> Let’s do the math: Take a kid’s bike that retails at a big box store for $ 150. Let’s assume that bike costs $ 30 to make. The rest of the cost is shipping to the U.S., warehousing, transport to the store, marketing, admin costs, customer service, warranty, retailer profits, etc. Whether the bike is made in China, Vietnam or Cambodia, the new 34-38% tariffs will increase the cost by ‘only’ $ 10-12. (The old tariffs are already part of the pricing.) Add overhead and capital costs on those $ 10-12 (financing and insuring the higher purchase price, etc.). Now the price goes up by $ 15-20, or about 10-13% of the final price of the bike.
That's a great explanation of the direct impact of tarriffs for a business like this.
And consumers will pay the $12. It won’t make it viable to make the bike in the US for < $40.
These blanket tariffs are less about protecting/encouraging domestic manufacturing and more about renegotiating trade. At this current framing ("reciprocal tariffs") there is an implication that they are short term. The negotiations with Canada and Mexico demonstrate a tic-for-tat game theory in effect.
Without introducing the tariffs as a long term position businesses will be less inclined to do the capital expenditure to manufacture in the US, even for businesses within the margin (mostly manufacturing with high energy inputs and low supply chain requirements) where it would be economical.
While the framing has been reciprocal tariffs, the WH has published the formula and it’s essentially based on reciprocal trade surpluses, not tariffs. If one country sells more to the US than the US sells back then that’s seen as bad. Even if the other country has no tariff.
Like I hope you’re right, but what are you basing this on?
Just based on the words that Trump actually says and writes, I find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than Trump strongly believes that trade imbalances are unfair, that tariffs will reshore manufacturing, and that reshoring manufacturing will make America “wealthier.”
But if Trump is bluffing, it’s not clear there’s anything these other countries could give that would satisfy Trump. Vietnam could remove all tariffs against the US and in all likelihood not even make a dent in their trade surplus. It’s very hard for a small, developing country like Vietnam to import lots of stuff from a rich, expensive country like the US. Many of the countries whacked with massive tariffs by the administration already have very open trade policies with the US. What is there to negotiate?
This is also assuming no one along the supply chain will take advantage of the situation to put some more money in their pocket above the tariff (be it out of greed or uncertainty)
It's astonishning that we are discussing a price hike of asian made mass-market products (effectively your entire Amazon or Wal-Mart inventory from floor to ceiling) of 10% or more, and that's "just 10-13%" now? As if that alone wouldn't be felt more than the 2008 financial crisis in the pockets of Americans.
Or the inflation worries with 8% inflation
The problem is less that we’ll feel a 10% or even 15% price hike on foreign goods, but that we are so reliant on foreign manufacturing to begin with.
Why is that a problem? For some critical goods (Food, Medicines, Defense) it's a security risk to not have a supply. But for flip flops and umbrellas, no country is somehow better off by having thousands of factories, instead of doing what the US does: selling high value goods and services and importing the low value goods.
In fact, it's the opposite. Those industries are much more polluting per dollar GDP created, and that externality is something you are happy to not have on your own soil.
Note two limitations to the maths (I'll admit that I haven't read the OP in detail).
1. That's assuming that shipping, warehousing, transport, etc. do not rely upon foreign imports, including services. Chances are that more than one link in the supply chain will be hit either by the US tariffs or by the actual reciprocal tariffs from the other end [1].
2. That's also assuming that the tariffs will not have an impact on the sales of the company, which might adapt either by decreasing its margin (to increase sales) or by increasing it (either to try and compensate for lost sales or because it feels like the right time to hike prices).
[1] We shouldn't let ourselves be fooled by the word "reciprocal tariffs" used by Donald Trump. All these numbers are bogus. In January, EU tariffs on US goods were about 2-3%, not 39%, just as US tariffs on most EU goods.
With the huge differences in per-country tariff, there seems to be a large incentive to reroute and relabel imports. E.g., build a bike frame in China, export it to a sister company in Japan, and export it to the US from there, claiming production in Japan. How effective are existing controls against that? (And what are they even, I'm ignorant.)
I assume that if it’s done at scale it will change trade balance and middlemen country will see their import taxes rise. It actually creates self interest for countries to prevent this behavior and block such activity as it will hurt genuine export.
Or an interest for those countries to charge appropriate fees for such a service.
It's trivial to get around these rules. Northern Irelnd is (or was at some point) a country of origin for both the EU and the UK. So a company could produce something in Greece, ship it to Dublin within the EU, then truck it to Belfast in Northern Ireland, and export it to the US with a UK certificate of origin.
Pretty much every single Aliexpress purchase I've made has been shipped from the Netherlands for years now.
They use it to get around EU customs and tariffs, dunno how but it works.
If people find hacks around the rules, they will use them if cost effective. I'm reminded of a train that used to shuffle freight a few hundred meters in order to qualify the goods for cheaper 'shipped by rail' taxes. But I can't find the article :-(
Good point. It still would increase costs, maybe not as much.
You forgot the part about going from China to Japan and the associated costs.
It could be cheaper? Could also be more expensive as well.
In any case, if too many people play that game, then it only raises the tariff on Japan. I wouldn't assume these tariffs are fixed. They seem to be tied to trade deficit. So..
yeah.
No real way around them over time.
Might even piss the US government off if you try that. Which is kind of like playing with fire right now. It's not clear to me that this administration believes in rule of law in the strict sense that everyone adhered to in the past.
Strange days ahead.
> You forgot the part about going from China to Japan and the associated costs.
That was my point.
> It could be cheaper?
Why would it be cheaper? Wouldn't they do that without tariffs?
There are import/export costs that make such routing impractical other than for smaller volume, high cost items.
The other thing is that customers buying high end items care about where it was made, so you need to inform them. (Passing off the bikes as being manufactured in Japan but in fact the frame was made in China, would be a big blunder.)
This assumes the difference in tariff stays consistent while you are setting up your multinational supply chain. The truth is that nobody has any idea what Trump will say tomorrow, never mind next quarter.
> what Trump will say tomorrow
I'm trying to figure out what the real story is.
When I read this I wonder if everything is a negotiating tactic:
"Trading partners have repeatedly blocked multilateral and plurilateral solutions, including in the context of new rounds of tariff negotiations and efforts to discipline non-tariff barriers."
The supply chain impact on manufacturers in the US on contracts is overlooked in this tariff fiasco. For example - auto manufacturers enter into long term agreements as a fixed price for a product. The only negotiation point they may have to reset that price would be a government action, which a tariff checks the box. The genie is out of the bottle, lots of contracts will be negotiated and prices will go up.
I would like to think this is some kind of 4-d chess game to avoid rate hikes and to devalue the dollar, but on implementation it will accomplish none of the above with a sprinkle of recession.
At least for high end mountain bikes, carbon frames are mostly made in Taiwan, not China.
Specialized is manufacturing in Taiwan (i.e. they use Merida IIRC?), but Trek manufactures at least partly in China AFAIK, Canyon frames are made in China (unless things changed recently).
Generally, many brands like e.g. Trek manufacture their highest end in Taiwan, but a lot of the mid- to high-level frames are still made in China, admittedly things might have changed since I last looked into this ~5 years ago.
I don't like carbon but I tend to prefer supporting USA and Taiwanese manufacturers. I'd love to see more domestic fabrication.
I was/am going to buy an Otso titanium frame, but they're made in Taiwan. Depending on the final price adjustment due to tariffs, it might actually be more cost effective for me to buy a Moots (made in America) frame to build.
Considering their bikes start at $15K, "everyone" is unlikely to be able to afford it.
I love to buy local, and I love to cycle, but what I can afford is $2K. Which is why I'm still riding the same Kestrel (full carbon w/ SRAM Force drivetrain) I got on Craigslist 8 years ago for $700, and on which I've since replaced a number of components, but have still spent < $2K overall. A comparable bike new these days would be at least $5K.
Yeah I was being a bit sarcastic.
Those are cool bikes for sure - I used to work right next door - but I can't afford that.
> That is a factor that’s often overlooked: The Civic Type R—and also many high-end bicycle components—barely make sense from a strict business perspective. ... International trade has made it possible to pool the global demand for such niche products and make them all in one place, achieving economies of scale that make them (almost) cost-effective.
