The Tariff Cost: analysis of the costs to Americans from new tariffs on Canada • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by gruez » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 1:00 AM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #85

sobellian wrote: post #49

Imagine you want to build a factory in the US. You pay tariffs on the factory equipment you need - much of it is made overseas. You pay tariffs on your input goods. And then when you try to export your customers get hit with a retaliatory tariff. I don't agree with tariffs but even if we accept some level of protectionism you can't tariff everything the way this administration wants. You have to pick what you actuall…

Protectionism and tariffs simply don't work in the global world. Capitalism will keep producing things where they make sense not where politicians want. Exceptions make sense only to protect industries that are absolutely vital and critical for security. Ship building should be one of those for countries like US or UK. Or when you want to kickstart an industry and need to protect it for a limited amount of time (Kore…

>Ship building should be one of those for countries like US or UK.

Yet, protectionism for that, as practiced in the US (ie. jones act), was a massive failure. There might still theoretically a domestic shipbuilding sector, but it's bloated, inefficient, and as a result is totally not up to the task of standing up to China, which does have a competent shipbuilding sector.

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

#182

Post by gruez » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 1:02 AM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #50

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…

First, I agree with your complaint about that wording. Aside from that, the "obvious" dairy tariffs you speak of are almost entirely theoretical. Those are anti-dumping tariffs that kick-in only when a certain threshold has been met. It never has. That's not to say there aren't trade barriers. The US side argues that there are market barriers that make reaching those quotas impossible [0]. It's a fair point and worth…

>Aside from that, the "obvious" dairy tariffs you speak of are almost entirely theoretical. Those are anti-dumping tariffs that kick-in only when a certain threshold has been met. It never has.

What about others' contention that the reason why the quota hasn't been hit is that it's a pain to make use of?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49455381

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

#183

Post by marcus_holmes » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 1:04 AM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #140

dinfinity wrote: post #133

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 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 Europ…

> don’t forget, the US alongside anglosphere allies liberated Western Europe at the same time Japan was being fought

Let's not forget the Soviet Union, who did most of the actual heavy lifting of liberating Western Europe. If D-Day had never happened, the Soviets would have rolled right through Germany and then occupied France and the low countries. The Nazis would still have lost, but all of continental Europe would have been behind the iron curtain for the Cold War.

The anglosphere allies didn't defeat Germany so much as stop the Soviets from occupying Western Europe.

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

#184

Post by gruez » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 1:07 AM UTC

QuantumNoodle wrote: post #147

I have anecdotal experience that makes the ~$1,600 per house hold feel like an underestimate. We purchased a Subaru Outback right around the first round of tarrifs. We were in the market for the base trim, no bells & whistles. We ended up getting the highest trim bc all the remaining base trims were post-tarrifs and and cost $3.5k more than the pre-tarrif higher trim that was already in the lot. Mind you the Subaru o…

>We purchased a Subaru Outback right around the first round of tarrifs. We were in the market for the base trim, no bells & whistles. We ended up getting the highest trim bc all the remaining base trims were post-tarrifs and and cost $3.5k more than the pre-tarrif higher trim that was already in the lot.

The average car on the road is ~15 years old. The actual lifetime is likely higher. Therefore for proper tariff accounting, your subaru's contribution to this year's tariffs should be 3500/15 = $233, not $3.5k. Not to mention much of the items people buy are either:

1. domestically produced (this includes housing, the biggest cost for most people)

2. tariff exempt (think oil)

3. produced abroad, but have fat markups

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

#185

Post by gruez » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 1:09 AM UTC

afavour wrote: post #16

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude built the site, it's obvious from the style. Which is to say that anybody with a $200 subscription and access to Namecheap and Netlify could have built the site in one hour flat. There's no longer any need for an NGO, media nonprofit, or lobbying group to build such things; the effort required has been reduced to near-zero, so anybody can do it.

> There's no longer any need for an NGO, media nonprofit, or lobbying group to build such things; the effort required has been reduced to near-zero Right but actually creating the thing is only half the story. You need to fact check it (especially with LLMs) promote it, approach journalists to bring it to their attention, etc etc etc. In many ways making a web site has always been the easy part.

>promote it, approach journalists to bring it to their attention, etc etc etc.

Well it's not very hard these days with social media. All you need to do is post on HN with a compelling enough headline and people will upvote it even if it's AI slop.

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

#186

Post by mthoms » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 1:09 AM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #91

mthoms wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how confidently some people speak about a topic they know nothing about. >Let's set the framing correctly because I think we're starting off on the wrong foot. The US is not in a desperate need of any product from Canada. Nice to have and super important? Yea. Desperate? No. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Literally yesterday: “This country desperately needs aluminum,” Trump said. “Selfishly, we n…

Well there's layers right. If you're going to claim that we're very desperate for such things we would of course have to act as a country of desperation and secure aluminum, oil, and critical minerals perhaps at all costs. I wonder what that would look like? If we don't take desperate measures, maybe we aren't desperate yea? But just as we don't have to take Trump at his word when he says something we disagree with,…

"If I choose to adopt the most extreme definition of the word 'desperate', then I'm technically correct, and I don't have to support my assertions, or argue with facts!"

You know very well that the intended meaning of the word "desperate" in the comment you replied to isn't what you're now desperately pretending to be confused about. Stop it.

From the HN community guidelines:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

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

#187

Post by conorcleary » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 1:09 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #179

Throaway826 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason the Dairy Supply quota is in place is to stop US dairy producers from dumping dairy into Canada. That's why the USA has never reached the tarriff limit. The big producers there would just dump 20 million litres at once if they could. They aren't interested in 1 or two. And if they were able to do that, the Canadian producers would go under. So its kinda simple, the Dairy Supply system is there to prot…

>So its kinda simple, the Dairy Supply system is there to protect the Canadian Dairy industry. If it was removed, we would be flooded with cheap, low-quality US milk. Flooded? Cheap? Yes. Low quality? Doubtful. If quality were the sticking point, you'd expect this would be amicably resolved with equal standards for both domestic and imported milk.

Ok, if not blanket-ststement lower quality, it's definitely less regulated than CDN dairy.

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

#188

Post by mthoms » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 1:10 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #182

mthoms wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I agree with your complaint about that wording. Aside from that, the "obvious" dairy tariffs you speak of are almost entirely theoretical. Those are anti-dumping tariffs that kick-in only when a certain threshold has been met. It never has. That's not to say there aren't trade barriers. The US side argues that there are market barriers that make reaching those quotas impossible [0]. It's a fair point and worth…

>Aside from that, the "obvious" dairy tariffs you speak of are almost entirely theoretical. Those are anti-dumping tariffs that kick-in only when a certain threshold has been met. It never has. What about others' contention that the reason why the quota hasn't been hit is that it's a pain to make use of? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49455381

Huh? That's exactly what I described and linked to.

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

#189

Post by asvitkine » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 1:10 AM UTC

realo wrote: post #136

ericmay wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you never have Philadelphia cream cheese? Just wondering.

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

#190

Post by gruez » Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 1:11 AM UTC

abeppu wrote: post #35

afavour wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imagine the level of stupid that's going down if the Dems do not also get get the Senate The Senate, literally by design, does not represent the will of the people. Add things like gerrymandering on top and the uphill climb required of Democrats to capture the Senate keeps getting higher and higher.

Wait, wait, gerrymandering messes with the House, but how does gerrymandering impact control of the Senate? Don't senators need to be elected by their whole state?

I think he's just using "gerrymandering" (incorrectly) to vaguely refer to anything that's anti-democratic, such as a chamber that isn't proportionally elected.