The amended one sounds strange. Why did they claim that the duty for the actual HTS code is $0, and attribute the entirety of the tariff to the special EU-origin code?
That's ultimately what the US citizens voted for and I think that's important they know what they are dealing with.
Of course he considered making chips and other components in the US, but he was few billions short to start the fab.
When the trade deals and tariff conditions get sufficiently complex(it gets more complex every day as the president accommodates specific companies and personal favors), the bureaucracy also increases so at some point it becomes too much of a nuisance to bother with individual imports.
[0] https://www.theglobalist.com/the-turkification-of-america-tr...
Yeah, it’s what they voted for, but having the world get into the tariff act is a real pain.
Mine was for a watch I got serviced. My own watch that I shipped out being returned to me… not a new import. If I end up having to pay what FedEx is saying I owe, it would have been cheaper for me to buy a new watch than to get it serviced, which is very upsetting. The whole process has been a horrible experience from the very start and I regret the entire thing. I should have just risked getting it serviced locally… or not done it at all.
This has been terrible for anyone who has to deal with slow shipments from other countries. When things were changing rapidly you could place an order and by the time it arrive the tariff could be something entirely different.
It was awful. I know a lot of people who carefully calculated expected tariffs on a purchase and then got smacked with a much larger number later when it arrived.
There has also been chaos in trying to remediate tariff mistakes. If you got charged the wrong amount, good luck contacting anyone to get it fixed. They’re so slammed with communications and complaints that it’s just not happening.
So this snide dismissiveness is just wrong.
I haven't talked to them in months, but I wonder what happens there. Do you just let the product sit in a shipyard somewhere? Surely you have to pay for storage like the guy in the OP. But then what? What if you just don't pay it at all? They were definitely the kind of people to just be like "fuck it, your cargo containers now". What I learned from them was that very often if you don't like what someone is charging you, you can just not pay them anything and let them keep whatever of yours they have (which they can't really do anything with).
I keep thinking that some place has to have a lien against the company in some way, but in practice they just take whatever they've got and leave. I'd never have the balls to try, myself.
Do you remember what it is?
This really isn't hard. It's literally something I learned on the first day of high school economics.
[1] https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/entry-summ...
It feels like all the deficets in our education system (going back decades) are finally coming to roost... so many people lack critical thinking skills and media savvy/awareness. I think its too late to fix it, now that a sufficient majority of people are susceptible to this deception, and a sufficient chunk of politicians are willing to deceive them... there is too much motivation to keep them dumb. The hatred towards the "Intellectual Elite" is scary, and really is reminicent of Pol Pot.
Right. In one forum where someone said that, I posted a U.S. Customs and Border Protection tariff bill. There really is a tax bill, and it has to be paid before you get the stuff.
Usually, there are customs brokers, and shippers acting as customs brokers, to buffer the end user from dealing with CBP directly on small shipments. You still pay.
if that happened, the business already had seriously bad margins, bad cash flow, over-leverage, or maybe he was just doing it out of love getting paid maybe back for his time or not.
tariffs might’ve hurt, but they don’t collapse a healthy niche hardware company where buyers are presumably also into the niche.
seems weird i dont get it. can you explain further?
¹ annoyingly enough this doesn't even work with DHL, which is a separate thing from DHL Express in Germany.
Might be hard to issue refunds.
1. https://reason.com/2025/09/02/the-white-house-says-trumps-ta...
(But seriously I do not know how good US Customs is but in my country every day millions of packages from Asia arrive and they are checking not even a percent).
"Shipping carriers or US Customs usually charge $5–$30 in processing fees. Add the item price, import fees, and processing fees to estimate your final cost."
https://pages.ebay.com/tariffs/
Not something I'm doing for a $5 item... I'll sit back and wait until the Supreme Court finds the tariffs are illegal, and the Fed has to pay every cent back to the businesses, suddenly sending the US spiraling into the biggest budget deficit in history.
I'd rather take a financial hit than act so weak and passive.
I swear between chat control, selling out EU's privacy to US tech companies (you can check how many times Palantir & others met commission members, it's public), the insanity of the ICE ban and this tariffs passivity I'm very unhappy.
Also, it's too convenient to only focus on material goods when the biggest US exports are gazillions in financial and IT services.
Zoom out; recent levels are actually quite impressive in the USA. Yes, they've climbed since 2023, but they're only just reaching the pre-GFC minimum (https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-une...).
Zoom out further: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE/
Had it not been for COVID you'd be at more than 16 years without a(n NBER-determined) recession, long enough to suggest a fundamental shift vs. how things worked in the several decades before that.
The other option is to prepay tarrifs during the purchase of an item. Fedex and DHL usually offer this service which includes epedited customs clearance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W_mSOS1Qts
tariffs have chopped and changed so much since this video that the specific tariff amounts mentioned are likely not accurate.
For Turkey it only got worse from there.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lutnick-family-angling-...
Ship something through DHL or a similar service, and they follow the letter of the law so you'll both end up paying the official duty (at least there, it's almost guaranteed to follow the declared value) plus their processing fee, storage fee, and whatever else they include. I've easily paid double the price of a product for all of those fees together.
And worst, it's all unpredictable. At least if there's a 10% sales tax you can calculate that into if you want to buy an item. But once you get hit enough times, you start just not feeling like it's worth the mental load, time, and random financial hit to order stuff.
America had no idea how good they had it, in the before times.
But, tariffs on used cameras or vintage electronics does not help bring manufacturing back. Let's just bring back the de minimis exemption for things like this. More industry targeted tariffs, fewer blanket tariffs.
Tariffs do not always 100% immediately get passed on to buyer.
If there's a $100 product you'd like to purchase and there's a 100% tariff, it won't be $200.
That product was made abroad, let's for $20. So the tariff should be $20, not $100.