This is such an interesting insight that would never have occurred to me and seems to have a lot of explanatory power.
Of course there are enormous benefits to globalization: economies of scale, efficiency and lower prices, quality from specialization (wine from France, beer from Germany, etc), increased competition, etc. To think protectionism will benefit the economy is ignorant.
The global system of free trade and human rights has been the most free, prosperous, and peaceful era of humanity by far. Whole nations lifted from deep poverty, such as China and India (with still more to be done!). Incredible prosperity for the wealthy. Freedom, self-determination, democracy and human rights as the global norms.
Why are we throwing it away again? Much could be done to reform it, but we'll just throw it out?
If your country outlaws slavery and child labor, but imports freely (i.e. without tariffs) from countries which allows it, why does your country even have those laws? It’s certainly not to protect children or people from slavery; they’ve just exported the negative effects to other countries.
Could you apply your hypothetical? What countries are you talking about? How do you balance the benefits and the costs? If you wanted to improve human rights, what would be the best strategy?
Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?
So it’s hardly a hypothetical. As for balancing benefits and costs, slave labor intrinsically weakens the value of labor to any country that imports, so ideally the US would tariff goods that are labor intensive from countries that practice slave labor. In general, taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show (for what little the UN does), and countries that oppose slavery should tariff the countries that do it as well. I don’t want a blood diamond on my wife‘s finger, why would I want a blood apple in my mouth?
As for Trump, I believe he does so in part, not from an ethics perspective however. I imagine he views slave labor as undercutting US labor value, just as illegal immigration does, and that it plays some part in wrestling manufacturing away from China.
> taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show
That's not how legislatures work. It's like saying, 'take Senator Jones off the HHS committee because they are anti-vaccine' - the people in Senator Jones' state are entitled to representation with complete disregard for whether others like their Senator. Legislatures work with power as it is, not as how we want it to be.
> for what little the UN does
People on the right repeat it, but repetition doesn't make it fact. What do you know, specifically, about what the UN does (about human rights, if that's what you mean). The foundations for international law, which is powerful and effective though imperfect - like domestic law, but lacking the same enforcement mechanisms.
> [China and Mexico]
If everyone stopped doing all business with anyone in a country that does bad things, there would be no business or trade. Trade enriches the US, and has lifted billions out of poverty - including in China and Mexico.
Putting them back into poverty is just reckless. You need to come up with a better solution to your leaky roof than burning down the house.
> Why are we throwing it away again?
Because we haven't figured out how to square allowing people the freedom to work in the industries they please, no matter where in the world that industry has found itself, with allowing countries to strictly limit who is allowed inside its borders.
The "just learn to code" message never sat well with those who have no interest in coding and now they are rising up to try and take back, so to speak, the work they actually want to do. The far reaching consequences that go along with that are not of their personal concern.
I've never heard that. I don't think many people migrate for specific industries. People migrate to have any job and some income, regardless of industry. Am I not thinking of some population?
> I don't think many people migrate for specific industries.
"Brain drain" is a always hot topic in my country. Many people from here move to the US for access to certain industries, tech included. They aren't going there to do whatever arbitrary work they can find.
Those in the US who love manufacturing aren't moving to China, but that's the issue: They, unless they have something really unique to offer, are going to find it difficult to. Hence why they want to see that work "brought home".
> "Brain drain"
That's a good point; I wasn't thinking of that. Still, the number of immigrants to the US for 'brain drain' jobs I'd guess is relatively small, and Trump supports them to some degree - he likes wealthy immigrants, including in tech. Remember the recent (H-1B?) visa controversy.
> Those who love manufacturing
Is that really a passion for many people, working on an assembly line? I've read about it as a necessary job to pay the bills that almost nobody likes, and they want their kids to have someting better, etc.
My passion is robotics and engineering, and manufacturing covers both of those readily. While I have been blessed to have been born in the midwest where manufacturing is plentiful, the majority of the US is not so accessible for this work outside of a military base or airport.
Some people do enjoy assembly line work, and in fact I would say a large amount of people want a reliable job with minimal mental overhead. There’s a lot more industry wants though: welders, safety personell, repair techs, engineers, chemists, programmers, electricians, hydraulic specialists, all just depends on the company. A car manufacturer for instance prioritizes robotics, but a steel plant would prefer welders and machinists. Tons of opportunity for people to do the jobs they love for good pay and benefits, if we could get more manufacturing into the US.
> My passion is robotics and engineering, and manufacturing covers both of those readily.
That's completely different than working on an assembly line.
> Some people do enjoy assembly line work
Who? How many? I don't think I've ever heard it (though I'm sure someone must). Do you like it? Why don't you work on assembly line.
> would say a large amount of people want a reliable job with minimal mental overhead
That's an ignorant, condescending description of assembly line work. You'll need some evidence of this great mass of people, "I would say" isn't evidence.
> Tons of opportunity for people to do the jobs they love for good pay and benefits, if we could get more manufacturing into the US.
That's not the case - American companies can't find enough people with those skills as it is; there is no need for more of those jobs.
> That's completely different than working on an assembly line.
Manufacturing isn't defined by the assembly line, of course. Good data is hard to find, so take from it what you will, but the internet loosely suggests that only around 30% of manufacturing jobs are on the assembly line or adjacent to an assembly line. Anecdotal observation aligns with that, so I expect it is in the right ballpark.
> I don't think I've ever heard it
It is not so much the hot topic it once was, but when manufacturing was really in its decline you would frequently see in the news interviews with former manufacturing labour expressing such things as they lamented no longer being able to work in the industry.
It may not be sipping margaritas on the beach enjoyment, but on the spectrum it is unsurprising that many find it to be more enjoyable than other types of jobs. For as bad as you can imagine the assembly line to be, there is undoubtedly someone doing a job that is far worse.
> That's an ignorant, condescending description of assembly line work.
If these kinds of feelings are flooding your head, you have not considered the statement logically. That is not in good faith. Rationally, where do you find error in the statement?
> American companies can't find enough people with those skills as it is; there is no need for more of those jobs.
There is definitely an information problem. Manufacturing by and large happens in small town/rural areas (70% of it, according to the BLS), while people by and large live in large urban areas. The urban dwellers exclaim "Where are the jobs???" and the rural dwellers exclaim "Where are the workers???" It is a fascinating disconnect – something we see outside of manufacturing too.
You are right that this isn't apt to fix that problem. However, it is important to remember that the people calling for this aren't running complex mathematical models to ensure that moving manufacturing to the USA will be better for the world or whatever you think should be driving. They are simply in the mindset of: "I think I want to work in manufacturing. Give me that!" It is not a solution with well-considered grounding. It is an attempt to appease emotions.
> Still, the number of immigrants to the US for 'brain drain' jobs I'd guess is relatively small
Right, but it's the converse that is the issue: Americans wanting to do jobs that aren't found (or only found in a limited way) in America. Trump also supports them. The intent is to see things like manufacturing jobs happen more often on American soil so that Americans can do those jobs.
> Is that really a passion for many people, working on an assembly line?
The idea of it is, at least. I know a lot of people who have impressive manufacturing facilities in their garages just to support it as a hobby. Manufacturing is clearly a relatively common passion. You may have a point that they might come to hate the work if it became their daily reality, but the emotions that drive this sort of thing are never grounded in logic. Besides, it is not like they love the burgers they are flipping right now.
I don't think the hobby shop is comparable.
Much manufacturing labor can be physically hard and damaging over the years. Many people spend their old age crippled from lifting heavy things all their lives, repetitive stress, and the associated serious injuries that eventually happen during tens of thousands of hours. You are pushed to work faster and harder for the entire day, with fewer breaks, etc. That's your life for decades.
My impression is that most people working in manufacturing - as labor - would retire immediately if they could (and spend time in their garage). Many engineers probably are happy to keep working.
> My impression is that most people working in manufacturing
You believe it is only the people currently working in manufacturing that want to see America create more manufacturing jobs? Surely any desire they might have to work in manufacturing is already fulfilled?
That has certainly never been my impression. As far as I can see it is those who dream of working in manufacturing who make the case for the need for manufacturing jobs. They are tired of flipping burgers and want something else – something they think will be fulfilling. As such, it is unlikely that they are in-tune with the realities of it.
