Tariff Charges

For a Frenchman like me, your discussions are interesting in trying to understand what's been happening in recent months. I hope for you that the measures taken in the United States will bear fruit in terms of employment and economic growth, but I doubt it. In the EU, of which my country is a part, we're constantly being told about bringing back industry while preserving the environment, small birds, waterways, quality of life, the ozone layer, and the Earth's rotation. Well, ultimately, we sell our know-how to the Chinese, our turbine patents to the Americans, and we have our cars manufactured in Morocco or Eastern European countries. The only thing world leaders are capable of is getting rich and putting their countries into debt. In the end, Skynet will take control of Google, and we know the rest, hahaha.

wrote:

Both black and red imported fire ants have been in the US for nearly and over 100 years respectively, long before NAFTA. Africanized bees expanded into the US from Mexico. Not sure which fish you are talking about but I suspect the same is true there. Certainly trade does bring the risk of invasive species though, such as emerald ash borer which most definitely was imported.

But you are right that its hard to talk about tariffs without politics, because doing so requires not talking about some of their consequences, and some of the other policies that are intended as complementary to tariffs. And that's a can of worms we don't want to open here.

But its not impossible, as long as we limited it to how this affects us as owners of old imported bikes that often need imported parts. But we should remember that doing so is turning a deliberate blind eye to parts of the equation, and in so doing we can't really discuss whether these tariffs are "good" or "bad" without all parts of the picture.

I beg to differ, The Africanized honey bees came from South America in the 30 's I think in Brazil where they were breeding them to make a better bee for pollination efforts. What they didn't take into account for is their behavior. They have taken over most of the lower 48 states and are pushing out the native species causing them to die out. Where I'm getting this is from "The Killer Bee Nation" where they have videos of their exterminations not relocation protocols. Those states stopped testing the bees for they all tested as the killer species and are causing the native species to die out. We have that problem here now. As for the Fire Ants I've never seen them  here 30 years ago. Now they're everywhere. I agree we have to look at all sides to get a clear picture of the situation. 

SWest post=917287 userid=43940

wrote:

The plan to bring jobs to the US  is obviously working 

Google projects that its $7 billion  UK investment  will create 8,250 jobs a year across businesses. These jobs will come through the need for AI adoption, engineering, data management and supporting services. The company said its research division DeepMind, which is working on science and healthcare projects, is also part of the investment.

My question is where will the power come from? All ready they are having problems with EV's. 

Steve I'm not sure of the relevance of this statement or who "they" are. My point (in line with the topic of the thread being the impact of tariffs) was simply that you guys are sucking up the impact of tariffs on the premis of "short term pain for long term gain" but that the example I quoted of a US firm investing outside of the US does suggest that the master plan is flawed !!

Wookie58 wrote:

The plan to bring jobs to the US  is obviously working 

Google projects that its $7 billion  UK investment  will create 8,250 jobs a year across businesses. These jobs will come through the need for AI adoption, engineering, data management and supporting services. The company said its research division DeepMind, which is working on science and healthcare projects, is also part of the investment.

 

I wonder how many jobs will be removed with the implementation of the AI that they are creating with this investment? I would guess this is a net loss.

I see the effects of tariffs at my job every day. I received an invoice from one of our prototyping partners in China and there was a line on the invoice for tariffs. This is cost passed directly to our customer. There would have to be 400% tariffs for the cost  to be on par with same service in the USA - Unless that happens none of this work is being repatrioted. 

DoctoRot wrote:

Wookie58 wrote:

The plan to bring jobs to the US  is obviously working 

Google projects that its $7 billion  UK investment  will create 8,250 jobs a year across businesses. These jobs will come through the need for AI adoption, engineering, data management and supporting services. The company said its research division DeepMind, which is working on science and healthcare projects, is also part of the investment.

 

I wonder how many jobs will be removed with the implementation of the AI that they are creating with this investment? I would guess this is a net loss. 

No doubt (as AI will impact the whole world) my point was simply tariffs didn't incentivise Google to build this facility in the US

SWest wrote:

wrote:

Both black and red imported fire ants have been in the US for nearly and over 100 years respectively, long before NAFTA. Africanized bees expanded into the US from Mexico. Not sure which fish you are talking about but I suspect the same is true there. Certainly trade does bring the risk of invasive species though, such as emerald ash borer which most definitely was imported.

