I believe this has been the case for him and all of his senior staff since the beginning of his first presidency
See for example this from 2017:
> Despite universal warnings from security experts in and out of government, Donald Trump is apparently continuing to use an insecure, off-the-shelf Android phone
I remember reading news articles on the topic at the time, and finding it egregious how relatively little attention it got, compared to the massive and coordinated ”lock her up” campaign against Hillary Clinton
I think the aim of the tariffs changes depending on President Trump’s mood, what the market is doing, what the press is saying, and who he spoke to last.
But what do you mean by “warranted”? Businesses are free to set their prices as they see fit (with some caveats), and you generally expect them to do so in a way that maximizes profits.
The prices before these tariffs were arrived at by some confluence of factors such as cost and competition, it wasn’t some universally agreed “fair pricing” scheme that determined them. So what does it mean for a price to be warranted?
Now businesses have to raise prices because of the aforementioned tariffs, and, you speculate, they will add some extra margin because they think the customer is primed to accept higher prices right now than they’d normally be.
First of all, is that the end of the world? If this is only made possible because the wool has been pulled over the customer’s eyes, then at some point there will be a correction in the other direction - unless you’re saying that there is actual and widespread price-fixing (which is illegal and enforced as such). This particular mechanism on its own won’t cause prices to spiral out of control or anything.
Secondly, even if you think it is bad and don’t want it to happen, how would you prevent it? I can’t come up with a single feasible approach that isn’t basically halfway to socialism (which is fine if that’s your preference, but then that’s a larger conversation).
In this case, I believe many companies raised pricing more than they needed to, because people misattributed the source of those increases. If, say, ice cream doubled in price in normal times, people would cry foul. COVID gave an ironclad excuse.
> unless you’re saying that there is actual and widespread price-fixing (which is illegal and enforced as such)
I see very little evidence of this. We're great at innovating new ways to price fix without attracting (or successfully fighting off) regulatory attention.
Like outsourcing the price decisions to a third party…
They’re regressive in the sense that people with lower income spend more of it on consumption than people with higher income or wealth, who can save or invest at a higher rate.
You would be able to afford a lot less if everything you bought was made in factories where every worker was paid north of $100k. That includes your home, by the way.
> In the US this can only be true for foreign citizens. Broad classes of assets and liquidity are well protected for US citizens unless you end up in the unusual situation where they sue the money itself. If you have cash in your hand nothing can stop you from spending it.
Why would this be any different if it was the government running payment services rather than private entities? You haven’t explained why having those middlemen protects you from the same authority that makes up and enforces the rules anyway.
This is the first sentence in it, which links to the New York Times article the submission was changed to:
> European Union regulators are preparing major penalties against X, including a fine that could exceed $1 billion, according to a New York Times report yesterday.
> But at its core: "less trade, less global & more local" is a key pillar of virtually every Green Parties over here; it's so weird to me to see Trump (!!!) actually do something that looks like it aligns with those goals.
But it’s not for the same reasons. Also, the Green parties explicitly want to reduce everyone’s consumption. Do you think American Trump supporters have intentionally voted for being able to afford less stuff, have less variety at the grocery store, etc?
I believe this has been the case for him and all of his senior staff since the beginning of his first presidency
See for example this from 2017:
> Despite universal warnings from security experts in and out of government, Donald Trump is apparently continuing to use an insecure, off-the-shelf Android phone
http://lieu.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/congressman-c...
I remember reading news articles on the topic at the time, and finding it egregious how relatively little attention it got, compared to the massive and coordinated ”lock her up” campaign against Hillary Clinton
reply