We should have something like the federal reserve, but for trade policy. A board of governors nominated and confirmed by the senate in 8 year rotations. Politicians cannot be trusted to craft economic policy. I am dubious that they should be crafting fiscal policy either since theyve shown they cant be trusted with that either

▲

jacobolus 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is power explicitly reserved for Congress, which is being extra-constitutionally seized by the President (on the pretext of "national security") with no public support. The problem here is electing a lawless president and putting the Congress in charge of a GOP which is full of unprincipled cowards from top to bottom, not the institutional framework.

▲

shortrounddev2 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

If the answer to a lawless president is a cowardly and corrupt congress, then god help us. Economic policy simply cannot be trusted to politicians whose only incentive is re-election and serving campaign donors

	▲	jacobolus 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's true for every aspect of US government and society; having policy set by an elected legislature answerable to the people is how democracy works. If you want things to function better, start electing people who behave honorably and act in good faith and start demanding accountability from your representatives when they don't. (Also, don't get your hopes up about the Federal Reserve in the current climate. Just like the Supreme Court or the FBI or the EPA or the NIH, the Federal Reserve is only as good as the people in charge, and Trump is doing what he can to seize control and abuse its powers for personal gain.)

▲

philwelch 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which is still current statutory law, empowers the president to set tariffs. There’s an argument that Congress didn’t have the power to pass that law, but they did.

▲

jacobolus 2 days ago | parent [-]

In my understanding, this is only applicable when "an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten or impair the national security". But "national security" is pretextual in this case.

▲

philwelch 2 days ago | parent [-]

National security is one of the primary motivations for wanting to protect American industry in the first place; it’s hardly pretextual. And even if it was, the law states that whether or not national security is threatened is up to the judgment of the Secretary of Commerce.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

Scoundreller 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In theory, most countries are signatories to the Universal Postal Union and World Customs Organization (branches of the UN) to keep the post/customs system humming along.

I tried to read up on their “rules” on this topic and it’s a bunch of wishy-washy hot air other than some standardization of customs declaration forms, and I guess HS codes.

Otherwise the only way you get everyone to agree on something: by getting them to agree on nothing during their junket meetings.

▲

the_gastropod 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It wouldn’t matter. The Supreme Court has allowed this administration to do whatever they want within the executive branch with the very narrow exception of messing with the Federal Reserve. And tariffs are squarely under congressional authority, but the party currently controlling congress has decided to cede that power to the president.

▲

concinds 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Trump's tariffs are already illegal and unconstitutional (though the right-wing Supreme Court won't care). Tariffs are within the purview of Congress. He's been doing all of this through "emergency" declarations.

▲

philwelch 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Why not just have a dictator?

▲

shortrounddev2 2 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	favflam 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The current system was up for debate in the last election. Feels over reals got us this result where Republicans specifically in Congress refuse to step in to stop the President from violating the emoluments clause, tax authority, and impoundment. At least the last administration knew they had to pass Congressional legislation to spend money and that impoundment was absolutely illegal. And there is clear evidence Democrats will cull the herd of politicians who stray off.
	▲	mlrtime a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[flagged]
	▲	philwelch 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> or, more realistically, the conservative ghouls which are parading his corpse around, Weekend-at-Bernie's style I don’t know what reality you’re from but that is not even close to true in this reality. Maybe you’re thinking of the last guy.