But you are right that its hard to talk about tariffs without politics, because doing so requires not talking about some of their consequences, and some of the other policies that are intended as complementary to tariffs. And that's a can of worms we don't want to open here.

But its not impossible, as long as we limited it to how this affects us as owners of old imported bikes that often need imported parts. But we should remember that doing so is turning a deliberate blind eye to parts of the equation, and in so doing we can't really discuss whether these tariffs are "good" or "bad" without all parts of the picture.

I beg to differ, The Africanized honey bees came from South America in the 30 's I think in Brazil where they were breeding them to make a better bee for pollination efforts. What they didn't take into account for is their behavior. They have taken over most of the lower 48 states and are pushing out the native species causing them to die out. Where I'm getting this is from "The Killer Bee Nation" where they have videos of their exterminations not relocation protocols. Those states stopped testing the bees for they all tested as the killer species and are causing the native species to die out. We have that problem here now. As for the Fire Ants I've never seen them  here 30 years ago. Now they're everywhere. I agree we have to look at all sides to get a clear picture of the situation. 

 

 In 1956, some colonies of African Honey Bees were imported into Brazil, with the idea of cross-breeding them with local populations of Honey Bees to increase honey production. In 1957, twenty-six African queens, along with swarms of European worker bees, escaped from an experimental apiary about l00 miles south of Sao Paulo. These African bee escapees have since formed hybrid populations with European Honey Bees, both feral and from commercial hives. They have gradually spread northward through South America, Central America, and eastern Mexico, progressing some 100 to 200 miles per year. In 1990, Killer Bees reached southern Texas, appeared in Arizona in 1993, and found their way to California in 1995. They are expected to form colonies in parts of the southern United States.   www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/killbee

They have definitely not taken over most of the 48 states and they were not imported to the US, they expanded after being imported to Brazil. They are also extremely difficult if not impossible to tell apart from European honey bees by visual appearance alone.
 

SWest wrote:

wrote:

Both black and red imported fire ants have been in the US for nearly and over 100 years respectively, long before NAFTA. Africanized bees expanded into the US from Mexico. Not sure which fish you are talking about but I suspect the same is true there. Certainly trade does bring the risk of invasive species though, such as emerald ash borer which most definitely was imported.

But you are right that its hard to talk about tariffs without politics, because doing so requires not talking about some of their consequences, and some of the other policies that are intended as complementary to tariffs. And that's a can of worms we don't want to open here.

But its not impossible, as long as we limited it to how this affects us as owners of old imported bikes that often need imported parts. But we should remember that doing so is turning a deliberate blind eye to parts of the equation, and in so doing we can't really discuss whether these tariffs are "good" or "bad" without all parts of the picture.

I beg to differ, The Africanized honey bees came from South America in the 30 's I think in Brazil where they were breeding them to make a better bee for pollination efforts. What they didn't take into account for is their behavior. They have taken over most of the lower 48 states and are pushing out the native species causing them to die out. Where I'm getting this is from "The Killer Bee Nation" where they have videos of their exterminations not relocation protocols. Those states stopped testing the bees for they all tested as the killer species and are causing the native species to die out. We have that problem here now. As for the Fire Ants I've never seen them  here 30 years ago. Now they're everywhere. I agree we have to look at all sides to get a clear picture of the situation. 

The reason honey bees are dying has nothing to do with Africanized bees.  And what does Africanized bees have to do with tariff's?  Imported goods infested with bees?  And if so, were the imported goods brought in without any tariff being paid?  

www.planetbee.org/resources/why-bees-are-dying

When I said we could broaden the scope of this thread I was referring to natural resources verses manufactured goods. A couple of the posts above are over the line and what do honey bees and fish in the great lakes have to do with tariffs?
PLEASE leave the politics alone.
Bill/KZQ

KZQ wrote:

When I said we could broaden the scope of this thread I was referring to natural resources verses manufactured goods. A couple of the posts above are over the line and what do honey bees and fish in the great lakes have to do with tariffs?
PLEASE leave the politics alone.
Bill/KZQ

Well for starters, manufacturing can move pretty much anywhere and often does.  Resources generally cannot be moved.  If a country doesn't have potash they cannot mine it.  They need to import it.  So what point is there to a tariff?  It's not protecting a national interest nor a national industry.

