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

The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

thetariffcost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 252 posts

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#131

Post by drop_star »

tensor wrote: post #120
ericmay wrote: post #6

> And Canada is taxing you back This seems illogical. You can't simultaneously claim that the US is paying higher prices for Canadian goods because of US-imposed tariffs and then turn around and say only that Americans are paying a tax on buying Canadian goods on Canadian-imposed tariffs. Both countries are either paying higher prices or paying higher taxes. Canada's tariffs must also be viewed as America is taxing C…

Agreed that "Canada is taxing you back" doesn't make sense. But "America is taxing Canada" makes even less sense. Sorry, just no. America is taxing Americans, Canada is taxing Canadians, these taxes harm exports and imports. Also, we've never had fully free trade. You can whine about dairy, we can whine about unfair lumber tariffs. These are all part of CUMSA, an agreement that has been illegally violated every damn…

The administration faces steep legal headwinds. Having already lost at the Supreme Court over the misuse of the IEEPA, the courts are likely to view Section 338 with significant skepticism.

The statutory requirements of Section 338—specifically requiring a formal finding of discriminatory disadvantage against U.S. goods (hard to prove under CUSMA’s preferential framework) and strictly "offsetting" remedies—make the sweeping 50% broad-based tariffs legally vulnerable.

Likely Outcome in Court: A federal court will likely grant an injunction temporarily staying the tariffs pending a full review, or strike them down entirely as exceeding executive statutory authority under Article I of the Constitution.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#132

Post by ericmay »

bdangubic wrote: post #107
ericmay wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The news isn't threatening allies, offending/mocking them, charging tariffs, subverting the very institutions that have been built together. A human in charge is. No but they're getting you to click on every article where Trump is SLAMMED and Marcon is TOASTED and Canada RETALIATES or whatever. > As long as the system allows for complete 180 degree turns every 4 years making any arrangement bears little value. That…

> To be clear we operate a representative and stable democracy in the United States. We most certainly do not, the system is just nicely setup to make us believe that this is the case. In 2020 for instance, we were given an amazing choice to choose between a senile grandpa and the most vile and corrupt human being ever to walk the earth. all us elections boil down to this, the establishment decides who their 'best on…

Well, in that case I’d say our version of Democracy is just the better one and European democracies are just one step away from Russia/China and are very unstable and unrepresented in comparison to the US because of the EU.

We have only 720 members of the EU parliament representing over 600 million people. In the US we have more people representing fewer people, ergo we are more representative.

How is the president of the EU chosen? Is it a direct election across all citizens of the EU?

Don’t mistake gigantic bureaucracies for representative democracy.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#133

Post by dinfinity »

ericmay wrote: post #81
epolanski wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And don't forget the Greenland threats, those for us Europeans, and in European foreign affairs are a line of non return. Other administrations will not be able to repair the damage, because what was exposed really is that the US system allows for each administration to destroy and 180 whatever the previous one did.

They can be repaired - but if you think they can't be, then the US should act accordingly which would mean yea go ahead and take over Greenland, withdraw forces from Europe, &c. because as you say they can't be fixed so we might as well do whatever we think we want or need to do - that's the chain of reasoning that this theory of unrepairable relations sends us down. But we've had challenges and issues before. The US…

> They can be repaired - but if you think they can't be, then the US should act accordingly which would mean yea go ahead and take over Greenland, withdraw forces from Europe, &c. because as you say they can't be fixed so we might as well do whatever we think we want or need to do

That is a very black and white view of the world. There is actually a very large area between acting as a close ally and acting as an imperialistic adversary.

GP is saying that the close ally bit is out the door. I think we can become close allies again if the situation requires it, but definitely won't if it does not. The USA has proven to be highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable.

> 2 World Wars caused by Europe, and more and all was forgiven, if not forgotten.

With all due respect, but claiming USA victimhood in the World Wars at the hands of "Europe" is a pretty fucked up and incorrect way of framing this bit of history. Pearl Harbor wasn't exactly the doing of the Belgians.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#134

Post by ericmay »

tensor wrote: post #124
ericmay wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea but we can find other sources or just do with less if we had to just like any other country can. Remember when Russia invaded Ukraine? Did Europe figure out a way to do without Russian products? I'm not sure why folks seem to think the US can't also figure things out if it so choses.

"I'll just get it from somewhere else" means you do need it. This isn't complicated logic. You don't have enough yourself. The fact that you hope you could get it from a brutal dictatorship instead of a democratic country doesn't change the fact that you do need things Canada has. And yes, Europe found a way off Russian gas. But they had to ration energy, hallways went cold, lighting was restricted. It was not fun. Y…

> "I'll just get it from somewhere else" means you do need it. This isn't complicated logic.