The US-based owner will go to the supplier, say they're getting squeezed by tariffs and first they'll try to see what they can do to recategorize the tariff, or negotiate with their supplier to absorb some of the expense. Let's say that got it down to $15. The owner still doesn't want to increase costs by 15%, so they'll hold off for a while and absorb, and then eventually maybe increase 5-10 and absorb further; perhaps eventually going the full stretch - maybe not.
I used an online tariff calculator and it said it should be 15%.
Lesson learned: don't trust tariff calcs and assume the worst case. Even if you order something when tariffs have been dropped you're still at risks for broad sweeping tariffs to come into effect by the time your item arrives at a US port.
Moving forward: big companies are far better able to deal with this tin pot dictator chaos, let them handle importation if you can. DigiKey (ugh), Mouser, and Newark all show the tariff as a line item. I'm quite sure at least one of them is fudging COO and all three have some remaining US inventory of some items so there's still some entirely legal tariff avoidance.
Likewise AliExpress choice involves shipping to what I suspect is AliExpress' bonded warehouse and they handle the applicable tariffs. I've recently decided to learn how to solder and there's still plenty of 99 cent crap available from AE if you're willing to (ab)use the new customer discount.
First, overall, the US has increased manufacturing output over the last couple decades. 2019 was the highest year ever, covid interupted a bit, but levels are back there again.
However the number of people involved has dropped a lot. US manufacturing prefers automation and prefers to manufacture things which are high-volume, low labor.
A good parallel is agriculture. Foods produced in the US (and the US produces a lot of food) tend towards low-labor. Think fields of wheat or corn, not vegetables. Most fresh produce comes from cheap-labor regions like Mexico (or is grown locally with foreign labor.)
So really your point is not about American manufacturing, but rather American labor.
Secondly, this free market you refer to is the American consumer. They are very price sensitive, and deeply favor cheap over good. This contrasts to a lot of the rest of the developed world which strikes more of a balance in this regard.
Since labor is cheaper elsewhere, it follows that cheap imports are favored (by the consumer) over the locally produced items. Unfortunately the imported good is often of a higher quality now (because foreign manufacturers can afford quality and still be cheap.)
So, the politicians you speak of (regardless of party) are reluctant to medel, partly because of unintended consequences, and mostly because the only real lever they have is to increase the cost of imported goods (ie tarrif them) which in turn gets consumers upset. (Witness the fury of the voter in 2020 because of more expensive goods.)
Thus while it's helpful to blame politicians, politicians are elected by consumers. Consumers who could by local, but choose not to. Consumers who vote against politicians that cause price hikes. (Even when those same politicians incentivise local production with things like CHIPS act.)
You can blame politicians, and indeed corporations all day long, but the consumers are voting with their wallets, and "cheap" is the only metric they care about.
Is it really? It sounds like you're implying it's some kind of woeful ignorance, but I say it's perfectly reasonable:
1. Each US state is already in a open-borders zero-tariff framework with all other states, which covers a very large portion of what people purchase.
2. Until recently, most individual consumers didn't need to think about tariffs on international goods, since most purchases were <$800 and covered by the de minimis rule. (Which AFAICT was in place for ~80 years.)
Let's say a companies margin was 40%. The cost of their constituent parts doubles due to tariffs, they are no longer making money as a result.
I hope this helps explain it for you.
Targeted tariffs on specific goods leads to the development of local production of that good. Lots and lots of countries have these in place.
Blanket tariffs are, of course, useless. The US doesn't have the climate to grown coffee, so tarifing Brazil serves no purpose other than taxing coffee consumption.
A surgeon uses a scalpel, not an axe. Used well, tariffs are a very powerful tool. Used badly they create more harm, and don't achieve the goal of promoting local production.
Tariffs which are here today, but gone tomorrow, don't created the stable environment which long-term investment in local production requires.
Remember that this is his second term. Every American voter had the benefit of four years of "education" regarding Trump's character and competence. A majority of them responded by freely and enthusiastically demanding four more such years.
https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tariffs-april-1...
But in the short-medium term it creates uncertainty for the supplier. (The on / off / on nature of these tariffs doesn't help.) For some goods this means suppliers will develop new markets, or will adjust prices up for American purchasers.
For example, say I have an orange farm. Say I have been selling to the US for ages. Simple, reliable sale, no need to look for other customers.
This year there's turmoil. We take a hit because US buyers need a discount (or might cancel the order.) OK, I'll take the hit. But I'll also put out feelers for other markets for next years crop. Maybe Saudia Arabia is looking. Maybe Europe is looking. Next year, do I develop those relationships, or do I reserve my crop for my US buyer?
Tariffs are not necessarily the problem. They are an important long-term tool used to support local production. Uncertainty though is a huge problem- it's easier to sell elsewhere.
Well, Hawaii does, but your point is good, thank you.
Firstly, they're unnecessary. Just do what Canadians are doing. Stop buying US goods. Stop going to the US on holiday. Shop keepers get the hint real quick.
Secondly, they just make goods more expensive for you. They gave no impact on American producers.
So it may feel like the EU is doing nothing. But really, there's nothing they need to do. Tarifs are a tax levied by the US govt on US citizens. Sure demand might drop a bit in the short term, but that just drives producers to find other markets. Which in the long run is a good thing.
Often with older electronics designs, the parts the engineers originally picked are no longer made. It's not the end of the world, there are solutions. Sometimes the vendor changes the part number due to a process change or the part design is sold to another company and goes under a new number. You can also sometimes find drop in compatible parts (common for the 7400/5400 series chips), these may be in a different package so you might have to design an interposer or deadbug it. The worst option is finding old stock using a broker. There are legit brokers that will source old stock and "refurbish" them for you (called re-lifeing). But there are also shady brokers that will buy counterfeits (or get tricked into buying them) that may or may not actually work. Sometimes the counterfeits are relabeled parts that are compatible but the new label gets a higher price because they aren't being made any more. Sometimes the counterfeit is actually a totally different design that is shoehorned into its desired purpose (like a new microcontroller masquerading as an old processor or ASIC). Other times it's just some random junk pulled from e-waste that's been relabelled. Other times you'll get a counterfeit that comes from a stolen design. Even when the counterfeit functions, it may not perform to the same spec as the original part (very important for military spec parts) or will have other characteristics that make it incompatible with the rest of the design (like drawing too much or too little current). When it comes to engineering in ISO9001, traceability is a huge thing and brokers just can't provide that.