> You believe it is only the people currently working in manufacturing that want to see America create more manufacturing jobs?
I think working people [edit: a very general, loaded term] want higher-paying jobs, and some of them think manufacturing is good solution. I doubt their dream is working on the assembly line - that's not what people grow up dreaming of, or quit their higher-paying jobs to do.
Political leaders push manufacturing jobs for one reason or another. And I expect much of the support is from unions that want more jobs for their members - so yes, that's people currently in manufacturing.
Is there really demand for manufacturing jobs from the rest of the labor force, rather than any higher-paying, stable job? I don't know.
> I doubt their dream is working on the assembly line
Not all manufacturing is on an assembly line either, of course. That is especially true of the manufacturing Americans still see taking place in America.
That very well may be what new jobs will look like, should they be created, but emotions are not logical.
I've never heard it either. Immigrants migrate overwhelmingly to escape terrible economic circumstances, wars, or simply to escape whatever oppression or danger is making their lives much worse than they could be.
> I've never heard it either.
You've never heard of the term "brain drain"?
However, you must remember the bit about limiting who is allowed in the country. If you were a German with a hypothetical burning desire to flip burgers at In-N-Out Burger, what are the chances of you getting a work visa? I would say effectively nil. So you're not going to see those people even if they would arrive in a world without borders.
> If you were a German with a hypothetical burning desire to flip burgers at In-N-Out Burger, what are the chances of you getting a work visa? I would say effectively nil. So you're not going to see those people even if they would arrive in a world without borders.
That's a great point. Legal immigration (to somewhere desireable) is not an option for much of the population. What interest do they have in preserving it?
> What interest do they have in preserving it?
A good question. It is quite possible that they don't – that a different segment of the population has that interest.
Mostly we're reducing it's spread. Countries don't want to rely on others for a core set of industries. Also culturally I think being good at one or two things is unhealthy. My 2 cents.
This – eliminating costs and other negative effects of transportation – is one of the major reasons people started living in large cities, instead of spreading themselves out in small tribes across the land.
It's the enshittification of the US economy, in a way:
The method of enshittification, as I understand it, is to create businesses with a moat that prevents competition, cheapen the product in every way possible, and squeeze as much rent out as possible. Also, extract as much as possible via debt.
The tariffs are the moat. The debt I don't need to explain (though Dems aren't great with it either).
It's all the opposite of competitive business and free markets.
An excellent summary that applies to many other small industries. Too bad the Trump Administration economists didn't read this article before coming up with their tariffs plan (of course considering its stupidity, especially in how the tariffs were calculated, it's plausible no actual economists were involved).
An essential question is, what is the political angle for Trump and the right wing? They know what they are doing. They know it will cause economic calamity.
They often seek to create calamity and crisis - with Covid; spreading fear (of immigrants, etc.), hatred and violence; disrupting health, education, and housing; international peace and security (NATO, Ukraine, etc.). You never see them spreading calm and peace - crisis seems necessary to their movement.
Tanking the economy does the same thing, but it is a much bigger step that impacts many of their supporters. What is their exit plan?
I expect part of their plan is to blame others: They will blame Democrats somehow, and other political enemies - it doesn't need any basis because the Dems don't have any effective means of refuting it to the public; whatever the GOP says becomes reality. I suspect they'll use it to ramp up hatred and fear, blaming their current objects of hatred such as immigrants, minorities, certain religions (a traditional object of blame, the right has already been normalizing antisemitism and general prejudice - which makes antisemitism inevitable. Rogan recently hosted a conspiracy theorist blaming Jewish people for 9/11, for example - how long before does he blames them for the economy, 'undermining President Trump'), liberals, etc.
Edit: I did some rewording
I've been thinking about this same thing. Trying to figure out what the endgame is with all of this. I can only come to one meaningful conclusion. Preparing for a future war with China. In that context, everything starts to make sense. The whole point of these tariffs is two pronged. One, make the rest of the world pick a side. And two, attempt to disconnect global dependence on China.
Making America "stand on its own two feet" would give it a lot of freedom in making choices that are at odds with future super powerful China that is no longer benevolent.
> One, make the rest of the world pick a side. And two, attempt to disconnect global dependence on China.
Logically this may well push many to greater trade with China.
China has a growing middle consumer class already greater in number than the total population of the USofA. China already has global scale manufacturing in place, now looking for fresh markets as US markets lower demand due to tariffs.
Smaller countries, say Australia, can trade their wagyu beef to China now that the US has tariff'd the US demand down towards zero .. in a number of ways the US has removed itself from global trade which will continue on with or without it.
The tech-right of musk, thiel, vance, andreessen etc are enacting the "reboot" envisioned by curtis yarvin, he wrote about it calling it "the butterfly revolution" iirc. The rest are just trying to roll back 80 years of social change along with reestablishing segregation but as national policy this time.
And yeah I think your read on how they'll manage the fallout of this is correct.
I think you’re right, and they’ve found their useful idiot in Trump.
As for Trump himself, I think he truly believes the rest of the world is taking advantage of the US and tariffs are a way of setting things right. My guess is that in his view, the country (or at the least the rich people he cares about) will benefit from all this.
I've never been a political donor, I might've thrown $20 into a small donation a couple times. However, it seems financially irresponsible not to pour everything up to the legal limit into punishing everyone involved in this tax hike to the maximum extent.
The politics are important, and that effort must continue, but also directly targeting conservative voters economically. When they have distressed assets to sell, farmland, homes, businesses, I am ready to buy at a substantial discount. I have prepared to lever up with access to debt for this opportunity, and I recommend others who can do so. I want to buy when there is blood in the streets (economically), but only taking from those who caused this.
People expect to be able to take advantage of events like this, but if you're working for a living when there's blood in the streets, it's your blood. If you're an investor who wasn't correctly catching the falling knife (or insider trading) it's also your blood in the streets.
The Peter Thiels of the world are who this move is for, not us plebes who spend time posting on HN.
[deleted]
Retaliatory tariffs from the EU have repeatedly targeted things like Bourbon, in order to target specific parts of the US (likely mostly aimed at certain politicians, but also at voters I imagine).
They've already been swindled once, man.
I will quote a recent exchange:
“How do you feel about this economic path? Are you concerned at all about the harm this will cause?”
“It’ll hurt but I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat.”
Certainly, always compassion and empathy for compassionate people. I am a very empathetic and compassionate person myself, I will give you the shirt off my back. For everyone else? Hard times ahead, as compassion and empathy have limits. Kindness is not weakness.
> “It’ll hurt but I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat.”
As they say, hatred is like drinking a poison and then waiting for the other person to die.
A lot of hateful people out there eagerly guzzling poison these days.
[deleted]
> “How do you feel about this economic path? Are you concerned at all about the harm this will cause?”
> “It’ll hurt but I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat.”
What was done when the steel belt became the rust belt? Mostly finger wagging. I'm sure a lot of free traders would have the same response about all the harm their chosen polices caused.
But of course, more compassion is expected from some poor guy in a rust belt town, even after he's gotten very little compassion himself. How dare he not think about the rich coastal software engineers when he's in the ballot box!
I am not a software engineer. I don’t live on a coast. I grew up intermittently poor before I did well.
I am not unsympathetic to someone in the rust belt, anywhere really, who needs help. I don’t expect them to be a software engineer. We should provide robust social safety nets, guarantees of remote work in some fashion, whatever it takes to help these people live good lives until they retire or die. Tax me more, I insist. But, I don’t think that’ll make them happy nor what is on offer with this administration. It’s certainly not what they’re voting for. To reconfigure domestic manufacturing will take 5-10 years at least, and the evidence is robust the electorate is too unsophisticated and impatient for that.
They were not. Trump is doing exactly what they wanted. They just wanted others to be hurt.
[deleted]
> ...but also directly targeting conservative voters economically.
That's kind of an asshole move. Did people react to having their communities and livelihoods damaged by neoliberalism, in a way not approved by economically advantaged software engineers? Don't try to solve their problems in a better way, try to fuck them even harder instead! We should teach 'em to get fucked and not complain!
If you want to target anyone, you should target the people who made a shit-ton of money off of neoliberalism, in a way that paved the path for Trump.