Right, it’s not complicated logic, so follow along. I didn’t say that America didn’t need these things. I said we aren’t desperate to get them from Canada. Big difference.

> The fact that you hope you could get it from a brutal dictatorship instead of a democratic country doesn't change the fact that you do need things Canada has.

Ok, and then Canada needs things that the US has, as does the EU. Both Canada and the EU also have to get products and commodities from brutal dictatorships. This is a poor argument - what exactly are you trying to prove here?

> And yes, Europe found a way off Russian gas. But they had to ration energy, hallways went cold, lighting was restricted. It was not fun. You want to ration food and heat? And for what exactly? What do you gain from it? Have fun.

Which proves my point. We aren’t desperate - nothing like that is on the table here. You’re confusing your dislike of Trump and these tariffs for resulting conditions. We can cut off trade tomorrow with Canada and it would certainly not be ideal nor something I support, but we would just get along with life like we always do, even if it’s slightly more inconvenient and/or expensive.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#135

Post by litoE »

usefulcat wrote: post #122
foxyv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea is that tariffs cut both ways. They increase prices for foreign goods as well as reduce demand for imports causing job losses in the exporting country. The original tariffs increase prices and the retaliatory tariffs reduce demand for American products causing job loss.

> They increase prices for foreign goods Not only for foreign goods. If there's a tax on imported X, domestic X producers can now charge more because the foreign producers must raise their prices to pay for the tax. Another way to look at it is that any tariff reduces foreign competition, with all the knock-on effects that implies.

It's not the foreign producer who must raise her prices to pay for the tax. It's the local importer. The net effect on the consumer is that the price of imported goods goes up so then, as you say, the local producers can raise their prices and increase their profits.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#136

Post by realo »

ericmay wrote: post #70
cwillu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to talk about canadian dairy tariffs, please note that (a) this was originally negotiated by trump the last time he was in office, and (b) the tariff only applies when the total imports exceed a limit, which iirc has never actually been exceeded.

Someone else shared this article [1] and I was reading a quote I thought was interesting: “[Canada] has a large dairy producing constituency that it wants to protect, so they put a cap on imports that can be accessed at a competitive rate. That's what we call a ‘TRQ’ (tariff rate quota),” says Becky Rasdall Vargas, senior vice president of trade and workforce policy at the International Dairy Foods Association. Under…

I am Canadian. Never, ever would i knowingly buy any dairy products from the USA , at any price.

We have cows too, and farmers.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#137

Post by horsawlarway »

ericmay wrote: post #19
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are reading way too much into that "you" in that sentence. I read it simply as a list and total of all the retaliatory tariffs that Canada is imposing, and the site emphasizes that this is obviously bad for American jobs, not that American consumers pay the tariffs that Canada is imposing. This whole trade war with Canada has to be one of the dumbest fucking things I have ever witnessed, and that's saying…

> I think you are reading way too much into that "you" in that sentence. Sure that's fair, but on the other hand that's what was written and the framing I think is unfair and inconsistent. Of course, others may go along happily reading it and thinking wow we created these tariffs to raise prices and Canada decided to tax us!? That's worth clearing up and being honest about, in my view. Imagine someone writes another…

I think it's a bit more complicated than you're implying here.

Yes - you are technically correct that each country is taxing its own citizens/businesses with tariffs. I also agree that phrasing is more honest than what the article states

But for interconnected supply chains, the result can get pretty muddled.

Ex -

Canada sells wood to a US company. US applies tariff.

That US company sells a component made of that wood back to a Canadian company. Canada applies tariff.

That Canadian company uses that component to produce a good that's sold to US consumers. US applies tariff.

etc...

For the end purchasers of the finished product - the net increase in price (the final "tax" you pay) might be a summation of various tariffs applied by both countries as they interact with each other.

The price increases at the final sale are additive, regardless of which country is capturing the tariff as tax. The real result is that the product is just more expensive to make when tariffs are in place, and so must be sold at a higher price based on the total tax applied to all parts of the product (regardless of where in the chain it was US/Canada/China/Other/Etc actually capturing a tariff).