At my job, we have an "absolutely no brokers" rule. They simply cannot guarantee that what they provide is genuine. If a legitimate distributor doesn't have stock of a discontinued part, they'll never have stock of it. Brokers will tell you what you want to hear while they go out and try to make it happen. I'm not saying all brokers are shady but if you are considering buying from a broker, you should be instead considering how you can replace that part.
While they can have an effect of encouraging domestic production, mostly they're a way to extract more money from the population.
I've had a UPS business account for over 35 years. In the past year or so they've become just terrible. Any call you make to them will have a hold time of at least half an hour. Many of my calls have gone over an hour. Usually you'll get transferred at least once. Also, earlier this year they outsourced their billing services to a third party, requiring additional consent on their website, and billing calls are now answered by an overseas call center.
I had to call them several times a few months back. What triggered everything was a fraudulent shipment made using my UPS account. I thought that I got that straightened out after two calls lasting about 2.5 hours total.
I got another bill the next month for the same fraudulent shipment where even though my shipping costs had been refunded, UPS was charging me a "missing PLD fee" because the criminals who shipped using my account number did not create the shipment using my online account. So after another 1.5 hours or so, that got resolved too. (They don't seem to offer an option to prevent shipments from being initiated from anywhere other than the online account.)
While waiting on hold (both times), their pre-recorded on-hold content would urge me to user their webiste to resolve my issue, which I had already tried, and discovered that it was impossible.
I had to call them one more time the following month because they began charging me $20 per month for no apparent reason. Without first notifying me, they decided that all direct bill accounts would now be charged this monthly fee. I was able to update my account with a credit card on file to get them to stop doing this.
I would switch to FedEx, but their customer service is even worse. I closed my FedEx account 20 years ago, but I continued to receive spam from them for over 15 years with no way to opt out (because of the existing customer relationship that no longer existed).
edit: as a biz you (we) should use a legit import broker instead of UPS. But individuals like OP are stuck with no option.
The fact that you can become a teacher in Florida without a degree just by being a veteran [1] comes as a result of an exodus of teachers because there has been an outright attack on education institutions. The reasons "why" have been debated but ultimately it is abundantly clear that the issue isn't just stupidity, but also the very act of education itself.
There has been a concerted effort by conservatives to tell the public that modern universities are giant "woke propaganda" factories. I was an adjunct in 2022 and 2023, and I must have missed the memo where I was told to instruct every student to get a sex change, but this didn't stop my idiotic grandmother from saying that "even computer science students get woke indoctrination".
But of course, this isn't a recent thing. I remember when I was younger, conservatives would spend a lot of time taking scientific studies out of context to talk about how we're wasting grant money [2].
The "treadmills for shrimp" is a good example: anyone who spent ten seconds actually doing research on this would see that the "treadmills" actually aren't stupid and they're measuring metabolism, and I am quite confident that the people who started spreading this propaganda knew this, so it's an active lie. I'm sure they think they're doing it for good reasons, but this isn't about "stupidity" at this point, it is an outright attack on research and science.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-florida-law-education-...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139852035/shrimp-on-a-treadmi...
On the other hand, perhaps that's a burden the US should be excited about tossing off. It's expensive to be the World Police, and it's left them with a lot of strained reputation and burnt-through leverage. It also requires them to do a lot of "lead by example" stuff that they seem completely disinterested in (industrial policy, forming consensus, trying to present as a magnanimous moral model).
There’s always things being supplied for at lower prices. That is what product or service improvements do.
Your car is vastly safer than a Ford Model T. Air bags, better brakes, power steering, AC - all of which make it a vastly superior vehicle. If inflation worked the way you implied, the price of it would have constantly gone up, and never would it have managed to be affordable.
Firms reduce the cost of production and get to sell more to larger numbers of consumers. Total revenue = $ value * N customers.
You expand further on your position in the second part of your para, but that is fundamentally about how wages have not gone up over time. Which has nothing to do with inflation. It has MUCH more to do with the labor markets, and the pay people are getting for their labor.
For example, the company can raise its prices. How well that works depends on whether there is competition for the company's product. If the competition is also hit by the tariffs, then they're on an even playing field. If the competition is using native parts, then the competitor gets the business.
The US has declared import tariffs are to be paid by the importer/shipper, not collected from the end purchaser after... The opposite of the rest of the world.
If you look through eBay, at items coming from China, you'll see most are noted as:
Import fees: Includes import fees
This item includes applicable import fees—you won’t pay anything extra after checkout."
It seems to be a rare exception that you'll see the seller is not paying the tariffs:
Import fees: Import fees due prior to delivery
Due to US customs policies, the buyer of this item will need to pay import fees to the shipping carrier prior to delivery.The reason services are such a big part of your economy is because you can sit in an air conditioned office, send some emails, push some numbers around on a spreadsheet, and call it work.
You're talking about something different than what I was - improvements that make a product better without the price going up (because the cost is small enough to become the new baseline, either by market stickiness or regulation). Those don't affect CPI, and therefore make life better at the same price. So I agree with where you're coming from there.
My point is about the manufacturing/product innovations that make prices go down (regardless of whether quality gets better or worse). Take for example offshoring, which was sold as maybe your local factory will have to lay off some people but we will have less expensive items at the store so we will all win on average. But it's a trick because the Fed creates a feedback loop that makes it so prices cannot go down on average.
Wages haven't risen as fast as consumer price inflation because that new money is injected into the financial industry (the fake "fiscal responsibility" of the Republican party). And when too much newly created money finally leads to too much demand for labor and wages start rising, the Fed then tamps down on the monetary creation.
