Far fewer than 1 in 20 defendants get a jury trial in the US. If every defendant insisted on their right to one, then the system would break down for lack of jurors.

Few juries would decide to nullify, since, by and large, Americans believe in punishment.

So the change would be insubstantial.

Ah, you may leave here for four days 11 minutes in space

But when you return, it’s the same old place

The poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace

You can bury your dead, but don’t leave a trace

Hate your next door neighbor but don’t forget to say grace

Just the German branch of The Coca-Cola Company.

History trivia: Fanta was invented in 1941 in Nazi Germany, when Coca-Cola Germany couldn’t get the original syrup because trade was cut off.

Ok, another answer closer to the ground. 2 goals are often invoked. Reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic manufacturing.

1. Trade deficit

… means that more goods (and services) come into the US from the rest of the world than the US delivers in return.

Reducing the trade deficit makes Americans poorer by design. There will be fewer goods available for Americans, either because they have to give up more to the rest of the world, or because they don’t come into the country in the first place.

The rest of the world is willing to loan money to people, companies, and governments in the US. It is also eager to invest in the country, because it really was a good place in which to do business. Look at the current big thing: AI. You can’t really do that in the EU, and investing in China has its own risks. Trump may actually reduce the deficit by making the US more of a South American style banana republic.

2. Manufacturing in the US.

One manufactures stuff outside the US and transports it there because it is more efficient. Americans can be more profitably employed in different areas. Moving more manufacturing to the US should be expected to leave the average American poorer. It should not be expected, in isolation, to reduce the trade deficit as it creates new investment opportunities that potentially attract foreign money, increasing the deficit.

However, while Americans would be left financially poorer, there may be benefits not captured by conventional econometrics. Maybe manufacturing is more emotionally satisfying in a way that is not captured by only looking at the wages. Who knows?

Unfortunately, getting to that state will be brutal. Millions of people will have to find and learn new jobs. That is what happened when manufacturing was off-shored. Reversing that will have the same cost. Some economists have come to believe that the psychological cost of such structural changes has been vastly underestimated, and that is why trade agreements are so unpopular. The benefits from free trade may not outweigh the psychological pain and disruption of communities. Reversing free trade will have similar effects, that are likewise virtually impossible to measure.

I think the most objective benefit would arise if a war happened that disrupted trade. For example, if Trump invaded Canada and Greenland, this would probably lead to the US being embargoed. Then it would appear good to have already built manufacturing capacity in the US while it was still easy. You need physical goods to fight wars, after all.

There is no absolute, objective way to judge if some policy is a good or bad. We can only determine if some policy achieves its goals. This is difficult as different justifications for the tariffs have been given.

We can also have philosophical arguments over whether the goals are good in some abstract sense. For example, some people on the right feel that the US not having access to X-mas knick-knacks and gifts is positive, as it will force people to engage with religion.

In short: BONK

It probably thought you were Elon Musk.

That tells me that you didn’t listen to enough metal.

That took me way too long.

There’s a few billionaire numptie

Like who?

That would certainly be quite surprising. The expression of Trump being right is flexible enough to be interpreted in various ways.

The only plausible way would be if he achieves some largely meaningless concessions and the media spins it as a win. But if the American electorate gets the idea that the US can get free stuff by throwing a fit, then any agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.

Well, I guess that’s the answer. If Trump achieves anything positive with this, then the reaction with be self-destructive.

Do you have any particular scenario in mind that ends with Trump being vindicated?

I don’t think you have the choice. Products that aren’t imported are made with parts that are imported. In fact, there will be products that have several layers of products tariffs in them, for example cars. Parts are made, assembled into bigger parts and ever bigger parts, and may cross the Mexican or Canadian border each time.

These tariffs are a monumental act of economic self harm. That’s what the stock market is saying. Stocks have (rational) value because you are entitled to a share of future profits. The stock market crashing tells you that the pros expects that a lot of value is not going to be created. Trillions of dollars will not be paid out to stock-owners, and further trillions will not be paid out as wages. The real wealth that is the other side of that money - all these new goods, cars, phones, TVs, dishwashers … - will not exist in the USA.

So, don’t worry about hitting them in the wallet.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on an American ball sack—for ever.

Maybe watch out for products from Russia and Belarus, as they are not included in the tariffs. This may start a new era of economic cooperation; putting the US in USSR. Ironically, Russia is still hit hard because of oil taking a nosedive.

I read that in an Austrian accent. In my head, of course.

Trademarks have valid uses but they, too, are perverted. Think about luxury goods. The purpose of the brand name is simply to signal that the owner is able to afford the brand. These brands have nothing to do with consumer protection.

I consider them parasitic. Whatever utility someone gets from signalling with an exclusive brand is provided by society, not the company.

The public domain is not just useful but unavoidable and necessary.

You could imagine a world where all available physical matter is owned property. But intellectual property is an arbitrary legal creation. It is not finite.

EG Trademark law. Only the owner of a mark may use it to trade. The mark proclaims who is responsible for a product. If there were no unowned trademarks, you could not start a business without first paying off some owner. This would clearly be economically disastrous. So having unused, potential trademarks is necessary.

EG Patent law. Only the patent owner may use a certain invention; some trick of doing something. The patent is published so that others may learn from it and perhaps come up with other ways of achieving the same end. After (usually) 20 years, everyone may use the invention. Scientific theories, mathematical theorems, and other such things are always public domain.

If patents were broader and/or lasted for longer, you’d eventually not be able to do much business without having to pay off some owner. The owners could basically demand a tax on any kind of economic activity and deny consent for anything that might threaten their status. Progress would grind to a halt. It would be a new kind of feudalism.

So, a public domain is not just useful but absolutely necessary to our civilization.

Anything could be made into intellectual property. For example tax farming in ancient Rome and elsewhere. Monarchs granted special privileges, such as granting the East India Company a monopoly on trade. Or they might grant some person the monopoly on opening coffee houses in the country or a certain city. A title of nobility could be seen as a kind of intellectual property. Such titles were traded in a limited way. Anything that can be allowed or forbidden by the government could be turned into intellectual property.

That’s not correct. There are other forms of IP besides copyright, such as trademarks, patents, or even trade secrets.

What you are saying is somewhat true for US copyrights (and patents) per the copyright clause in the US Constitution. But mind that typically copyrights are owned by the employer of the creator, who may be a writer, even a programmer, photographer, or any other such professional who may not be considered an “artist”.

You would probably not consider yourself an artist for writing comments here, but you get copyright nevertheless.

European copyright has a very different philosophy behind it, which does not consider the public at all. It’s quite harmful to the public, actually.

Generally no, but I wouldn’t rule out that it might be possible in a limited way in very specific circumstances. You wouldn’t be able to stop others from using certain colors.

A specific color scheme might also be used as a trademark.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/5057-understanding-how-marginal-taxes-work-its-all-part

Your local tax system probably works the same.

This may be a language issue. “Bill” in this context means the total amount you have to pay. EG A restaurant bill is what you get from a waiter when you want to pay.