Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    We regret but have to temporary suspend the shipments to USA

    (olimex.wordpress.com)
    639 points CTOSian | 14 comments | 26 Aug 25 17:22 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    Show context
    zaptheimpaler ◴[26 Aug 25 17:49 UTC] No.45029926[source]▶
    > importers must declare the exact amount of steel, copper, and aluminum in products, with a 100% tariff applied to these materials. This makes little sense—PCBs, for instance, contain copper traces, but the quantity is nearly impossible to estimate.

    Wow this administration is f**ing batshit insane. I thought the tariffs would be on raw metals, not anything at all that happens to contain them.

    replies(22): >>45029962 #>>45029965 #>>45030034 #>>45030053 #>>45030129 #>>45030340 #>>45030343 #>>45030393 #>>45030421 #>>45030466 #>>45030477 #>>45030502 #>>45030605 #>>45030634 #>>45030776 #>>45030954 #>>45030975 #>>45031125 #>>45031196 #>>45031214 #>>45031243 #>>45034509 #
    WorkerBee28474 ◴[26 Aug 25 17:52 UTC] No.45029962[source]▶
    The amount of copper on a PCB is only impossible to estimate if you don't try. Otherwise, you take the PCB copper thickness that you paid for, multiply it by the surface area, and multiply it by a guess of how much remains after etching.
    replies(5): >>45029998 #>>45030024 #>>45030052 #>>45030261 #>>45030882 #
    1. xerp2914 ◴[26 Aug 25 17:57 UTC] No.45030024[source]▶
    It's not that easy according to the post:

    > U.S. customs is demanding a Certificate of Analysis (which could cost thousands of dollars and to determine what exact amount of Aluminum, Copper and Steel are in the product), otherwise they assume the entire PCB consists of copper, aluminum, and steel, and charge a 100% tariff on the whole product. This is a prime example of unnecessary complexity in international trade.

    Also why would they go through all that trouble? Easier to not sell there anymore.

    replies(4): >>45030102 #>>45030119 #>>45030353 #>>45030680 #
    2. kube-system ◴[26 Aug 25 18:03 UTC] No.45030102[source]▶
    The two statements in the OP seem opposed to each other. Why would one need to estimate if an estimate isn't sufficient?
    replies(1): >>45030203 #
    3. petercooper ◴[26 Aug 25 18:04 UTC] No.45030119[source]▶
    Also why would they go through all that trouble? Easier to not sell there anymore.

    I don't agree with it, but isn't that ostensibly the end goal? That is, to force/encourage the manufacturing of goods in the US, rather than importing them. Of course, the metal itself still needs to enter the US either way.

    replies(3): >>45030178 #>>45030452 #>>45031891 #
    4. organsnyder ◴[26 Aug 25 18:10 UTC] No.45030178[source]▶
    Sure, that could be the eventual goal. But for that to happen, we need to ramp up manufacturing in thousands of sectors: not just the device, and not just everything it contains, but also the machines that make each of the components, the machines that make the parts for those machines, the raw materials for each...

    If this was a serious economic policy, it would have started small—perhaps a 5% tariff, to take effect in six months. Then, promise to ramp it up (say an additional 5% every year).

    replies(1): >>45030334 #
    5. ◴[26 Aug 25 18:13 UTC] No.45030203[source]▶
    6. xg15 ◴[26 Aug 25 18:24 UTC] No.45030334{3}[source]▶
    Also, it's a weird way to do "hidden" tariffs, in addition to the official ones that are bad enough.

    E.g. if he wanted to tariff electronic devices, why not tariff them directly, instead of those weird mental gymnastics?

    7. xg15 ◴[26 Aug 25 18:25 UTC] No.45030353[source]▶
    > otherwise they assume the entire PCB consists of copper, aluminum, and steel, and charge a 100% tariff on the whole product.

    This seems like it could also lead to absurd situations. If a device contained both, would customs pretend it was simultaneously 100% made out of copper and 100% made out of steel and apply both tariffs?

    replies(4): >>45030552 #>>45030636 #>>45030693 #>>45031062 #
    8. freejazz ◴[26 Aug 25 18:33 UTC] No.45030452[source]▶
    Yeah, I could also cut off my hand in order to resolve an itch on it. End goal met!
    9. Mtinie ◴[26 Aug 25 18:43 UTC] No.45030552[source]▶
    > This seems like it could also lead to absurd situations. If a device contained both, would customs pretend it was simultaneously 100% made out of copper and 100% made out of steel and apply both tariffs?

    Yes, because it benefits the “here’s how much extra revenue our copper tariffs generate in 2025” sound bites for the Administration to tout (even if they are fabricated numbers based on nonsensical assumptions.)

    10. general1726 ◴[26 Aug 25 18:51 UTC] No.45030636[source]▶
    Yes they would 200% of product won't be a problem for them.

    Furthermore as I know customs, the moment you will start making stuff up in a too brazen way, they will just use Google, search some average price of products and use that instead what you are declaring.

    Sometimes it looks like they are getting a cut from amount of tariff they successfully scalp from you.

    11. wqaatwt ◴[26 Aug 25 18:54 UTC] No.45030680[source]▶
    It’s easiest to not make any money in general. Per capita Americans consumer more stuff than almost everyone else. It’s a huge and highly lucrative market and will remain such for at least some time still.

    Losing a significant proportion of their revenue can easily bring down plenty of businesses.

    12. MadnessASAP ◴[26 Aug 25 18:55 UTC] No.45030693[source]▶
    The situation is already absurd, what's a little more absurdity.
    13. jasonjayr ◴[26 Aug 25 19:25 UTC] No.45031062[source]▶
    Even before these changes, there were absurdities where items cross a border with one step of the manufacturing process missing because in one direction it's an unfinished good that has no tariff, and in the other direction it's a finished good coming from a preferred country with a lower or no tariff.
    14. 1-more ◴[26 Aug 25 20:24 UTC] No.45031891[source]▶
    > to force/encourage the manufacturing of goods in the US, rather than importing them.

    There are two mutually exclusive stated goals. One is, as you said, onshoring tech manufacturing to the USA [1]. The other stated goal is to eliminate income tax and replace it with income from tariffs [2][3]. To play these out on their own terms: if the first goal succeeds, then import volume would drop, and total tariff income would be too low to replace income taxes. If the first goal fails, then tariff income would be high enough to replace income taxes. IDK I haven't done the napkin math and I suspect neither have they.

    [1]: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-says-his-tariffs-...

    [2]: https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/trump-proposes-abolishment...

    [3]: https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6371514396112

    Going with Fox Business links to avoid accusations of bias.