←back to thread

We regret but have to temporary suspend the shipments to USA

(olimex.wordpress.com)
639 points CTOSian | 7 comments | 26 Aug 25 17:22 UTC | HN request time: 0.354s | source | bottom
Show context
gpm ◴[26 Aug 25 18:10 UTC] No.45030181[source]▶
> otherwise they assume the entire PCB consists of copper, aluminum, and steel, and charge a 100% tariff on the whole product.

Do I understand this correctly that if I have a 1kg product that costs $1000... the US is trying to charge me a $1000 tariff on at most $10 [1] worth of metal?

[1] Copper is the most expensive of those metals at roughly $10/kg

replies(2): >>45030648 #>>45032223 #
1. chrisco255 ◴[26 Aug 25 18:51 UTC] No.45030648[source]▶
If you don't go through the work of detailing your materials, then yes, they have to assume worse case as they are not going to go through each package individually and compute an accurate number for you.
replies(3): >>45030816 #>>45030860 #>>45031098 #
2. silverliver ◴[26 Aug 25 19:06 UTC] No.45030816[source]▶
I wonder who will flinch first. I highly doubt domestic manufacturing can scale up fast enough to meet demand but It'd be fun to be proven wrong.
replies(2): >>45031078 #>>45031724 #
3. ◴[26 Aug 25 19:10 UTC] No.45030860[source]▶
4. gpm ◴[26 Aug 25 19:26 UTC] No.45031078[source]▶
You're assuming domestic manufacturing will scale up... tariffing the raw inputs to manufacturing seems unlikely to do this.
replies(1): >>45031524 #
5. cooper_ganglia ◴[26 Aug 25 19:28 UTC] No.45031098[source]▶
That seems exceedingly reasonable.
6. procaryote ◴[26 Aug 25 19:54 UTC] No.45031524{3}[source]▶
also, the tariffs have changed very rapidly for a bit now, so you can't really make multi year investments based on them
7. runako ◴[26 Aug 25 20:10 UTC] No.45031724[source]▶
I have yet to see any compelling argument for the expected source of labor for the scale-up in manufacturing. We're going the other way and reducing our labor force.

In a country where people were ready to riot when service was slow at Chili's in the summer of '20, policy aimed at reducing restaurant employment seems risky.