Without it, they can’t produce the plastics that other factories and industries need. They’ve been getting petroleum from other places since the US import freeze but they can’t get this one element. They’ll lose money importing it with the tariff but can’t make anything without it.

Obviously this is a big deal for our toy interests but that could have major implications on so many other industries if China can’t make their own plastic. Sounds like both sides have significant reasons to play nice and make this a mutually beneficial trade deal. Hopefully it happens quickly and things return close to normal in the end.
Click to expand...

For those interested - the product is ethane. Ethane is a byproduct of natural gas and oil refinement so, of course, the US has ludicrous amounts of it. Before anyone gets excited about this prospect, let's keep a few things in mind; Firstly, the US is the largest supplier of ethane primarily because we refine so much oil and because of established trading relationships essentially blocking anyone else from trying to get into it. It would be like trying to open a brand new department store next to a Walmart. Good luck.
However, we're not the only ones CAPABLE of exporting it. Just like with so many other things in the laundry list of Trump being a complete fucking idiot with our trading partners - this situation could simply push China to establish a different trading partner for ethane. That's doubly important because...
Secondly, China is the biggest customer on earth for ethane. The relationship goes both ways. They 'need' our ethane, but we need to sell it to them. Again, it all comes down to hoping China blinks first? Because if they don't, and establish a different relationship - the ethane suppliers are in the same boat as the soy bean farmers last time this orange piece of dogshit was allowed to make any decisions.

Not to say it's not a consideration that could make China concerned. It sure is. But A) we shouldn't be trying to bully our trading partners because Trump has a tiny dick, and B) it's not guaranteed to work out in our favor.
 
Ru1977 said:
They totally could, but it doesn't seem necessary.
Click to expand...
When they don't have anything to worry about because he'll pardon them before leaving office, then being criminally corrupt is the easy thing to do. Also I don't have any doubt that Trump will pardon himself before leaving office as well. Even though it has never been done before and shouldn't hold up in court.
 
canprime said:
When they don't have anything to worry about because he'll pardon them before leaving office, then being criminally corrupt is the easy thing to do. Also I don't have any doubt that Trump will pardon himself before leaving office as well. Even though it has never been done before and shouldn't hold up in court.
Click to expand...
You don't even need to pardon folks if your justice department refuses to prosecute and your high court has determined presidents cannot be held criminally accountable for their actions. At this point I think pardons are largely unnecessary until/unless he loses the presidency AND the Supreme Court changes AND all his appointees are put out of positions of power.

If that happens in a timespan shorter than 40 years I'll be ecstatic, but even before he was in office the first time we were a country unwilling to prosecute rank abuses of power so long as they were committed by a sufficiently wealthy and connected individual.
 
One thing I haven't seen much ink spilled over yet, is that due tot he Supreme Court basically making the president a king, there will likely be downstream effects for the king's cronies. If Trump's actions as president can't be held to account legally, how could anyone be legitimately tried for following his edicts even if they seemed illegal? It's sort of the perfect setup for a wannabe mafia boss. Once upon a time you'd have an expendable goon be a fall guy. A Paul Manafort or a Michael Cohen.

Now there's a plausible argument that nobody can be committing an illegal act so long as Trump ordered them to do it as president.
 
JakeEkiss said:
One thing I haven't seen much ink spilled over yet, is that due tot he Supreme Court basically making the president a king, there will likely be downstream effects for the king's cronies. If Trump's actions as president can't be held to account legally, how could anyone be legitimately tried for following his edicts even if they seemed illegal? It's sort of the perfect setup for a wannabe mafia boss. Once upon a time you'd have an expendable goon be a fall guy. A Paul Manafort or a Michael Cohen.

Now there's a plausible argument that nobody can be committing an illegal act so long as Trump ordered them to do it as president.
Click to expand...
I understand the concern, and far be it for me to hand-wave the likelihood of this exact situation becoming the norm for Trump-era politics.
However, it's worth noting that it's not quite that clear. The president is now a king, for sure. He can't be held accountable for any illegal activity. BUT, the SC did not go so far as to even suggest that the president doing something makes it NOT illegal. And that is actual a crucial distinction because there is storied precedent that following an illegal order even if you're oath-bound to follow orders is not a defense in court.

So, in theory at least, Trump's sycophants and cronies could still be held accountable in a sufficiently brave court, because 'Trump told me to' isn't actually a defense for doing something illegal unless, by the SC's ruling, that defense is being put forward by Trump himself.
 
Damien said:
I understand the concern, and far be it for me to hand-wave the likelihood of this exact situation becoming the norm for Trump-era politics.
However, it's worth noting that it's not quite that clear. The president is now a king, for sure. He can't be held accountable for any illegal activity. BUT, the SC did not go so far as to even suggest that the president doing something makes it NOT illegal. And that is actual a crucial distinction because there is storied precedent that following an illegal order even if you're oath-bound to follow orders is not a defense in court.

So, in theory at least, Trump's sycophants and cronies could still be held accountable in a sufficiently brave court, because 'Trump told me to' isn't actually a defense for doing something illegal unless, by the SC's ruling, that defense is being put forward by Trump himself.
Click to expand...
I think you're technically correct. The best kind of correct. I'm more saying I think this will be the argument their lawyers will eventually pivot to in court, and I think, in our current circumstances, it will have a fair chance of succeeding.

But also, he's now testing waters with simply ignoring direct court orders, and so far, no real consequences. Eventually the cronies will try that move too.
 
Justice said:
Apparently it was the meeting with the Walmart, Target, and Home Depot CEOs that started to change Trump's stance on the high tariffs.
Click to expand...

Who knew health care global economics could be so complicated? :rolleyes:

Anybody who's ever read labels on most of the products Walmart, Target, and Home Depot sell, that's who. It's like he was TRYING to put them all out of business. :cautious:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top