Ex - you will pay more because of US tariffs, and more again because of Canadian tariffs in response to US tariffs.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#138

Post by ajmurmann »

lenerdenator wrote: post #78
ajmurmann wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every side benefits from a trade. That's why the trade is made. The US is able to afford a trader imbalance because the USD is the world's reserve currency. Other countries are subsidizing our trade imbalance. It's a huge win for the US. Tariffs will not bring back manufacturing. They increase prices of inputs, reduce incentive for competitiveness and invite retaliation. Look how well tariffs have worked for Brazil a…

> The US is able to afford a trader imbalance because the USD is the world's reserve currency. Other countries are subsidizing our trade imbalance. It's a huge win for the US. The geopolitical calculations regarding China and the socioeconomic conditions of working class people in the Midwestern and Northeastern United States would beg to differ. You need to have at least some control of your own manufacturing destin…

I agree on the security aspect. However, tariffs aren't gonna fix that but will make it worse. We need to remove red take and lean into projects like Port Alpha and California Forever. We also need to work with our allies who are already strong on manufacturing instead of alienating them at every step possible.

The job situation is unfortunate but these jobs will not come. China has lost more jobs to automation than the US has to China. If we want people to prosper we need to build housing where the economy is and encourage people to move there.

While we have lost tons of factory jobs, we have created lots of service jobs that require similar skills. There has been a boom around jobs like solar installation, HVAC and similar. They just aren't as visible because it's a little bit everywhere, rather than a company or industry town.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#139

Post by epolanski »

ericmay wrote: post #101
epolanski wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The news isn't threatening allies, offending/mocking them, charging tariffs, subverting the very institutions that have been built together. A human in charge is. In any case, they cannot be repaired without a change in the US political system to a representative and stable (in foreign policy) democracy. As long as the system allows for complete 180 degree turns every 4 years making any arrangement bears little value…

> The news isn't threatening allies, offending/mocking them, charging tariffs, subverting the very institutions that have been built together. A human in charge is. No but they're getting you to click on every article where Trump is SLAMMED and Marcon is TOASTED and Canada RETALIATES or whatever. > As long as the system allows for complete 180 degree turns every 4 years making any arrangement bears little value. That…

> To be clear we operate a representative and stable democracy in the United States.

It's not a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is one where all voters are represented in a branch of government.

The US system is exactly the opposite. It's a winner-takes-all democracy. At all levels. And worse, the executive represents only the half that voted him, the other half don't exist.

There's many other flaws in presidential and semi presidential republics but they are beyond the topic of representative democracies.

And no, the US is clearly not stable on foreign politics.

> You can't throw everything away after decades of helpful, and peaceful cooperation just because of 8 out of 12 years being annoying.

It's a decision that's been made in Washington to revert decades of successful cooperation. We're merely reacting to the new reality.

> That's not true and nobody has ever really treated it as such.

That's a very US-centric way of looking at this. American exceptionalism is cultural, it's not tied to a specific administration.

> I'm not sure the US has really executed 180 degree turns, but even so sometimes it's necessary to make abrupt changes because acting too slowly could be very dangerous.

You don't build international and economic relations with abrupt changes.

Business and diplomatic relations require predictability, stability, trust.

Also, be careful thinking that "acting slowly" is the worst that can happen in a mature democracy.

Giving individuals the capability of acting fast and with little limits might be the most dangerous one. Each presidential republic is merely waiting for the right Erdogan, Trump or Putin to break it.

I'd rather keep our slow and inefficient European democracies where prime ministers have to win the trust of the parliament and their own party every single day with all the bad that comes with it, if the alternatives are what I see around the world.

Re: The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada

#140

Post by ericmay »

dinfinity wrote: post #133
ericmay wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can be repaired - but if you think they can't be, then the US should act accordingly which would mean yea go ahead and take over Greenland, withdraw forces from Europe, &c. because as you say they can't be fixed so we might as well do whatever we think we want or need to do - that's the chain of reasoning that this theory of unrepairable relations sends us down. But we've had challenges and issues before. The US…

> They can be repaired - but if you think they can't be, then the US should act accordingly which would mean yea go ahead and take over Greenland, withdraw forces from Europe, &c. because as you say they can't be fixed so we might as well do whatever we think we want or need to do That is a very black and white view of the world. There is actually a very large area between acting as a close ally and acting as an impe…

> That is a very black and white view of the world.

> The USA has proven to be highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable.

Right, black and white haha. Well if we are highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable why would we do anything besides whatever we decide to do? Can’t trust us, can’t reason with us, and can’t rely on us. In that case, who gives a shit about alliances with Europe?

> With all due respect, but claiming USA victimhood in the World Wars at the hands of "Europe" is a pretty fucked up and incorrect way of framing this bit of history. Pearl Harbor wasn't exactly the doing of the Belgians.

European wars started by Europeans. The Japanese may well have bombed Pearl Harbor anyway (don’t forget, the US alongside anglosphere allies liberated Western Europe at the same time Japan was being fought) but that war takes on a whole different character if simultaneously all the European powers weren’t initiating another round of their petulant and childish wars.

Post reply on HN