Live data from Hacker News

Port of Los Angeles says shipping volume will plummet 35% next week

cnbc.com

231–240 of 672 posts

Re: Port of Los Angeles says shipping volume will plummet 35% next week

#231
post #7

This could get really ugly when the shelves start going empty. This may make the toilet paper incident seem quaint in comparison.

I would imagine the reaction from the white house will be to attack businesses for failing to order product for political reasons, traitors trying to help China avoid paying Tarrifs.

And I imagine this strategy will be more effective than one would first think, since it's nuts. I imagine it will change business behavior, maybe even to the point that business act against their own economic interests, the question is how much? The crazy thing is that will the Trump effect last long enough to negatively impact the next president or the Democratic congress assuming they win in 2026? The presidents numbers wouldn't suggest that it could go that long, but the world is upside down right now.

Re: Port of Los Angeles says shipping volume will plummet 35% next week

#232
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone here is worried about it from the American side, but China has motivation to settle this too, so they can continue to sell their enshitified plastic crap. It's not like most other wealthy countries want it, at least not any more than they are already buying.

China is holding pretty much all the cards here. First, it has a command economy. It's much more equipped to handle this in keeping factories afloat and people employed and housed. Second, the US is ~15% of China's exports and a lot of those exports will continue even with tariffs. Some by diversified supply chains (eg "laundering" Chinese made goods through Vietnam) or the Chinese goods are so low cost that the tari…

China is selling goods to the US because it's good for China. China not selling goods to the US is, therefore, bad for China. China doesn't care about how it affects the US but it does effect them negatively. They are "holding all the cards" except the one that says "The US must buy things from China" which is the one they care about.

> Second, the US is ~15% of China's exports and a lot of those exports will continue even with tariffs. Some by diversified supply chains (eg "laundering" Chinese made goods through Vietnam)

Sure. 15% of their economy either just disappears, gets dramatically more expensive (laundering goods cost money too) or they have to reduce the prices so they can sell their extra 15% of goods to the people that are already buying them.

Keep in mind that China is also only around 15% of US imports too so if 15% is negligible, it's negligible for the US too.

> or the Chinese goods are so low cost that the tariffs will be paid (eg a milk carton represents a small percentage of the cost of a carton of milk).

The tariffs are a percent. Just because the cost of a single item is low doesn't mean the cost of the tariffs paid by the company is going to be low. Low cost goods are profitable because they sell in bulk. It's going to hit their bottom line in the same way it hits everyone else. You've obviously not given much thought into that point.

> Third, the US will feel the inflationary effects. China will not.

China isn't immune to 15% of their economy disappearing. Selling of an extra 15% of the goods in your warehouse at discounted rates while you scale down your factory production 15% is bad.

> Fourth, if China needs to raise funds they can and will sell US treasuries, spiking yields, hitting the ability of the US to issue further debt as well as borrowing costs for homeowners and businesses.

That's a good way to permanently remove 15% of their economy.

> Lastly, the rest of the world is on China's side. This whole tariff fiasco may be the largest self-own in American history. Additionally, it's undoing generations of American soft power globally.

That's not relevant at all. What's relevant is who the American people are on the side of. I'm not saying Trump has unanimous support or anything but he doesn't care at all what Switzerland thinks of tariffs on the Chinese.

Your #4 doomsday scenario is bad for the EU given the role that the US plays in their defense and as trade partners. WTO countries will be urging both sides to come to an agreement.

Re: Port of Los Angeles says shipping volume will plummet 35% next week

#233

I'm moving internationally (from China to EU) and the quote is 2.5-3x higher than 3 months ago. Sea freight seems to be inspected at a much higher rate, and they don't recommend it, and air freight is more expensive because of much lower volume overall. Not a good time to ship your stuff. And that's when you think "I'm far away from the US and the madness does not concern me"...

If the quote is higher, doesn't that mean the demand is higher and less empty containers are available? The EU does not have an extreme tariff on most products from china, only some. I guess I'm missing something here.

Re: Port of Los Angeles says shipping volume will plummet 35% next week

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be similar to weather forecasts where the further out the forecast goes the more it relies on seasonal averages?

I think two weeks is pretty much the low end of transit time for a container from China to US, so I wouldn't expect needing much modeling within that window.

Ships can be rerouted while in transit. I bet it is extremely unusual for a container ship, but we do live in interesting times.

Re: Port of Los Angeles says shipping volume will plummet 35% next week

#235
post #2

It will be interesting to see if retailers choose raising prices or if they lean more towards ... just not offering some things.

Prices never really came down after the COVID shortages, I really don't expect this round of shortage to be any different. Companies have a convenient excuse to jack up prices with the comforting lie that they'll go back down when shortages are over.

Re: Port of Los Angeles says shipping volume will plummet 35% next week

#236
post #22

[flagged]

Running government like a business... Theranos.