That's not why they're targeting conservative voters. They're targeting the states & districts of senators and congressmen who are voting for Trump's agenda in an effort to get them to change their vote.
> That's not why they're targeting conservative voters. They're targeting the states & districts of senators and congressmen who are voting for Trump's agenda in an effort to get them to change their vote.
No. The post I was responding to literally was talking about personally taking advantage of conservative voters, not their representatives. The post above that talked about "punishing everyone involved in this tax hike to the maximum extent. It's pretty clear it's just a "fuck you," aimed at regular people.
No introspection, no proposals for solving the problems that would cause people to give tariffs a chance, just punishment. It's neoliberals saying, "we don't give two shit about you, if you resist our beatings, we'll just beat your harder for being uppity."
Interesting the way you framed this. Especially the part about liberals doing the beatings and threatening more of them.
One party had a message and large portion of it's voter base focused on messages and policies that can only be described as hateful and harmful. Now that it seems like that harm is transpiring and surprise surprise just as the "we don't give two shits about you" liberals warned that harm is at best indiscriminate and at worst going to impact those spiteful voters the most.
Trump is doing exactly what he said he'd do, tariff all the things, these people proudly and loudly voted for the (self-inflicted) punishment you're describing.
All I've gotten from my donations has been being added to mailing lists asking for more money to help fund the next election.
Not for building grass roots organizations. Not for building resiliency. Not for active protests, and organized opposition by the politicians.
I'm sure the political consultants got paid well though.
Depends where you send your money. I've used this in the past and as a huge bonus, I don't get added to 29494494292 mailing lists https://app.oath.vote/
From what I can tell, all that does is send money to campaigns. While not getting junk mail is great, it doesn't build long-term grass roots organizations or resiliency. It doesn't support active protests, or get politicians to vigorously oppose what's happening to the US.
I don't like how you can't see their recommendations for previous elections. That would help others judge if their "algorithm" is effective.
Well, yes, it's for campaign donations so it doesn't do those other things. Perhaps others can recommend groups that do a good job of those.
Their algorithm is basically just targeting close state races, if I recall correctly. So like a state Senator from Arizona or something. Those are races where small donations go further than whatever big ticket Senate race gets a lot of press.
My problem with the campaign donations approach is it seems like a money pit.
Campaign organizers in both major parties benefit by pointing out how the other party keeps spending more money, as a way to encourage even more donations.
It also seems like a negative incentive to pass certain laws. "We need money for the next campaign so we can work on $TOPIC" might be a good fundraiser, so if those laws are passed then the funding stops ... or even switches to the other party.
Which party is working on strict campaign donation limits, which in this post-Citizens United era we know requires a constitutional amendment, or an overturn by the Supreme Court. Certainly not the Republicans, as Vance is asking the Supreme Court to strike down limits on political donations precisely because PACs are now so powerful. Nor do I see active engagement by the Democrats.
These are generally state races with less money involved in them. I agree about systemic reform, but until that happens, you deal with the system as it is.
I've been dealing with the system as it is for 20 years. The main difference is it now sucks in a lot more money, for little result.
[dead]
the article ends with a FUD statement about certain products bieng no longer financialy viable in the world market due to them bieng priced out of the US, and insuficient demand, elsewhere.
This can only be accepted if there is no question about the obscene profits generated by all large manufacturers, where "not financisly viable" means
double digit profit and growth, rather than actualy unprofitable.
If there is real demand, and no way for large established industrys to meet it, then this will spur the creation of countless small manufacturers.,..............everywhere.
And that once it picks up speed, will be a good thing for comunitys worldwide.
Globalisation, only works for the biggest players
and sharpers, and for the smallest least developé countrys, there will still be the things they need on.the world market.
But ,ha!, that just me trying to see a brite side, the whole thing could be just the first stage in something much much worse.
early floyd...."Ive got a bike...you can ride it if you like"
excellent sound track for this world now
The point is that there are products for which there is not enough of domestic market for domestic small manufacturers. There is enough market worldwide for those manufacturers.
> Globalisation, only works for the biggest players and sharpers
That's just not true. Many small businesses sell their products worldwide via online marketplaces. Have you downloaded software from another country? Bought something on Alibaba?
> once it picks up speed, will be a good thing for comunitys worldwide
How about the people in those communities paying higher prices for worse goods - the extra money going into the pockets of large domestic corporations.
Missreading my emphasis.....Globisation ....I thought....refered to the creaping take over of "multinational" corporations
consolodating whole industrys under one companys rule....locking out small businesses...like mine
so ending the competion that realy boils down to makeing it easyer for BTB to buy from the giant multi national, but use my(and other) small businesses just to get that 3'rd quote, with no intent to purchase from me, is a good thing
The supposed efficiencies in "economys of scale" are false, and wink wink, refer to the efficiency
of extracting profits from a captured market, rather that the localisation of economys, which actualy stregthen comunitys.
Problem with trump, is that, some of what he is doing, resonates strongly with actual local comunities, and the possitive effects there, could be quick and profound.Underestimating this, is a big mistake, if you are opposed to his other, shall we say......initiatives.
>> Our rulers seem to think that the U.S. imports more than it exports, so the net effect will be positive.
It is eye opening to see people so casually speak of American "rulers". Not politicians. Not business leaders. Rulers. That's new.
I think it's intended to be a bit flippant.
It reflects the nature of the current trade war. It's not congress levying import taxes. It's not the secretary of commerce. (Lutnick has been completely out of the loop at times during the Canada-U.S. trade-war.) It's Trump declaring spurious emergencies to abuse IEEPA and unilaterally pass tariff's without the approval of congress.
At the same time, the Trump administration has taken issue with the independence of judiciary branch. When a judge ruled against one of their deportations, the executive branch ignored the ruling and argued that the judicial branch is subordinate. i.e. The king is above the law. So far, there have been no consequences. This is, quite literally, rule of a sort that hasn't been enjoyed by European monarchs since people became serious about enforcing the Magna Carta.
For the moment, Trump is ruling as an absolute monarch. It remains to be seen if there will be a response to assert the supremacy of law and the independence of the judiciary branch, or if the Republican controlled congress will assert it's right to control economic policy. If the law is not enforced, then Americans have a de facto king. Institutions do not defend themselves. People do.
The checks and balances still exists in theory. The problem is that a slim majority in congress and a slim Supreme Court majority aren't willing to use their checks and are instead ceding power to the President.
That phrasing is weird indeed.
As a non native English speaker, "rulers" isn't problematic for me.
Is it really that pejorative ?
It means like king/queen/emperor, you wouldn't use it for an elected official, so here it is more sarcastic because Trump is acting like he is an emperor.
It has a cultural weight because of the emphasis on the Revolution.
[deleted]
people forget he was voted in.
Many dictators are initially voted in.
To be president, leader of the executive branch.
He is using executive powers ignoring congress and actively ignores judges putting himself above all branches. That was not votes on
As was Putin.
It's in keeping with the times. Trump wants to be king.
[flagged]
"the age of tariffs" ah yes, typical ethnocentric point of view of the US.
Does the author not know other nations have been engaged in charging tariffs for a very long time?
I think the author, Jan Heine, is originally from Germany. He does own and operate a US-based company, so it's not that surprising that he's writing from that perspective.
> Does the author not know other nations have been engaged in charging tariffs for a very long time?
And, unlike the US, none of them the envy of the world because of it. It is fascinating that the US has decided it wants to give up what it has to be become like them. It is akin to watching a supermodel get surgery to make themselves uglier because everyone they saw around them wasn't nearly as beautiful as they were. Likewise, we no doubt would come up with some kind of catchphrase to recognize that surprising event.
The world's most powerful consumer country putting broad tariffs on all imports that will be historically as high as the 1800s and higher than most any other major economy is indeed a move to an "age of tariffs" and is a bfd.
The "age of tariffs" would better describe the state US businesses have been suffering from - unbeknownst to the average consumer - for a very long time.
Why the light grey text on a white background? Seriously. It's every other website these days. I of course know how to fix this in Developer Tools but I resent that I have to.