The downside is the insane consumption associated with that. Americans are responsible for an insane amount of pollution, far more per capita than any other people in the history of the world, much of which is tied to how easy/cheap it is to order shit we don't need. So, good if ya wanna buy cheap pollution, pretty bad if ya care about the next generation.
I verified everything and it wasn't a scam; the government was legitimately about to take me to court or start garnishing my wages or something like that. They said that UPS or FedEx had told them I imported the equipment but never paid import duties.
I got ahold of the case worker for my case and told them it must be some error. After a week or two of back and forth, we finally figured out that it was for a laptop that a user in Canada had shipped back to me when they left the company, and it had been mis-categorized and valued on the import documents. Since we had purchased the laptop in the US in the first place and shipped it to the user, the case was dismissed and I didn't have to pay anything, but it's always a mini heart attack when you get a letter from Uncle Sam saying you owe thousands.
they make everything as hard as possible, then create loopholes for their buddies.
this is what they've been claiming has been happening under democrats(projection), but in reality it's teh system they long for. Now that they're in power they can make it happen.
and now trump is easing tariffs on foods because they're too expensive. he's also thinking of shipping out STIMULUS CHECKS because people are struggling to buy tariffed goods.
it's mind boggling what they must be thinking to justify this stuff.
There are often no "native" alternatives.
Even the machines that make the chips are nearly all made in one country and then shipped around the world.
The amazing, modern nature of our modern world is built on the collective effort and knowledge of humankind globally.
Globally.
So does Canada.
> far more per capita than any other people in the history of the world
Not even remotely close to true. Aside from that it's down 20% from it's peak 40 (!) years ago.
> much of which is tied to how easy/cheap it is to order shit we don't need.
The data does not support this conclusion.
> pretty bad if ya care about the next generation.
Speaking of trends.. care to guess which country has doubled it's pollution in the last 10 years?
It's a minefield for eBay buyers who likely won't notice the footnote means their $5 purchase will cost them $20+ in fees. They now have something else to lookout for that doesn't show up in the table of search results. Something only in a small note on the item's product page. Something that might mean significant extra cost if you aren't careful when shopping.
Overall there is a lot of manufacturing in the US. What the US doesn't have are manufacturing jobs because labor is more expensive than automation.
Maybe you meant the US should make sure to have some certain types of manufacturing like chips. In that case, targeted programs are a better approach than any sort of tariffs. See the CHIPS act for example.
> What triggered everything was a fraudulent shipment made using my UPS account
If your business allows for it, set your account to "Deny Inbound Charges" at https://www.ups.com/vip/view
UPS is still probably the best domestically for ground shipping, FedEx is the best domestically for express parcels, and DHL is the best for inbound or outbound international without question.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wall-street-tariff-trades-sho...
I really don’t. I genuinely have no idea and I have zero interest in guessing. Just say it and stop wasting everyone’s time.
> So does Canada.
it's not as good of a comeback as you think it is...
You don't need to coerce fellow citizens, indeed the point is far more effective when it's not coerced.
And if not enough citizens care to make the point, then they're also not going to thank you for rising prices.
But I was talking more about a mindset. And of course speaking generally- lots of people (everywhere) have budget constraints.
Having traveled in the US and Europe I'd suggest that in the US "volume" is rewarded as "good". For the same amount of money, "more" is preferred to "good". In contrast in Europe it's less "look how big the plate is" and more about "better quality."
So, to rather over-simply things, I'd describe US food as "bland, loaded with sugar, lots of it", whereas Europe is more "smaller quantities, less processing, more farmer's market".
Not just food. But across the board. Cheap = good.
And yes, I'm talking generally big-picture here - it's a culture thing - there are lots of counter examples if you look hard.
It's also done to protect local industries, hence the term "protectionism". For example, Canada's large tariffs on American milk are there to protect the local Canadian milk producers.
AFAIK, Trump's tariffs are meant to serve the following purposes:
1. so critical supplies, like chips, will be produced domestically
2. to raise money for the treasury
3. to convince countries that have high tariffs to lower them in exchange for the US to reciprocate in lowering ours
4. to incentivize foreign manufacturers to invest in factories in the US
5. to use them as a negotiating tool for other terms favorable to US interests
These are not crazy things. We'll see how things play out.
* 1938 to 1977: $1 ($22 -> $5.43)
* 1978 to 1992: $5 ($25 -> $11.50)
* 1993 to 2014: $200 ($446 -> $272)
* 2015 to 2025: $800 ($1087 -> $800)
* 2026 to ????: $0 ($0 -> $0)
The point I'd like to make from this is that Americans under 50 weren't adults-with-money in time to ever encounter those older more-restrictive spans. If you're under 28, the highest-exemption is the only situation they've ever known until now.
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/small-parcels-big-problem...
The whole thing is unbelievably infuriating and insane and I will warn anyone in the States to never again use UPS for shipping abroad.
Unions often even make this worse because they'll latch on to a monopolistic employer and then lobby with them to retain the monopoly at the expense of all the workers who are their customers rather than their employees.
That assumes the customers are price insensitive. If you're making vintage parts for hobbyists and archivists, maybe they're not; maybe they don't get a raise just because the price went up and your thing is the thing they cut out of the budget when it all won't fit anymore.
That's fine and indeed about the only way it even can be done in a country with higher wages. The question is, why can't we do more of that? Basic simple components like capacitors should be possible to automate, so what's preventing it? Why don't we have policies tuned towards causing more domestic automation?
The number of jobs won't be what it was when it was done by hand, but that's never coming back either way, and some is better than none. Meanwhile you reduce dependency on adversarial countries.
> the only real lever they have is to increase the cost of imported goods (ie tarrif them) which in turn gets consumers upset.
There is another alternative: Lower the cost of domestic goods, i.e. lower taxes or provide credits to domestic manufacturers. For example, allow capital investments in domestic manufacturing to be deducted immediately rather than over time.
This is actually one of the longstanding major problems with the US tax code right now. It creates a preference for international supply chains because that allows profits to be shifted into countries with lower tax rates and penalizes purely domestic supply chains.