Or Trump University or Trump Taj Mahal or Trump Castle Hotel & Casino or Trump Plaza Casino or Trump Plaza Hotel or…

(How do you even possibly bankrupt a casino, much less multiple casinos a decade? Is it money laundering or is it being so terrible at running a business that you can't even run a business with the House Advantage of a casino?)

Re: Port of Los Angeles says shipping volume will plummet 35% next week

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Empty shelves are just one of the symptoms. The real pain will come from companies having to deal with increased taxes (that's what tariffs are) for Chinese components, decreased exports (counter tariffs, anti US sentiments), etc. and then their follow up to that would be using tools like layoffs, price increases, etc. Some of those companies might have to close doors and go bankrupt. If that happens a lot you get th…

> There are of course quite a few large US businesses being affected directly by this stuff. I imagine that they are not happy with this. And that level of unhappiness will translate into shifts in political donations. Which, I'm sure is something that will get more apparent as next year's mid term elections get closer. That's a stick that can be (and probably already is) wielded that might produce results soonish. I…

>all initial evidence is the oligarchs kissing the ring, not pulling the strings.

It was comical how quickly amazon back pedaled on showing tariffs transparently in pricing as soon as the whitehouse complained.

Re: Port of Los Angeles says shipping volume will plummet 35% next week

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No, we have to back off tariffs because they are a terrible idea.

Tariffs are just a policy tool we can use. Every major economic power uses them to some extent, including the European Union.

Trump’s tariffs I think are bad because he is “going after everyone” versus Biden’s approach which was to build a coalition of friendly nations and revamp supply chains to reduce dependency on China who is adamant about being a foe to the United States, European Union, and others. Tariffs are not a bad tool to leverage here against China, but the way this administration is going about it seems like a less prudent approach.

To the OP’s point - I completely agree. If Americans can’t go a day without a flood of cheap, disposable junk (yes this is different than your iPhone or other advanced electronics), our civilization is going to face serious challenges on the global stage and further reductions in quality of life and access to resources.

What so many seem to forget is that there actually isn’t enough to go around. And we have to enact policies and utilize military force to protect our nation(s). Ideally we can do this in a peaceful way that brings everyone up as much as possible but this is only going to occur so long as the great nations of the world see eye to eye on that. We can and should enlarge the pie. But it requires everyone agreeing to doing so. That consensus is failing.

Many seem to think “China will just sell their stuff to the EU and the EU will get cheaper prices!” But that just places the EU in the same intolerable position the United States is finding itself. You must manufacture goods and provide services. You must have industries capable of creating products at all levels. Allowing too much of that manufacturing power to reside in one country, and one that does not like your liberal values, is beyond foolish.

The fact that Americans can’t go a day without TikTok or cheap Temu junk, or stomach paying more for your iPhone and keeping it a little longer should be viewed as seriously and deathly concerning. And going without such things or paying more for them isn’t even in the conversation of national sacrifice or “hard times”.

To add, it seems to me that “we don’t have the ability to build that here” when it comes to something like an iPhone is a serious problem. We have hollowed out our manufacturing capacity.

Re: Port of Los Angeles says shipping volume will plummet 35% next week

#239
post #160
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do the farmers that grow your food get their fertilizer and fuel from? Or the electronics and hydraulics in their tractors?

That's exactly my point. In other words, the threat model people should be worrying about isn't "bare shelves due to no goods from China to stock them" but rather "bare shelves because the entities who make the goods to stock them are missing critical components". And that's much harder for someone to predict what impact it'll have. I imagine that my daily life is very skewed away from direct impact from a Chinese em…

Daily life is very skewed away from understanding how everything works. Supply chains, power grids, the Internet, large-scale farming - these are all complete mysteries to most people. They see the results but they have no idea how the sausage is made. (Or shipped.)

It's one reason why this is happening at all. People not only don't know what makes a lightbulb turn on, they can't imagine the complexity of a power grid and how it's stabilised.

They don't have the first idea how a phone works, or how much science, engineering, and fundamental research went into making it work.

When they don't know any of this, they can't imagine any of it having a serious problem.

Re: Port of Los Angeles says shipping volume will plummet 35% next week

#240
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're largely making the point I was raising. For your specific example though, I'm not so sure. As a counterexample, I buy my eggs direct from a local farm, not in a store. Neither the ease of availability nor the price of the eggs I buy have changed one iota over the last several months. And yet I see local friends posting pictures of empty egg shelves here and there on Facebook. My takeaway has been that the aver…

> My takeaway has been that the average person has no idea they can buy goods outside of a grocery store. I’m sorry, but most people live in cities or towns with their only reasonable access to food being via stores. It is one of the wonderful things that civilization has produced and I’m here for it.

I live in a city. Yet what I said is true.
Post reply on HN