Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 672 posts

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

#501

Post by Zamaamiro »

xyst wrote: post #30

What’s the data on exports as well? Some stories of farmers taking massive hits with demand that was only fulfilled by global market.

It's also worth noting that some of the damage will be permanent.

Trump's mini trade war with China in 2018 (for which he had to bail out farmers) led to US farmers permanently losing market share in soybean exports to Brazil.

> In 2018, during Trump's first term, the U.S. and China engaged in tit-for-tat tariffs that led Beijing to take permanent steps to reduce its reliance on American farm goods.

> The share of China's soybean imports from the United States dropped to 18% in the first 11 months of 2024, from 40% in the whole of 2016, while Brazil's share grew to 74% from 46%, according to Chinese customs data.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinese-buyers-s...

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

#502

Post by Wojtkie »

atoav wrote: post #490
jimt1234 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This site is obviously a "hostile and political act" by the Port of LA.

Turns out reality itself is a hostile and political concept if your political leadership is incompetent enough.

That's why there's such a strong push towards "alternative facts"

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

#503

Post by kolanos »

rvba wrote: post #489
kolanos wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good thing the United States doesn't depend on China for toilet paper, then. > The United States primarily sources its toilet paper domestically, with about 90% being manufactured within the country.However, a significant portion of imports come from Canada and Mexico. In fact, the United States does not depend on China for any essential consumer goods from what I can find.

What is the source of wood for that paper? Canada?

> The top 10 softwood lumber producers in the US have a combined capacity of 24.1 billion board feet, representing 50% of the US industry, according to Forisk.

> The U.S. imports a significant portion of its softwood lumber from Canada, with roughly 30% of its softwood lumber needs being met by Canadian exports.Specifically, in 2023, Canada exported 28.1 million cubic meters of softwood lumber to the U.S. This accounts for a large percentage of the total softwood lumber imported by the U.S., with Canada being the primary supplier.

> The United States can potentially supply up to 95% of its own softwood lumber consumption through domestic production.While the U.S. is a net importer of lumber, its domestic industry has the capacity to meet most of its needs.

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

#504

Post by sanderjd »

djha-skin wrote: post #469
Zamaamiro wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an unpopular opinion because it's wrong. No single aspect of the economy exists in a vacuum. Tariffs and lower shipping volumes portend thousands of small businesses potentially going under, translating to many more thousands of people losing their jobs and incomes. This has many unforeseen knock-on effects in declining economic activity.

Are we really subscribing to Reaganistic trickle-down economic theory now? How sure are we that those imports aren't mostly just lining the pockets of the rich? We're measuring the wrong things. We need to measure cost of living instead of how empty or full a Port is. We don't know if these two things are correlated yet.

No, that's all just normal "this is how an economy works" stuff. It has nothing to do with Reagan or what people refer to as "trickle down economics".

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

#505

Post by rchaud »

dmitrygr wrote: post #496
ryandrake wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worst case all this triggers a recession. Recession is probably the best case scenario. If only we get through this with just a recession! The world's economic inter-dependence is one of the things that have kept World War 3 at bay for decades. Nobody's going to start a hot war with their neighbor when they rely on each other through trading. Russia shows what happens when you economically isolate a country with sa…

> The world's economic inter-dependence is one of the things that have kept World War 3 at bay for decades. Common misconception that trade prevents war and war prevents trade. Turns out that it is wrong: https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501782466/trad...

There's a difference between preventing war and preventing a wider world war. Trade links persisting even when countries are opposed to each other contributes to a certain level of global order between the biggest powers.

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

#506

Post by bruce511 »

silisili wrote: post #410
trhway wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The retailers need to start showing tariff charge as separate line. People have the right to to see what they voted for. Yesterday Trump frantically called Bezos when Bezos threatened to do it, and Bezos seems to have backed up (probably got some concession for that). Edit: it is also can be treated as a consumer right to know, by analogy with food labeling), what are the major components of the price they are paying…

Retailers and middlemen typically don't like exposing how much -they- paid for an item. Exposing tariffs would show how much things are marked up from time of landing to reaching the shelves.

That's not really how markup works.

Let's say 1 pay x for a product. Gross markup is say 100%. Do I sell it for 2x. Let's say there's a tariff cost of y. That means the cost price is x + y. I mark that up to 2x + 2y. It's easy to up the price by 2y and disclose the tariff as "z%".

But this of course presumes all your expenses remain flat. And they likely don't. As your expenses go up (2nd order effects) that 100% markup starts to not be enough. So the markup goes up a bit.

Plus since things are going up anyway, and since there's uncertainty (which has a cost) we need to bump the price up even more (because hey, free market.)

And when the tariffs go away, we can remove the primary cost, but all the secondary hikes remain. Because that's all just extra profit, and, like, free market right?

This round of inflation is going to make covid look mild. (And as I point out to my Republican friends, just remember, you voted for this.)

The way out of this is to devalue the dollar. That would erode the real value of the outstanding debt (which is delimited in dollars.) Alas the US has worked very hard to make the dollar the world currency, so devaluing it is complex.

The US consumer (voter) is of course the big loser. At least this generation is. Folk born around 2030 may be the big winners.

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

#507

Post by danielmarkbruce »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #162
taylodl wrote: post #7

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

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…

Plus China as a country seems more capable of "toughing it out". That's not necessarily a compliment on the situation, but it is what it is.

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

#508

Post by bongodongobob »

oceanplexian wrote: post #290
duxup wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if he wants to work in a shoe factory?

The US already makes highly advanced goods like cars using robotic manufacturing. Wouldn't an entrepreneur be able to figure out how to make something as simple as a shoe factory? And wouldn't that also result in fairly high paying union jobs, such as the people to maintain the machines and software?

Why would an entrepreneur even think about building a factory when building materials might potentially skyrocket? Anyone who is considering something like this is just going to wait until Trump isn't in office so things can stabilize. If you said, right now, I'm gonna build a factory, it probably wouldn't start producing anything until 2028 at best.

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

#509

Post by bluGill »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #378
bluGill wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only trend is the amount of labor in manufacturing. the US produces just as much or more than any other year. However we do it on far less labor.

Not sure how this comforts anyone. We need labor, there aren't enough spa management and pet groomer positions to build an economy upon. What good does it do for anyone that we manufacture more, if there aren't enough good-paying jobs to go around to support a broad consumer base for those same products you say are being manufactured without (much) labor? Why would any foreign nation even want to manufacture goods to…

We need jobs for everyone for various reasons. However we do not need factory jobs for everyone. The manufacture more with less people means those other people can move on to other jobs. They can start another factory to make goods.

There are plenty of jobs. Every person who isn't manufacturing is a person who can do something else. A modern car uses a lot more engineers. While we don't need many spa mangers, it is nice that spas exist and so some of those spa managers are needed.

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

#510

Post by bongodongobob »

ajmurmann wrote: post #83
bjourne wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not wrong. It is technically possible. However, transforming the US into a command economy may not be the best thing to do.

We can build a factory in a month, including permitting, acquiring the land, planning the building and constucting it, as well as procuring or building the machinery and setting it up in the factory, programming it and hiring and training the workforce during high employment? That's very impressive!

No we can't. I work for a national construction company that works on large projects like that. From plans to production, you're looking at 2-3 years.
Post reply on HN