←back to thread

We regret but have to temporary suspend the shipments to USA

(olimex.wordpress.com)
639 points CTOSian | 2 comments | 26 Aug 25 17:22 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rkagerer ◴[26 Aug 25 20:26 UTC] No.45031905[source]▶
...importers must declare the exact amount of steel, copper, and aluminum in products, with a 100% tariff applied to these materials

I ordered a lock and some keys valued at about $400, and paid an extra $400 in duties because of this. It's insane.

replies(2): >>45031922 #>>45032402 #
kacesensitive ◴[26 Aug 25 20:27 UTC] No.45031922[source]▶
Wait consumers are paying the tariffs??
replies(13): >>45031951 #>>45031953 #>>45031968 #>>45031987 #>>45032041 #>>45032180 #>>45032349 #>>45032361 #>>45032503 #>>45032990 #>>45033188 #>>45034785 #>>45036035 #
brandall10 ◴[26 Aug 25 20:40 UTC] No.45032041[source]▶
It’s fundamentally how tariffs work. The importer pays the cost. If it’s a finished good to a consumer, they pay the full amount. If it’s a finished good to a retailer, it’s the wholesale cost. If it’s on components used domestically, it’s the wholesale cost of those components.

In the latter two cases, it’s up to the domestic supply chain to decide how and and how much of those costs get passed on to consumers.

replies(2): >>45032081 #>>45032289 #
throwawaylaptop ◴[26 Aug 25 21:02 UTC] No.45032289{3}[source]▶
If a US made Bolt is $1, and a Chinese one is $0.50, I buy Chinese. If now the Chinese bolt is $1, I buy American. If China tries to reduce the price of their bolt to $0.40, making it $0.80 for me, I still buy American because of quality and speed and reputation and returns, and more. So China makes the Bolt $0.25, I pay $0.50, and all is back to normal.

Yes I technically paid the tariff.... Except really China lost money, the US gained money, and I paid the same because that's the price difference required for me to buy Chinese.

Will it always work out like this? Idk. But this is what they are referring to when saying the exporter will pay it in the end.

replies(5): >>45032470 #>>45032528 #>>45032615 #>>45032651 #>>45032661 #
brandall10 ◴[26 Aug 25 21:19 UTC] No.45032470{4}[source]▶
Sure, we can argue all the we want as to who 'pays', but the ultimate goal is to apply pressure to the importer to take another route.
replies(1): >>45032506 #
throwawaylaptop ◴[26 Aug 25 21:23 UTC] No.45032506{5}[source]▶
Or for take back some of the profits from the exporter.. China has had enough money to develope roads and buildings and companies way beyond what the US has seen in the same time frame. We don't need to allow them to make as much as they have been.
replies(1): >>45032704 #
1. theshackleford ◴[26 Aug 25 21:45 UTC] No.45032704{6}[source]▶
> We don't need to allow them to make as much as they have been.

I feel the same way about the US which is why I won’t spend money on media or software, and encourage others to follow a similar path.

As you insinuate, it’s just logical because the US has had enough money, way beyond my country you see.

replies(1): >>45032951 #
2. throwawaylaptop ◴[26 Aug 25 22:07 UTC] No.45032951[source]▶
Of course, if a poorer country is sending their money to a richer country for things they can make at home or get from somewhere else, they would be pretty dumb.