> Let’s do the math: Take a kid’s bike that retails at a big box store for $ 150. Let’s assume that bike costs $ 30 to make. The rest of the cost is shipping to the U.S., warehousing, transport to the store, marketing, admin costs, customer service, warranty, retailer profits, etc. Whether the bike is made in China, Vietnam or Cambodia, the new 34-38% tariffs will increase the cost by ‘only’ $ 10-12. (The old tariffs are already part of the pricing.) Add overhead and capital costs on those $ 10-12 (financing and insuring the higher purchase price, etc.). Now the price goes up by $ 15-20, or about 10-13% of the final price of the bike.
That's a great explanation of the direct impact of tarriffs for a business like this.
And consumers will pay the $12. It won’t make it viable to make the bike in the US for < $40.
These blanket tariffs are less about protecting/encouraging domestic manufacturing and more about renegotiating trade. At this current framing ("reciprocal tariffs") there is an implication that they are short term. The negotiations with Canada and Mexico demonstrate a tic-for-tat game theory in effect.
Without introducing the tariffs as a long term position businesses will be less inclined to do the capital expenditure to manufacture in the US, even for businesses within the margin (mostly manufacturing with high energy inputs and low supply chain requirements) where it would be economical.
While the framing has been reciprocal tariffs, the WH has published the formula and it’s essentially based on reciprocal trade surpluses, not tariffs. If one country sells more to the US than the US sells back then that’s seen as bad. Even if the other country has no tariff.
Like I hope you’re right, but what are you basing this on?
Just based on the words that Trump actually says and writes, I find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than Trump strongly believes that trade imbalances are unfair, that tariffs will reshore manufacturing, and that reshoring manufacturing will make America “wealthier.”
But if Trump is bluffing, it’s not clear there’s anything these other countries could give that would satisfy Trump. Vietnam could remove all tariffs against the US and in all likelihood not even make a dent in their trade surplus. It’s very hard for a small, developing country like Vietnam to import lots of stuff from a rich, expensive country like the US. Many of the countries whacked with massive tariffs by the administration already have very open trade policies with the US. What is there to negotiate?
This is also assuming no one along the supply chain will take advantage of the situation to put some more money in their pocket above the tariff (be it out of greed or uncertainty)
It's astonishning that we are discussing a price hike of asian made mass-market products (effectively your entire Amazon or Wal-Mart inventory from floor to ceiling) of 10% or more, and that's "just 10-13%" now? As if that alone wouldn't be felt more than the 2008 financial crisis in the pockets of Americans.
Or the inflation worries with 8% inflation
The problem is less that we’ll feel a 10% or even 15% price hike on foreign goods, but that we are so reliant on foreign manufacturing to begin with.
Why is that a problem? For some critical goods (Food, Medicines, Defense) it's a security risk to not have a supply. But for flip flops and umbrellas, no country is somehow better off by having thousands of factories, instead of doing what the US does: selling high value goods and services and importing the low value goods.
In fact, it's the opposite. Those industries are much more polluting per dollar GDP created, and that externality is something you are happy to not have on your own soil.
Note two limitations to the maths (I'll admit that I haven't read the OP in detail).
1. That's assuming that shipping, warehousing, transport, etc. do not rely upon foreign imports, including services. Chances are that more than one link in the supply chain will be hit either by the US tariffs or by the actual reciprocal tariffs from the other end [1].
2. That's also assuming that the tariffs will not have an impact on the sales of the company, which might adapt either by decreasing its margin (to increase sales) or by increasing it (either to try and compensate for lost sales or because it feels like the right time to hike prices).
[1] We shouldn't let ourselves be fooled by the word "reciprocal tariffs" used by Donald Trump. All these numbers are bogus. In January, EU tariffs on US goods were about 2-3%, not 39%, just as US tariffs on most EU goods.
With the huge differences in per-country tariff, there seems to be a large incentive to reroute and relabel imports. E.g., build a bike frame in China, export it to a sister company in Japan, and export it to the US from there, claiming production in Japan. How effective are existing controls against that? (And what are they even, I'm ignorant.)
I assume that if it’s done at scale it will change trade balance and middlemen country will see their import taxes rise. It actually creates self interest for countries to prevent this behavior and block such activity as it will hurt genuine export.
Or an interest for those countries to charge appropriate fees for such a service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_origin
It's trivial to get around these rules. Northern Irelnd is (or was at some point) a country of origin for both the EU and the UK. So a company could produce something in Greece, ship it to Dublin within the EU, then truck it to Belfast in Northern Ireland, and export it to the US with a UK certificate of origin.
Pretty much every single Aliexpress purchase I've made has been shipped from the Netherlands for years now.
They use it to get around EU customs and tariffs, dunno how but it works.
If people find hacks around the rules, they will use them if cost effective. I'm reminded of a train that used to shuffle freight a few hundred meters in order to qualify the goods for cheaper 'shipped by rail' taxes. But I can't find the article :-(
Good point. It still would increase costs, maybe not as much.
You forgot the part about going from China to Japan and the associated costs.
It could be cheaper? Could also be more expensive as well.
In any case, if too many people play that game, then it only raises the tariff on Japan. I wouldn't assume these tariffs are fixed. They seem to be tied to trade deficit. So..
yeah.
No real way around them over time.
Might even piss the US government off if you try that. Which is kind of like playing with fire right now. It's not clear to me that this administration believes in rule of law in the strict sense that everyone adhered to in the past.
Strange days ahead.
> You forgot the part about going from China to Japan and the associated costs.
That was my point.
> It could be cheaper?
Why would it be cheaper? Wouldn't they do that without tariffs?
There are import/export costs that make such routing impractical other than for smaller volume, high cost items.
The other thing is that customers buying high end items care about where it was made, so you need to inform them. (Passing off the bikes as being manufactured in Japan but in fact the frame was made in China, would be a big blunder.)
This assumes the difference in tariff stays consistent while you are setting up your multinational supply chain. The truth is that nobody has any idea what Trump will say tomorrow, never mind next quarter.
> what Trump will say tomorrow
I'm trying to figure out what the real story is.
When I read this I wonder if everything is a negotiating tactic:
"Trading partners have repeatedly blocked multilateral and plurilateral solutions, including in the context of new rounds of tariff negotiations and efforts to discipline non-tariff barriers."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/regu... (wow, long url)
The supply chain impact on manufacturers in the US on contracts is overlooked in this tariff fiasco. For example - auto manufacturers enter into long term agreements as a fixed price for a product. The only negotiation point they may have to reset that price would be a government action, which a tariff checks the box. The genie is out of the bottle, lots of contracts will be negotiated and prices will go up.
I would like to think this is some kind of 4-d chess game to avoid rate hikes and to devalue the dollar, but on implementation it will accomplish none of the above with a sprinkle of recession.
At least for high end mountain bikes, carbon frames are mostly made in Taiwan, not China.
Specialized is manufacturing in Taiwan (i.e. they use Merida IIRC?), but Trek manufactures at least partly in China AFAIK, Canyon frames are made in China (unless things changed recently).
Generally, many brands like e.g. Trek manufacture their highest end in Taiwan, but a lot of the mid- to high-level frames are still made in China, admittedly things might have changed since I last looked into this ~5 years ago.
Maybe everyone will start buying from https://argonautcycles.com/ - right?
I don't like carbon but I tend to prefer supporting USA and Taiwanese manufacturers. I'd love to see more domestic fabrication.
I was/am going to buy an Otso titanium frame, but they're made in Taiwan. Depending on the final price adjustment due to tariffs, it might actually be more cost effective for me to buy a Moots (made in America) frame to build.
Considering their bikes start at $15K, "everyone" is unlikely to be able to afford it.
I love to buy local, and I love to cycle, but what I can afford is $2K. Which is why I'm still riding the same Kestrel (full carbon w/ SRAM Force drivetrain) I got on Craigslist 8 years ago for $700, and on which I've since replaced a number of components, but have still spent < $2K overall. A comparable bike new these days would be at least $5K.
Yeah I was being a bit sarcastic.
Those are cool bikes for sure - I used to work right next door - but I can't afford that.
> That is a factor that’s often overlooked: The Civic Type R—and also many high-end bicycle components—barely make sense from a strict business perspective. ... International trade has made it possible to pool the global demand for such niche products and make them all in one place, achieving economies of scale that make them (almost) cost-effective.