In 1924 a Ford Model T cost $260. Adjusted for inflation to 2025 this is <$5000. The average new car price in 2025 is ~$50,000.
3 and 5 are undermined by the fact that even nations with positive trade surpluses with the US, and countries like Japan with Trump first term negotiated trade treaties (which for Japan included major concessions already) are being hit with these tariffs.
1 and 4 are a problem because many of the inputs into building out US manufacturing capacity come from abroad and are hit by tariffs. Secondly many of the manufacturing inputs into making products in these factories would come from abroad and be tariffed, unless those supplies are bootstrapped domestically first but there is no policy to ensure this. Thirdly as soon as the tariffs go away, these factories would become uneconomical, so they are a gamble on that not happening in the lifetime of the factories.
Finally, who’s going to build and operate this huge new manufacturing sector? Infrastructure construction relies heavily on immigrant labour that’s being driven out, so does actual manufacturing, and there are no hordes of unemployed Americans lining up for manufacturing jobs. It’s addressing a problem that largely doesn’t exist, to build out less efficient more expensive ways to make stuff, in a way that can’t work anyway.
Manufacturing investment surged in the last few years with the introduction of the CHIPS and Inflation Reduction acts. It’s going to be hard to disentangle the continuing effects of that from the effects of the Tariffs, but it’s hard to see how the Tariffs can have a positive effect.
"Someone is trying to shoot me so I'll shoot myself in the foot in retaliation"
Sometimes, doing nothing is the best move. Doing something self destructive to make yourself feel better makes no sense at all.
No, supposed quality adjustments hide lower production volumes: https://www.palladiummag.com/2025/10/03/how-gdp-hides-indust...
> Motor vehicles, bodies and trailers, and parts: actual light vehicles produced down 11%, real gross output of vehicles up 39%, real value-added up 125%. Inputs as a percent of gross output rose from 74% to 77%.
> Steel mills & manufacturing from purchased steel: in raw tonnage, steel shipped is down 18%, real gross output is up 5%, real value-added is up 125%. Inputs as a percentage of gross output rose from 73% to 74%.
> If the quality adjustment is 32%, the value-added increase becomes 652%!
> Another “quirk” of real value-added is that inflation adjustments and quality adjustments get applied retroactively, which creates wild inflections from small changes. In simplified terms, let’s say that, in 1997, car sales were $100 billion, and were still $100 billion twenty years later in 2017, with no changes due to inflation or input costs. Input costs in both years were $75 billion, meaning $25 billion in value-added in both years. The only thing that changed, let’s say, was that the “quality” of cars got 10% higher thanks to software innovations like Apple CarPlay and design improvements like crumple zones for safety—neither of which add to recurring production input costs. So, let’s say, our economists would adjust the 2017 figure to be $110 billion in “real” terms and show a small 10% increase, right?
>
> Instead, the way it works is that a recent “base year” is taken, in this case 2017, and the base year is never adjusted. So rather than adjusting from $100 billion to $110 billion, the “real” output of 1997 is retroactively adjusted to be lower, in this case $91 billion, to get the same 10% increase. But then, our value-added in 1997 has fallen to $16 billion, and the increase in “real value-added manufacturing” has jumped from 10% to around 50%! We have created a 50% increase in car manufacturing not by actually producing 50% more cars or “objectively” making cars 50% better, but just by playing around with statistics and definitions.
Moreover, the money have not been returned yet, that could take a long time and for many people losing access to such an amount would be very inconvenient, even if they knew that the money would be returned, eventually.
https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/milei-is-scrapping...
For example, we where ranked 16th in terms of CO2 per capita in 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... We are just #3 by population and far richer per capita than the other 2.
For home soil central north american CO2 production, sure.
Things change if such rankings were to account for the CO2 production as a result of satisifying US consumption habits .. the "benefit" of having off shored industry to China is the final goods come to the USofA while the emissions and waste of industry occur elsewhere.
Of course they encounter their own political hurdles. Think Solar, Electric Cars, CHIPS act etc. But they become political footballs, even to the detriment of local interests. (Witness Florida reps voting to repeal CHIPS even though Florida got a lot of CHIPS money.)
So yes, companies want consistency in the supply chain, and current US politics doesn't offer that.
You have completely missed my point: I don't care about them being helpful or not. It's not about the financial but political aspect.
> While China emits over one-third of global CO2, it is also the world’s factory, producing more than one-third of global manufactured goods (IEA, 2024a; Norton, 2024) . Research indicates that China remains the world’s largest generator of embodied trade carbon emissions. The gap between emissions embodied in China’s exports and those in its imports widened from 0.7 GtCO2 in 1990 to 1.8 GtCO2 in 2019 (CGTN, 2024) . According to the Global Carbon Budget, China’s 2021 consumption-based CO2 emissions are about 10% (or 1.2 GtCO2) lower than the territorial emissions (Friedlingstein et al., 2025).
I ordered a specialty lock and some keys valued at about $400, and paid an extra $400 in duties because of this. It's insane.
Plot twist: I'm in Canada and was ordering a made-in-USA product from a US vendor. The duties were due to matching countertartiffs at the time. Sorry, but that's the last lock I buy from the US (and maybe the last thing with metal in it if I can help it) until this mess is resolved.
1) People replace coffee with hot cider, infusion tea or some other local substitute good.
2) Tariff on coffee as set up by Trump incentivize coffee producing countries to buy US goods whether it’s oil or cars to make trade balance more equal.
The only question is the scale of above but tariff on coffee is unquestionably help US producers.
If your neighbor makes demands and threatens to shoot themselves in the foot if you don't accept, responding by shooting yourself in the face does not seem like a good tactic.
US tariff policy gifts European manufacturers with a competitive advantage.
A small example from a hobby of mine: electronic music, synthesis, audio gadgets, etc. The last decade or two has seen an explosion of innovation in this space driven by small boutique outfits on both sides of the Atlantic. This has only been made possible because of access to Chinese expertise in manufacturing.