Something that's been totally overlooked in the tariff war is services.  Tariffs are imposed on goods but nations also trade services.  

hardrockminer post=917313 userid=49877
Well for starters, manufacturing can move pretty much anywhere and often does.  Resources generally cannot be moved.  If a country doesn't have potash they cannot mine it.  They need to import it.  So what point is there to a tariff?  It's not protecting a national interest nor a national industry.

Something that's been totally overlooked in the tariff war is services.  Tariffs are imposed on goods but nations also trade services.  

Hi HRM,
If a country has no potash but needs it they wouldn't put a tariff on it.
However consider this: country A has a lot of easily mined potash. Country B also has potash however their potash is difficult to mine and must be transported a long distance to get to a shipping port. Country A sells a lot of potash, some even to country B. Country B wishes to support it's potash business partly just to assure the potash is available should country A decide to no longer sell potash to them. In order to make their potash more competitive, country B places a tariff on potash from country A. 

Regards
Bill

KZQ wrote:

hardrockminer post=917313 userid=49877
Well for starters, manufacturing can move pretty much anywhere and often does.  Resources generally cannot be moved.  If a country doesn't have potash they cannot mine it.  They need to import it.  So what point is there to a tariff?  It's not protecting a national interest nor a national industry.

Something that's been totally overlooked in the tariff war is services.  Tariffs are imposed on goods but nations also trade services.  

Hi HRM,
If a country has no potash but needs it they wouldn't put a tariff on it.
However consider this: country A has a lot of easily mined potash. Country B also has potash however their potash is difficult to mine and must be transported a long distance to get to a shipping port. Country A sells a lot of potash, some even to country B. Country B wishes to support it's potash business partly just to assure the potash is available should country A decide to no longer sell potash to them. In order to make their potash more competitive, country B places a tariff on potash from country A. 

Regards
Bill

I think there is one key difference when talking about resources and services, these are generally traded by nations not individuals. The tariffs we are talking about here are being levied on privately owned manufacturers (generally speaking unless the manufacturer is nationalised or state owned) and being paid by private individuals. In a free world governments cannot dictate to their people which cars to buy or what food to eat. Also with regards to Bill's point (which is a valid one) most of the parts etc that you guys import (like Clays Norton parts) aren't available in the US but are still subject to blanket tariffs

Most resources are sold at a worldwide price set by supply and demand.  Country A placed a 10% tariff on potash and the farmers in that country are upset.  They need potash to grow corn and will have to pass that tariff on to customers.  This applies to all natural resources.  Ultimately it is the consumer that will pay most tariffs...not the producer.  That means the cost of living will rise.

Again, I get the concern about lost manufacturing.  It goes to where the inputs are lowest cost and labour is the biggest portion of cost so it goes to low wage countries.  That's an issue that has vexed me for decades.   If there are no tariffs then IPhones won't be made in countries where wages are high.  

I also get the argument about national security.  A country's security depends on being able to produce enough of any item to satisfy its security needs.  But that doesn't necessarily require 100% independence, particularly in a country where by far and away the largest portion of GDP is public consumption.

Wookie, I think if you check you will find that almost ALL resources are traded by independent companies.  All metals that I am aware of, like copper, zinc, lead, etc are mined, processed and marketed by publicly listed companies.  Similarly for oil, natural gas, LNG and minerals like lime, potash coal, etc.  Even uranium is traded that way, although governments are closely involved in that one.  But you are right there is a difference between manufactured items and natural resources.  Most countries lack at least one natural resource or adequate amounts of it, thus having to import some or all of it to meet their needs.  An example would be Japan and natural gas.

The issue of tariffs on manufacturing arises when one country decides to provide the rest of the world with all of their needs.  This is what brings national security into play.

As I mentioned earlier I've thought about this issue for decades, ever since the Japanese auto companies began to flood Canada with their cheap autos back in the 1970's.  Same thing happened with our free trade agreement with Mexico.  Their auto manufacturing industry has risen over the last 20 or so years due to the FTA.  We in turn benefitted with cheaper vehicles etc. and inflation remained low for decades thanks to free trade.  Overall I believe people are better off because of free trade.  I think of where we are today compared to where we were back in 1970.  People are living longer and better.  Free trade was part of the reason for that.