←back to thread

We regret but have to temporary suspend the shipments to USA

(olimex.wordpress.com)
639 points CTOSian | 1 comments | 26 Aug 25 17:22 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
1. 1-more ◴[26 Aug 25 20:24 UTC] No.45031891{3}[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.