The effect of US tariffs is to hurt everyone - but hurt US based companies more. If based in the EU, you pay 0% duty on your low-value-add Chinese inputs and sell finished products to customers - duty free to 450m inhabitants of the EU and with 15% tariff to the US. The same operation based in the US - pays 100% or more on inputs - making it uncompetitive in both markets (for any reasonable range of margin). This is just one small niche/corner of the economy where US-based companies are seeing profits being squeezed.
The other reason to avoid emulating US policy regarding tariffs, is the impact of the flip-flopping and uncertainty on industrial and manufacturing investment. How can anyone intelligently make a long-term (decades) investment decision to build a manufacturing facility in the US when at any moment, your input costs could increase 100%? Or the tariffs you were relying on to allow you to compete with foreign operations could suddenly be lowered as part of a "deal". Or they could go up and down within the space of months or even weeks? Or that in 3 years, the policy will be complete reversed?
Introducing uncertainty and volatility into trade policy might seem like a winning move if you view the world in game theoretic terms - that the global economy is a zero-sum game. I feel that the current US executive sees the world this way - if any other country is doing well, then it must be at the expense of the USA and vice-versa. And this basic misunderstanding of trade and economics is driving these self-harming policies.
As a fellow European, given we have no influence over US policy, I suggest standing back as the US re-learns the painful lesson of history regarding trying to stimulate your economy by making industrial and manufacturing inputs more expensive and adding volatility and uncertainty to the business environment. It sucks for everyone globally because the world isn't zero-sum, the USA suffering doesn't benefit others, so the best policy for Europe is to just refuse to play the game and sit it out.
It seems that you're operating under the normally reasonable assumption that these policies were implemented after careful consideration with specific goals in mind. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the people involved in this are doing what they're doing for well-thought out reasons or ones that are meant to benefit America.
You could theoretically get charged over 100% the price of the product if you buy something really cheap and shipping is more expensive than the product because shipping is taxed too.
>> Tariff on coffee as set up by Trump incentivize coffee producing countries to buy US goods whether it’s oil or cars to make trade balance more equal.
Countries don't buy goods, people do. Apparently insulting Canada didn't make them decide to consume more made-in-America goods. I'm not sure that random acts of insulting leads yo the effects you are proposing.
Sure there are a number of Democratic Socialists and other progressives winning elections and driving changes but everything I’ve seen policy-wise has been directly targeted areas where unchecked capitalism has clearly failed their constituents. Even in those cases, there’s no dramatic shift towards government ownership.
What was so special about 1997?
The de minimis exception was absolutely insane. It was a full-blown loophole that caused tens of billions of dollars in goods to come through the border almost completely unregulated, ranging from the stuff that should have had tariffs on it, to knockoffs, to drugs and chemicals that shouldn't be in the United States at all.
Even if you are a free trade enthusiast, having 100 million individually wrapped packages not checked by anyone rather than organized container shipping and warehousing is still insane and wasteful and makes a mockery of the concept of even having an international border.
Closing that loophole is literally the only sane path forward. Yes, also, it is a rule that government regulations should be easy to follow and well-administered to avoid the confusing and difficult process of trying to send a package to your friend or order some computer parts.
But, way we had it in the "before times" was absolutely unworkable. It was being exploited to the detriment of American businesses.
1) Stopped buying USA wine totally
2) Canceled our plans for vacations in the USA
3) Stopped buying USA orange (or any citrus) juice
4) Carefully check the provenance of any fruit or vegetable in the supermarket and actively avoid anything that comes from the USA
... and the list goes on.
I am not alone!
How do those immediate and tangible consequences serve the interests of the USA producers and companies affected, exactly?
If even if there are such ideas in new government, they quickly disappear over wine and steak dinners with the lobbyists.
Unfortunately this is not seen as bypass of democratic process. Nobody voted for having less rights and any bargaining power stripped and yet here we are.
That's where security services should come in (in many countries protection of democracy is their main statutory duty) - but they are not doing their job tax payers pay them to do.
I thought that with time Brazil would modernize and get closer to the US in that regard. It's really sad to see the opposite happening.
It's not like every single Chinese consumer decided they didn't want American soybeans. More authoritarian countries have strong import controls; helps with both having high (inefficient) employment but also your citizens aren't going to wonder why all these cool stuff (fridges, etc) are always imported and the local stuff sucks.
Nevermind that the bounds of what consumers have to buy/consume are entirely drawn and selected by investor prospectus, and business collusion, in an environment shaped by regulatory capture or selective compliance!
I'm open to accepting some blame on consumers, but trying to scapegoat them as the root of the problem is horseshit of the highest order.
MBA's and investors of the past 50 years drank deep of the draught of economic growth through regulatory arbitrage by off shoring, labor replacement above all else, and trying to chase shareholder returns over stakeholder returns. Fuck you, got mine in the socioeconomic sense.
In terms net imports vs exports staple agricultural products have a very high carbon footprint per dollar and America exports a lot of low value food. So the carbon balance is way more tricky than just suggesting America has exported its manufacturing.
UAE, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Russia, and Australia are mid sized countries that emit more CO2 than the US per capita but you need to come up with a new metric to get that list. CO2 emissions by countries with more than 10m people or whatever. Perhaps bump it to countries with over 100m people so America is #2 on a list of 16 countries, or 300m so America is #1 on a list of 3 countries.
What's passive about what Europeans are doing?
They marked products as USA-origin and sales of those products are way down (or they just pulled the USA products from the shelf). It's basically an infinite tariff.
When Amazon and all first came out they didn't charge sales taxes and states were pretty unhappy because largely nobody was paying the sales taxes they were supposed to on their tax returns.
The new NY city mayor wants to convert parks into low income housing.
https://abc7ny.com/post/mayor-adams-makes-elizabeth-street-g...