This is such an interesting insight that would never have occurred to me and seems to have a lot of explanatory power.
Of course there are enormous benefits to globalization: economies of scale, efficiency and lower prices, quality from specialization (wine from France, beer from Germany, etc), increased competition, etc. To think protectionism will benefit the economy is ignorant.
The global system of free trade and human rights has been the most free, prosperous, and peaceful era of humanity by far. Whole nations lifted from deep poverty, such as China and India (with still more to be done!). Incredible prosperity for the wealthy. Freedom, self-determination, democracy and human rights as the global norms.
Why are we throwing it away again? Much could be done to reform it, but we'll just throw it out?
If your country outlaws slavery and child labor, but imports freely (i.e. without tariffs) from countries which allows it, why does your country even have those laws? It’s certainly not to protect children or people from slavery; they’ve just exported the negative effects to other countries.
Or replace it with child labor in US itself
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/29/florida-repu...
Could you apply your hypothetical? What countries are you talking about? How do you balance the benefits and the costs? If you wanted to improve human rights, what would be the best strategy?
Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?
China, for one, has state-enforced labor of Uyghurs and other minorities: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/against-their-will-the-sit...
And, while Mexico is trying to limit forced labor, they’re still one of our bigger exporters of forced labor: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-la...
So it’s hardly a hypothetical. As for balancing benefits and costs, slave labor intrinsically weakens the value of labor to any country that imports, so ideally the US would tariff goods that are labor intensive from countries that practice slave labor. In general, taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show (for what little the UN does), and countries that oppose slavery should tariff the countries that do it as well. I don’t want a blood diamond on my wife‘s finger, why would I want a blood apple in my mouth?
As for Trump, I believe he does so in part, not from an ethics perspective however. I imagine he views slave labor as undercutting US labor value, just as illegal immigration does, and that it plays some part in wrestling manufacturing away from China.
> taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show
That's not how legislatures work. It's like saying, 'take Senator Jones off the HHS committee because they are anti-vaccine' - the people in Senator Jones' state are entitled to representation with complete disregard for whether others like their Senator. Legislatures work with power as it is, not as how we want it to be.
> for what little the UN does
People on the right repeat it, but repetition doesn't make it fact. What do you know, specifically, about what the UN does (about human rights, if that's what you mean). The foundations for international law, which is powerful and effective though imperfect - like domestic law, but lacking the same enforcement mechanisms.
> [China and Mexico]
If everyone stopped doing all business with anyone in a country that does bad things, there would be no business or trade. Trade enriches the US, and has lifted billions out of poverty - including in China and Mexico.
Putting them back into poverty is just reckless. You need to come up with a better solution to your leaky roof than burning down the house.
> Why are we throwing it away again?
Because we haven't figured out how to square allowing people the freedom to work in the industries they please, no matter where in the world that industry has found itself, with allowing countries to strictly limit who is allowed inside its borders.
The "just learn to code" message never sat well with those who have no interest in coding and now they are rising up to try and take back, so to speak, the work they actually want to do. The far reaching consequences that go along with that are not of their personal concern.
I've never heard that. I don't think many people migrate for specific industries. People migrate to have any job and some income, regardless of industry. Am I not thinking of some population?
> I don't think many people migrate for specific industries.
"Brain drain" is a always hot topic in my country. Many people from here move to the US for access to certain industries, tech included. They aren't going there to do whatever arbitrary work they can find.
Those in the US who love manufacturing aren't moving to China, but that's the issue: They, unless they have something really unique to offer, are going to find it difficult to. Hence why they want to see that work "brought home".
> "Brain drain"
That's a good point; I wasn't thinking of that. Still, the number of immigrants to the US for 'brain drain' jobs I'd guess is relatively small, and Trump supports them to some degree - he likes wealthy immigrants, including in tech. Remember the recent (H-1B?) visa controversy.
> Those who love manufacturing
Is that really a passion for many people, working on an assembly line? I've read about it as a necessary job to pay the bills that almost nobody likes, and they want their kids to have someting better, etc.
My passion is robotics and engineering, and manufacturing covers both of those readily. While I have been blessed to have been born in the midwest where manufacturing is plentiful, the majority of the US is not so accessible for this work outside of a military base or airport.
Some people do enjoy assembly line work, and in fact I would say a large amount of people want a reliable job with minimal mental overhead. There’s a lot more industry wants though: welders, safety personell, repair techs, engineers, chemists, programmers, electricians, hydraulic specialists, all just depends on the company. A car manufacturer for instance prioritizes robotics, but a steel plant would prefer welders and machinists. Tons of opportunity for people to do the jobs they love for good pay and benefits, if we could get more manufacturing into the US.
> My passion is robotics and engineering, and manufacturing covers both of those readily.
That's completely different than working on an assembly line.
> Some people do enjoy assembly line work
Who? How many? I don't think I've ever heard it (though I'm sure someone must). Do you like it? Why don't you work on assembly line.
> would say a large amount of people want a reliable job with minimal mental overhead
That's an ignorant, condescending description of assembly line work. You'll need some evidence of this great mass of people, "I would say" isn't evidence.
> Tons of opportunity for people to do the jobs they love for good pay and benefits, if we could get more manufacturing into the US.
That's not the case - American companies can't find enough people with those skills as it is; there is no need for more of those jobs.
> That's completely different than working on an assembly line.
Manufacturing isn't defined by the assembly line, of course. Good data is hard to find, so take from it what you will, but the internet loosely suggests that only around 30% of manufacturing jobs are on the assembly line or adjacent to an assembly line. Anecdotal observation aligns with that, so I expect it is in the right ballpark.
> I don't think I've ever heard it
It is not so much the hot topic it once was, but when manufacturing was really in its decline you would frequently see in the news interviews with former manufacturing labour expressing such things as they lamented no longer being able to work in the industry.
It may not be sipping margaritas on the beach enjoyment, but on the spectrum it is unsurprising that many find it to be more enjoyable than other types of jobs. For as bad as you can imagine the assembly line to be, there is undoubtedly someone doing a job that is far worse.
> That's an ignorant, condescending description of assembly line work.
If these kinds of feelings are flooding your head, you have not considered the statement logically. That is not in good faith. Rationally, where do you find error in the statement?
> American companies can't find enough people with those skills as it is; there is no need for more of those jobs.
There is definitely an information problem. Manufacturing by and large happens in small town/rural areas (70% of it, according to the BLS), while people by and large live in large urban areas. The urban dwellers exclaim "Where are the jobs???" and the rural dwellers exclaim "Where are the workers???" It is a fascinating disconnect – something we see outside of manufacturing too.
You are right that this isn't apt to fix that problem. However, it is important to remember that the people calling for this aren't running complex mathematical models to ensure that moving manufacturing to the USA will be better for the world or whatever you think should be driving. They are simply in the mindset of: "I think I want to work in manufacturing. Give me that!" It is not a solution with well-considered grounding. It is an attempt to appease emotions.
> Still, the number of immigrants to the US for 'brain drain' jobs I'd guess is relatively small
Right, but it's the converse that is the issue: Americans wanting to do jobs that aren't found (or only found in a limited way) in America. Trump also supports them. The intent is to see things like manufacturing jobs happen more often on American soil so that Americans can do those jobs.
> Is that really a passion for many people, working on an assembly line?
The idea of it is, at least. I know a lot of people who have impressive manufacturing facilities in their garages just to support it as a hobby. Manufacturing is clearly a relatively common passion. You may have a point that they might come to hate the work if it became their daily reality, but the emotions that drive this sort of thing are never grounded in logic. Besides, it is not like they love the burgers they are flipping right now.
I don't think the hobby shop is comparable.
Much manufacturing labor can be physically hard and damaging over the years. Many people spend their old age crippled from lifting heavy things all their lives, repetitive stress, and the associated serious injuries that eventually happen during tens of thousands of hours. You are pushed to work faster and harder for the entire day, with fewer breaks, etc. That's your life for decades.
My impression is that most people working in manufacturing - as labor - would retire immediately if they could (and spend time in their garage). Many engineers probably are happy to keep working.
> My impression is that most people working in manufacturing
You believe it is only the people currently working in manufacturing that want to see America create more manufacturing jobs? Surely any desire they might have to work in manufacturing is already fulfilled?
