My understanding is: each WO bids in confidence and the budget is secret. The winning bid is the largest X such that X * (number of warrant officers signing up for another six years) = budget. Everyone bidding X and lower wins X. Everyone higher loses out. 0 and lower would only be permitted by an evil admin.
I presumed Hershey was a valuable brand name. If they can't distinguish "chocolate" from "chocolatey", why would they even risk the Hershey or Reece's brand names? Why not release it as generic? Otherwise, we're left with Occam's Razor.
The current system relates bonus pay to a variety of measures. This new one introduces the game theory incentive of performing in this reverse auction. Under these new rules, what happens if every warrant officer enters the exact same number?
Seems to me that there are all sorts of possibilities with rogue DNS usage. For example, if your audience is the kind of person who’s comfortable adding your own DNS server, then run something like Technitium with fairly permissive access to change records.
Kavanaugh’s reasoning is that a wartime law, TWEA, can be congruent to a peacetime law, IEEPA. The rest of the court acknowledged that the President always had control of tariffs during war.
“Correctly” means building consensus so capitalists can expect the new trade framework they're operating under to be reasonably stable, signaling what you’ll do well in advance, then phasing it in, ideally also with a guide to what a phase-out will look like and why or when you would begin doing that. Also, you’d usually avoid tariffing too widely at once. Focused is far more effective.
The stability is needed to get businesses to invest serious money in new buildings, machines, and training, when it won’t pay off for years.
You signal ahead of time and phase them in to minimize damage done. Gives companies time to adjust their stance before the pressure is on.
You focus them on specifically the goods you want to protect, so you don’t also raise the prices of inputs to those goods more than you have to.
You’ll notice zero of those key components were present in this scheme.
Sorry, yes, I wasn’t clear. The point I wanted to make was that this tariff strategy seems to fail propelling any job creation at all. To the degree that if it wasn’t tariffs but some kind of protection money, we’d more clearly call it a strategy.
reply