But economics shapes culture, too. There are certainly no shortage of subcultures trying to swim against the grain - buy American, local/organic food, German tool enthusiasts, even the tech community's libre software and anti-cloud. It feels like they remain subcultures because they're fundamentally fighting an uphill battle against top-down prices/advertising/etc set by large market makers. Which is why I initially took issue with your comment, framing it solely in terms of individual choice.
But the dynamic extends other places too, say the housing market with everything "move in ready" being beige, spec grade fixtures, and "fancy" appliances bought from a market for lemons. Trying to chew on that it still feels like not exactly what people prefer, but rather what people don't disprefer - the least offensive option to enable economies of scale (which once again comes down to monetary policy supporting the housing bubble, but I'm certainly not trying to ram the whole topic back into that)
Even if we pretend the policies are well-intentioned, it takes decades of investment to make the infrastructure and workforce ready to produce things locally at scale. With policies like the dismantling of department of education, I do not see any initiative being taken to prepare the workforce for the future.
Let's face it, tariffs are a disaster. The increased prices, hurt American businesses, caused job loss, and increased waste and bloat. The administration created a problem (tariff induced inflation), now they are selling the solution by rolling back tariffs to bring prices down. Anybody older than 8 years know this was the same playbook in previous administration. And they know their base is gullible eough to fall for it. It's just unfortunate that hacker news audience in included in there as well.
Very true, and just another example of the inspiration the Republicans draw from Russia and other tyrant states.
There's a horrifying story in WSJ today that I hope gets more traction, about how soldiers returning from duty on the Ukraine front are being recruited to teach in public schools. The subjects in question range from flagrantly-bogus Russian history to drone piloting to Kalashnikov and Dragunov rifle skills, and the kids in question are as young as eight. According to a quote from Putin in the article, "Wars aren't won by generals, they're won by schoolteachers." He's got a point there.
Still, even the best-intended education can only plant seeds. If the ground is barren, then the effort will be wasted at best and counterproductive at worst. We are slouching towards Moscow, Tehran, and Kabul.
Interesting that you mention this. It's not exactly the same thing, but someone in another thread here on HN pointed out that the feds have been acquiring non-trivial stakes in a number of companies. More than just the one or two that I had seen in headlines.
It's funny, because it's a bigger overt push in the direction of actual socialism than the dems have ever tried, by the group of people who most love to use socialism as a boogeyman.
But the argument in favor of it seemed compelling on it's face, at least worthy of debate.
And admitting that is why SCOTUS will kill them. Raising money for the treasury is Congress' job, not the executive's.
The only was you can stop that sort of loophole exploitation is by massive enforcement (i.e. large numbers of random package investigations to establish the actual value of the shipment and comparing it with the declared value).
The cost of such enforcement is very high - possibly not as high as the value of the goods imported by lying about their value, but there's actually no way to know that (since we don't know the actual value of goods that entered under the de minimis exception).
If significant parts (either in numbers or purchasing power) of your population are willing to lie to break the law, you've got problems larger and more widespread than the de minimis exception.
That's what the administration has stated as the goals of them.
For example, many foreign companies have announced plans to invest in creating factories in the US. How that will eventually work out will take some time to see.
> I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the people involved in this are doing what they're doing for well-thought out reasons or ones that are meant to benefit America.
That's a pretty fantastic assumption. I cannot think of a single instance of any President imposing a policy meant to hurt America. Of course, in my opinion, a lot of Presidents have pushed policies that I regard as destructive, but they didn't mean it to be.
The DOE was created by Carter, and there is no evidence in the last 45 years of it having any positive effect on education in the US.
Any change in policy will make things worse before they get better. For example, if you have surgery to remove a tumor, you'll endure a fair amount of pain and misery before getting better.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lutnick-family-angling-...
The corruption is off the charts.
It's probably helped in some aspects too, but the student debt crisis was created by the DOE. And most everyone can agree that college costs have ballooned in the US while the value of the degrees have decreased.
It's a perfect example of the worst of both worlds of government guarantees in a capitalist society, like Amtrak and US health care. It eliminates many aspects of competition and blurs incentives while remaining in a economy where decisions are profit-driven.
Making and shipping chips all over the world is what keeps Taiwan safe. They would never jeopardize that.
Yes, the DoE has been planting decade-scale workforce seeds since the Carter years—mostly via STEM/CTE programs that outlive administrations. Core idea: build adaptable skills (problem-solving, digital literacy, work-based learning) so kids & adults can pivot when AI/climate/whatever nukes today’s jobs.
*Carter-era kickoff* - 1979: Science and Engineering Education Act (Carter signs) → first federal push for pre-college STEM pipelines. NSF/DoE joint grants still fund teacher training 45 yrs later.
*Reagan/Bush I* - 1983 A Nation at Risk → DoE launches magnet schools & AP incentives. Many still running.
*Clinton* - 1994 School-to-Work Opportunities Act → seed money for apprenticeships. morphed into Perkins.
*Bush II* - 2006 Perkins IV → “programs of study” with stackable credentials. Still the backbone of high-school CTE.
*Obama* - 2010 Race to the Top → $4B for state STEM/CTE alignment. - 2014 Computer Science for All → CS now in 70% of HS nationwide.
*Biden* - 2022 YOU Belong in STEM + 2025 DOL/DoE joint admin of WIOA/Perkins → less red tape, more training $.
*Impact numbers* - Perkins V: 8M HS students/yr in CTE; 1.3M postsecondary. - WIOA adult ed: 1.5M/yr gain credentials. - Meta-analyses show STEM exposure → +0.2σ critical thinking, +15% lifetime earnings.
*Caveats* - Funding is ~$16B/yr total—peanuts vs GDP. - 2025 DoE staff cuts (≈50%) threaten oversight. - Europe still laps us on apprenticeships (3-yr paid tracks vs US 6-month internships).
Bottom line: DoE’s been playing the long game since disco. The programs work, but they’re chronically underpowered and politically fragile.
So subsidies, by their nature, are govt putting their finger on the scales, picking winners and losers.