That has certainly never been my impression. As far as I can see it is those who dream of working in manufacturing who make the case for the need for manufacturing jobs. They are tired of flipping burgers and want something else – something they think will be fulfilling. As such, it is unlikely that they are in-tune with the realities of it.
> You believe it is only the people currently working in manufacturing that want to see America create more manufacturing jobs?
I think working people [edit: a very general, loaded term] want higher-paying jobs, and some of them think manufacturing is good solution. I doubt their dream is working on the assembly line - that's not what people grow up dreaming of, or quit their higher-paying jobs to do.
Political leaders push manufacturing jobs for one reason or another. And I expect much of the support is from unions that want more jobs for their members - so yes, that's people currently in manufacturing.
Is there really demand for manufacturing jobs from the rest of the labor force, rather than any higher-paying, stable job? I don't know.
> I doubt their dream is working on the assembly line
Not all manufacturing is on an assembly line either, of course. That is especially true of the manufacturing Americans still see taking place in America.
That very well may be what new jobs will look like, should they be created, but emotions are not logical.
I've never heard it either. Immigrants migrate overwhelmingly to escape terrible economic circumstances, wars, or simply to escape whatever oppression or danger is making their lives much worse than they could be.
> I've never heard it either.
You've never heard of the term "brain drain"?
However, you must remember the bit about limiting who is allowed in the country. If you were a German with a hypothetical burning desire to flip burgers at In-N-Out Burger, what are the chances of you getting a work visa? I would say effectively nil. So you're not going to see those people even if they would arrive in a world without borders.
> If you were a German with a hypothetical burning desire to flip burgers at In-N-Out Burger, what are the chances of you getting a work visa? I would say effectively nil. So you're not going to see those people even if they would arrive in a world without borders.
That's a great point. Legal immigration (to somewhere desireable) is not an option for much of the population. What interest do they have in preserving it?
> What interest do they have in preserving it?
A good question. It is quite possible that they don't – that a different segment of the population has that interest.
Mostly we're reducing it's spread. Countries don't want to rely on others for a core set of industries. Also culturally I think being good at one or two things is unhealthy. My 2 cents.
This – eliminating costs and other negative effects of transportation – is one of the major reasons people started living in large cities, instead of spreading themselves out in small tribes across the land.
It's the enshittification of the US economy, in a way:
The method of enshittification, as I understand it, is to create businesses with a moat that prevents competition, cheapen the product in every way possible, and squeeze as much rent out as possible. Also, extract as much as possible via debt.
The tariffs are the moat. The debt I don't need to explain (though Dems aren't great with it either).
It's all the opposite of competitive business and free markets.
An excellent summary that applies to many other small industries. Too bad the Trump Administration economists didn't read this article before coming up with their tariffs plan (of course considering its stupidity, especially in how the tariffs were calculated, it's plausible no actual economists were involved).
An essential question is, what is the political angle for Trump and the right wing? They know what they are doing. They know it will cause economic calamity.
They often seek to create calamity and crisis - with Covid; spreading fear (of immigrants, etc.), hatred and violence; disrupting health, education, and housing; international peace and security (NATO, Ukraine, etc.). You never see them spreading calm and peace - crisis seems necessary to their movement.
Tanking the economy does the same thing, but it is a much bigger step that impacts many of their supporters. What is their exit plan?
I expect part of their plan is to blame others: They will blame Democrats somehow, and other political enemies - it doesn't need any basis because the Dems don't have any effective means of refuting it to the public; whatever the GOP says becomes reality. I suspect they'll use it to ramp up hatred and fear, blaming their current objects of hatred such as immigrants, minorities, certain religions (a traditional object of blame, the right has already been normalizing antisemitism and general prejudice - which makes antisemitism inevitable. Rogan recently hosted a conspiracy theorist blaming Jewish people for 9/11, for example - how long before does he blames them for the economy, 'undermining President Trump'), liberals, etc.
Edit: I did some rewording
I've been thinking about this same thing. Trying to figure out what the endgame is with all of this. I can only come to one meaningful conclusion. Preparing for a future war with China. In that context, everything starts to make sense. The whole point of these tariffs is two pronged. One, make the rest of the world pick a side. And two, attempt to disconnect global dependence on China.
Making America "stand on its own two feet" would give it a lot of freedom in making choices that are at odds with future super powerful China that is no longer benevolent.
> One, make the rest of the world pick a side. And two, attempt to disconnect global dependence on China.
Logically this may well push many to greater trade with China.
China has a growing middle consumer class already greater in number than the total population of the USofA. China already has global scale manufacturing in place, now looking for fresh markets as US markets lower demand due to tariffs.
Smaller countries, say Australia, can trade their wagyu beef to China now that the US has tariff'd the US demand down towards zero .. in a number of ways the US has removed itself from global trade which will continue on with or without it.
The tech-right of musk, thiel, vance, andreessen etc are enacting the "reboot" envisioned by curtis yarvin, he wrote about it calling it "the butterfly revolution" iirc. The rest are just trying to roll back 80 years of social change along with reestablishing segregation but as national policy this time.
And yeah I think your read on how they'll manage the fallout of this is correct.
I think you’re right, and they’ve found their useful idiot in Trump.
As for Trump himself, I think he truly believes the rest of the world is taking advantage of the US and tariffs are a way of setting things right. My guess is that in his view, the country (or at the least the rich people he cares about) will benefit from all this.
I've never been a political donor, I might've thrown $20 into a small donation a couple times. However, it seems financially irresponsible not to pour everything up to the legal limit into punishing everyone involved in this tax hike to the maximum extent.
The politics are important, and that effort must continue, but also directly targeting conservative voters economically. When they have distressed assets to sell, farmland, homes, businesses, I am ready to buy at a substantial discount. I have prepared to lever up with access to debt for this opportunity, and I recommend others who can do so. I want to buy when there is blood in the streets (economically), but only taking from those who caused this.
People expect to be able to take advantage of events like this, but if you're working for a living when there's blood in the streets, it's your blood. If you're an investor who wasn't correctly catching the falling knife (or insider trading) it's also your blood in the streets.
The Peter Thiels of the world are who this move is for, not us plebes who spend time posting on HN.
Retaliatory tariffs from the EU have repeatedly targeted things like Bourbon, in order to target specific parts of the US (likely mostly aimed at certain politicians, but also at voters I imagine).
They've already been swindled once, man.
I will quote a recent exchange:
“How do you feel about this economic path? Are you concerned at all about the harm this will cause?”
“It’ll hurt but I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat.”
Certainly, always compassion and empathy for compassionate people. I am a very empathetic and compassionate person myself, I will give you the shirt off my back. For everyone else? Hard times ahead, as compassion and empathy have limits. Kindness is not weakness.
> “It’ll hurt but I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat.”
As they say, hatred is like drinking a poison and then waiting for the other person to die.
A lot of hateful people out there eagerly guzzling poison these days.
> “How do you feel about this economic path? Are you concerned at all about the harm this will cause?”
> “It’ll hurt but I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat.”
What was done when the steel belt became the rust belt? Mostly finger wagging. I'm sure a lot of free traders would have the same response about all the harm their chosen polices caused.
But of course, more compassion is expected from some poor guy in a rust belt town, even after he's gotten very little compassion himself. How dare he not think about the rich coastal software engineers when he's in the ballot box!
I am not a software engineer. I don’t live on a coast. I grew up intermittently poor before I did well.
I am not unsympathetic to someone in the rust belt, anywhere really, who needs help. I don’t expect them to be a software engineer. We should provide robust social safety nets, guarantees of remote work in some fashion, whatever it takes to help these people live good lives until they retire or die. Tax me more, I insist. But, I don’t think that’ll make them happy nor what is on offer with this administration. It’s certainly not what they’re voting for. To reconfigure domestic manufacturing will take 5-10 years at least, and the evidence is robust the electorate is too unsophisticated and impatient for that.
They were not. Trump is doing exactly what they wanted. They just wanted others to be hurt.
> ...but also directly targeting conservative voters economically.
That's kind of an asshole move. Did people react to having their communities and livelihoods damaged by neoliberalism, in a way not approved by economically advantaged software engineers? Don't try to solve their problems in a better way, try to fuck them even harder instead! We should teach 'em to get fucked and not complain!