And of course companies competing with those industries (coal versus solar) will lobby, and provide votes.
Bearing in mind of course that ultimately subsidies are just a tax on all citizens for the benefit of some.
So the question then is, what are you going to tax and how much? The problem right now is that we're so bad at it. To begin with the government burns money like there is no consequence to it. Huge payouts to affluent retirees who don't need the money, defense contracts for things the military doesn't even want, etc. And yes, that means you need to stick your foot up the rear end of some lobbyists. Stop being the people who say it can't be done and start being the people doing it.
> You can't (shouldn't?) subsidize all industries.
If you stop wasting preposterous amounts of money then you could lower taxes across the board and remove the anti-subsidy. But taxes are also by category anyway.
So for example, don't lower the tax rate on dividends but create new credits and deductions and faster depreciation for capital investments, or make R&D fully deductible in the first year. In other words, if you make money and use it to buy a Ferrari, you're paying tax. If you use the same money to build a factory, you get to deduct it right away. Then you're effectively subsidizing all kinds of new factories or new construction, but not subsidizing purchases of imported products. Which is like a tariff in the sense that it makes domestic products relatively more attractive, except that it does it by making things less expensive rather than more expensive.
Literally billions of dollars were getting through because they were being shipped one at a time to fulfill e-commerce type orders, which completely circumvented the spirit of the law, if not the letter.
It was absolutely a loophole. The word betrays the loophole, since de minimis is a legal term that means something is too small to matter or worry about. But it became tens of billions of dollars in merchandise.
* Most Americans have no other encounters with "use taxes" in their day-to-day lives.
* It's natural to assume the vendor (or new Internet Computer Thing) is continuing to handle it, especially when that's how all their regular purchases work.
* The tax functionally didn't exist for many decades, at least when the retailer had no in-state presence.
> states [...] tax returns
22.7% of Americans in states without income tax: "The what?" :p
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
And the rest of the world as well, as collateral damage.
Your claim appears to be that this was abused in an organized way that led to a scale of use that was not anticipated when the exception was created. What evidence do you have for this claim?
There are times when it’s politically infeasible to defend the currency, even if they technically could. See the response in France to trying to raise the retirement age a bit, because their budget is in trouble.
A point. Economists like people to believe that hyper inflation lead to Hitler. When it was austerity policies at the start of the great depression 10 years later that lead to the Nazi's winning in 33. Same austerity policies in the US lead to FDR and the Democrats winning.
I didn't waste your time. I posed a question. Your options were to ignore it, answer it, or complain about it. You've decided to complain and thus have maximally wasted your own time.
The point was, perhaps instead of saying things that are absurd, one should look at the graphed data to draw conclusions. I didn't /want/ you to guess, I wanted you to just go look. Or probably just admit to what you almost certainly could have guessed or already know is true.
This forum loves to invent negative facts to justify it's default misanthropic positions. I find this pathetic.
So you don’t know what country doubled their pollution in the last 10 years? Was that a genuine question?
> The point was, perhaps instead of saying things that are absurd, one should look at the graphed data to draw conclusions.
What graph? What are you even talking about?
> Or probably just admit to what you almost certainly could have guessed or already know is true.
As I already said I genuinely don’t know. I could find sources for any answer if I interpret the question appropriately. As you posed the question any answer could be correct. Is it China? The United States? A developing African nation? Who knows! You brought it up. It’s on you to answer.
To those of us with more than a passing interest these details matter a lot. I don’t have the energy or desire to go back to first principles on this with you.
For every American citizen importing lumber from Canada there’re a thousand Canadian citizens who have a Netflix subscription.
Looking only at trade deficit is purposely blinding yourself.
The presence of a few nationalistic morons doesn't wholly negate the goals mentioned by GP, and in fact, may be more important than ever.
Netflix Canada Inc and Netflix Services Canada Ulc two local companies are collecting payments in Canada and they don’t want to look like they have any profits whatsoever. https://insights.greyb.com/netflix-subsidiaries-and-acquisit...
So yes, pretty they didn’t have any money to spend on anything else. Of course bonds became worthless well before the peak in inflation.
1. That stated goals reflect real motivations
2. That every president and their administration operates with a coherent, disciplined strategy
3. That competence can be assumed by default.
Unfortunately these assumptions simply don't match anything we've seen from this administration.
There's a difference between good intentions, stated intentions, and effective execution of policy and there's nothing to indicate that these things are aligned here.
There's also nothing to indicate that the American democratic process guarantees a President who always has Americas best interests in mind and there's nothing to indicate that every person who has filled that roll has had that as their primary motivation.
Terms like "highest ever" conceal that US industrial production only grew by about 13% in the last 25 years [1]. However, in that same time, the US population increased from 281 to 340 million [2]. Meaning that per capita industrial production decreased by 6.6%.
> So really your point is not about American manufacturing, but rather American labor.
No, my point is about treating markets and the economy as if they have no effect on sovereignty or independence, and about only looking at the consumer, not the worker or the citizen.
> the only real lever they have is to increase the cost of imported goods
That's sure not the only lever that Chinese politicians have, and they took full advantage of that, first to industrialize, and now to take over industries left out to dry by their home governments who think the Free Market can do no wrong. Learned helplessness at its worst.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INDPRO/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...
This isn't even remotely confusing to anyone who's bothered to look at it.
I assume you haven't done that, because you said this:
> It was only exploitable by lying about the value of a shipment.
That's not true at all. It was made perfectly legal for shipments under $800, and what was supposed to be a personal use type exemption was wildly exploited until it accounted to over 90% of all shipments to the US, and over $60bn in goods, annually. That was a mistake. Correcting it was well overdue.
HS graduation: ~75 % → 87 % (94 % including GEDs)
BA or higher, age 25+: 17 % → 38 %
Some college or associate’s: ~30 % → >60 %
Immediate college enrollment: 49 % → ~70 %
Black BA attainment roughly 3×, Hispanic 4–5×
AP/IB exams: 400 k → 5 M+