If you want to target anyone, you should target the people who made a shit-ton of money off of neoliberalism, in a way that paved the path for Trump.
That's not why they're targeting conservative voters. They're targeting the states & districts of senators and congressmen who are voting for Trump's agenda in an effort to get them to change their vote.
> That's not why they're targeting conservative voters. They're targeting the states & districts of senators and congressmen who are voting for Trump's agenda in an effort to get them to change their vote.
No. The post I was responding to literally was talking about personally taking advantage of conservative voters, not their representatives. The post above that talked about "punishing everyone involved in this tax hike to the maximum extent. It's pretty clear it's just a "fuck you," aimed at regular people.
No introspection, no proposals for solving the problems that would cause people to give tariffs a chance, just punishment. It's neoliberals saying, "we don't give two shit about you, if you resist our beatings, we'll just beat your harder for being uppity."
Interesting the way you framed this. Especially the part about liberals doing the beatings and threatening more of them.
One party had a message and large portion of it's voter base focused on messages and policies that can only be described as hateful and harmful. Now that it seems like that harm is transpiring and surprise surprise just as the "we don't give two shits about you" liberals warned that harm is at best indiscriminate and at worst going to impact those spiteful voters the most.
Trump is doing exactly what he said he'd do, tariff all the things, these people proudly and loudly voted for the (self-inflicted) punishment you're describing.
All I've gotten from my donations has been being added to mailing lists asking for more money to help fund the next election.
Not for building grass roots organizations. Not for building resiliency. Not for active protests, and organized opposition by the politicians.
I'm sure the political consultants got paid well though.
Depends where you send your money. I've used this in the past and as a huge bonus, I don't get added to 29494494292 mailing lists https://app.oath.vote/
From what I can tell, all that does is send money to campaigns. While not getting junk mail is great, it doesn't build long-term grass roots organizations or resiliency. It doesn't support active protests, or get politicians to vigorously oppose what's happening to the US.
I don't like how you can't see their recommendations for previous elections. That would help others judge if their "algorithm" is effective.
Well, yes, it's for campaign donations so it doesn't do those other things. Perhaps others can recommend groups that do a good job of those.
Their algorithm is basically just targeting close state races, if I recall correctly. So like a state Senator from Arizona or something. Those are races where small donations go further than whatever big ticket Senate race gets a lot of press.
My problem with the campaign donations approach is it seems like a money pit.
Campaign organizers in both major parties benefit by pointing out how the other party keeps spending more money, as a way to encourage even more donations.
It also seems like a negative incentive to pass certain laws. "We need money for the next campaign so we can work on $TOPIC" might be a good fundraiser, so if those laws are passed then the funding stops ... or even switches to the other party.
Which party is working on strict campaign donation limits, which in this post-Citizens United era we know requires a constitutional amendment, or an overturn by the Supreme Court. Certainly not the Republicans, as Vance is asking the Supreme Court to strike down limits on political donations precisely because PACs are now so powerful. Nor do I see active engagement by the Democrats.
These are generally state races with less money involved in them. I agree about systemic reform, but until that happens, you deal with the system as it is.
I've been dealing with the system as it is for 20 years. The main difference is it now sucks in a lot more money, for little result.
[dead]
the article ends with a FUD statement about certain products bieng no longer financialy viable in the world market due to them bieng priced out of the US, and insuficient demand, elsewhere. This can only be accepted if there is no question about the obscene profits generated by all large manufacturers, where "not financisly viable" means double digit profit and growth, rather than actualy unprofitable. If there is real demand, and no way for large established industrys to meet it, then this will spur the creation of countless small manufacturers.,..............everywhere. And that once it picks up speed, will be a good thing for comunitys worldwide. Globalisation, only works for the biggest players and sharpers, and for the smallest least developé countrys, there will still be the things they need on.the world market. But ,ha!, that just me trying to see a brite side, the whole thing could be just the first stage in something much much worse. early floyd...."Ive got a bike...you can ride it if you like" excellent sound track for this world now
The point is that there are products for which there is not enough of domestic market for domestic small manufacturers. There is enough market worldwide for those manufacturers.
> Globalisation, only works for the biggest players and sharpers
That's just not true. Many small businesses sell their products worldwide via online marketplaces. Have you downloaded software from another country? Bought something on Alibaba?
> once it picks up speed, will be a good thing for comunitys worldwide
How about the people in those communities paying higher prices for worse goods - the extra money going into the pockets of large domestic corporations.
Missreading my emphasis.....Globisation ....I thought....refered to the creaping take over of "multinational" corporations consolodating whole industrys under one companys rule....locking out small businesses...like mine so ending the competion that realy boils down to makeing it easyer for BTB to buy from the giant multi national, but use my(and other) small businesses just to get that 3'rd quote, with no intent to purchase from me, is a good thing The supposed efficiencies in "economys of scale" are false, and wink wink, refer to the efficiency of extracting profits from a captured market, rather that the localisation of economys, which actualy stregthen comunitys. Problem with trump, is that, some of what he is doing, resonates strongly with actual local comunities, and the possitive effects there, could be quick and profound.Underestimating this, is a big mistake, if you are opposed to his other, shall we say......initiatives.
>> Our rulers seem to think that the U.S. imports more than it exports, so the net effect will be positive.
It is eye opening to see people so casually speak of American "rulers". Not politicians. Not business leaders. Rulers. That's new.
I think it's intended to be a bit flippant.
It reflects the nature of the current trade war. It's not congress levying import taxes. It's not the secretary of commerce. (Lutnick has been completely out of the loop at times during the Canada-U.S. trade-war.) It's Trump declaring spurious emergencies to abuse IEEPA and unilaterally pass tariff's without the approval of congress.
At the same time, the Trump administration has taken issue with the independence of judiciary branch. When a judge ruled against one of their deportations, the executive branch ignored the ruling and argued that the judicial branch is subordinate. i.e. The king is above the law. So far, there have been no consequences. This is, quite literally, rule of a sort that hasn't been enjoyed by European monarchs since people became serious about enforcing the Magna Carta.
For the moment, Trump is ruling as an absolute monarch. It remains to be seen if there will be a response to assert the supremacy of law and the independence of the judiciary branch, or if the Republican controlled congress will assert it's right to control economic policy. If the law is not enforced, then Americans have a de facto king. Institutions do not defend themselves. People do.
The checks and balances still exists in theory. The problem is that a slim majority in congress and a slim Supreme Court majority aren't willing to use their checks and are instead ceding power to the President.
That phrasing is weird indeed.
As a non native English speaker, "rulers" isn't problematic for me.
Is it really that pejorative ?
It means like king/queen/emperor, you wouldn't use it for an elected official, so here it is more sarcastic because Trump is acting like he is an emperor.
It has a cultural weight because of the emphasis on the Revolution.
people forget he was voted in.
Many dictators are initially voted in.
To be president, leader of the executive branch. He is using executive powers ignoring congress and actively ignores judges putting himself above all branches. That was not votes on
As was Putin.
It's in keeping with the times. Trump wants to be king.
[flagged]
"the age of tariffs" ah yes, typical ethnocentric point of view of the US.
Does the author not know other nations have been engaged in charging tariffs for a very long time?
I think the author, Jan Heine, is originally from Germany. He does own and operate a US-based company, so it's not that surprising that he's writing from that perspective.
> Does the author not know other nations have been engaged in charging tariffs for a very long time?
And, unlike the US, none of them the envy of the world because of it. It is fascinating that the US has decided it wants to give up what it has to be become like them. It is akin to watching a supermodel get surgery to make themselves uglier because everyone they saw around them wasn't nearly as beautiful as they were. Likewise, we no doubt would come up with some kind of catchphrase to recognize that surprising event.
The world's most powerful consumer country putting broad tariffs on all imports that will be historically as high as the 1800s and higher than most any other major economy is indeed a move to an "age of tariffs" and is a bfd.
The "age of tariffs" would better describe the state US businesses have been suffering from - unbeknownst to the average consumer - for a very long time.
Why the light grey text on a white background? Seriously. It's every other website these days. I of course know how to fix this in Developer Tools but I resent that I have to.