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

What if tariffs?

swatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 286 posts

Re: What if tariffs?

#161

Post by charcircuit »

bregma wrote: post #113
charcircuit wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it. Exporter pays: Consumer ends up paying price + tariff, then seller pays the tariff to the shipping company, which pays it to the government. Importer pays: Consumer pays price, then later pays the tariff to the shipping company, which pays it to the government. In both cases the consumer is paying price + tariff. A small difference is that some consumers could be psychologically tricked by the lower p…

To simplify: if the exporter lowers their price, the consumer pays the same, the exporter gets less, and the consumer pays the tariff to the government. If the exporter charges the same price, the consumer pays more, the exporter get the same as before, and the consumer pays the tariff to the government. The consumer always pays the tariff. The exporter never pays the tariff.

Please pretend that the exporter hypothetically pays the tariff. It just changes who is paying who. The end result is the same.

Re: What if tariffs?

#162

Post by jamincan »

jenadine wrote: post #160
lreeves wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. There are trade deals forming between countries that in unprecedented ways to avoid dealing with the constantly changing tariffs while one country says they'll take their ball and play alone.

But the US is the bigger country just next to it, also the most practical to trade with. Trading with country further appart means less efficient in transport. Is it not still self inflicted harm?

What options do Canadians have? Deal with the wildly capricious economic policies of the US president, or go seeking other, more stable opportunities elsewhere? Almost all countertariffs we have in place are targeted as opposed to the sweeping tariffs Trump is implementing.

Re: What if tariffs?

#163

Post by jamincan »

mlrtime wrote: post #118
Swoerd wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now that the U.S. has a tyrannical government, there’s no one left to stand in its way, the Second Amendment has proven to be a paper tiger.

Can you expand on what you mean exactly? I see these sentences like your littered throughout reddit, vague notions of violence/war?

It was a common argument that ultimately all of the constitutional protections, balance of powers and all that were protected by the Second Amendment - that in the face of losing their liberty, Americans would rise up against an authoritarian government.

Within this administration, a lot of people feel that there has been an assault on constitutional protections, but the people who trumpeted the Second Amendment as being fundamental to protecting American liberty and democracy have largely been silent in the face of it.

Re: What if tariffs?

#164

Post by jenadine »

rapnie wrote: post #44

Tangential. It is fun to note how in ads showing watches the time is usually 9 past 10 as shown in the image. This apparently gives the most pleasing balance of the watch dials for the eye, while not covering the time indicators below.

In the image it is 10 to 2.

Re: What if tariffs?

#165

Post by jenadine »

fainpul wrote: post #117
louthy wrote: post #7

Do the hands tick counter clockwise? I am assuming so to make 3/9 swap work, but it’s not mentioned.

Boring answer: no, because that would require modifications to the movement and would make the watch much too expensive. The whole idea of Swatch is based on simplicity, reduction of parts count and automated manufacturability.

So who wears this watch goes back in time?

Re: What if tariffs?

#166

Post by maxerickson »

Borealid wrote: post #59
exe34 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exporter gets paid the same as before. The buyer pays more. There's a subtle difference, can you spot it?

Let's imagine, hypothetically speaking, that demand is perfectly inelastic. The price of a good is $10, and buyers will absolutely refuse to pay more than $10 under any circumstances. Before a tariff is imposed, the seller sells the good for $10 and keeps $10 in revenue. If a tariff of $1 is imposed under these hypothetical circumstances, does the buyer pay more? Does the exporter get paid the same as before? Clearly…

The other thing that happens is that a buyer doesn't buy anything at all. Deadweight loss.

Re: What if tariffs?

#167

Post by TrackerFF »

intermerda wrote: post #9

The number 39 refers to the 39% tariff rate on Switzerland. Kind of insane that the American President just made up a lie that tariffs are paid by foreign countries and rest of the administration just went along with it. It flies in the face of any common sense.

It's not insane when the sitting American president is a known pathological liar, and has been known to be so for half a century.

What is insane, though, is that people voted for him. Elect a clown, expect a circus.

Re: What if tariffs?

#168

Post by exe34 »

mlrtime wrote: post #126
exe34 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing sales isn't the same as paying the tariff. The person importing the item pays the tariff. Their item won't be released from customs if they don't pay. They pay to the US government. The correct thing to say is that the tariff has an effect on demand because of the impact of adding a tariff on top of the price.

It's not a person, it's a company. The company pays 100% of the tariffs, they are passing it to the consumer who is a person.

companies are persons. see: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.

Re: What if tariffs?

#169

Post by lreeves »

jenadine wrote: post #160
lreeves wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. There are trade deals forming between countries that in unprecedented ways to avoid dealing with the constantly changing tariffs while one country says they'll take their ball and play alone.

But the US is the bigger country just next to it, also the most practical to trade with. Trading with country further appart means less efficient in transport. Is it not still self inflicted harm?

It's not practical when Trump sees a TV ad that enrages him and then cancels all negotiations, how are Canadian leaders supposed to proceed? There's no good faith whatsoever from him.

Re: What if tariffs?

#170

Post by jenadine »

jamincan wrote: post #162
jenadine wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the US is the bigger country just next to it, also the most practical to trade with. Trading with country further appart means less efficient in transport. Is it not still self inflicted harm?

What options do Canadians have? Deal with the wildly capricious economic policies of the US president, or go seeking other, more stable opportunities elsewhere? Almost all countertariffs we have in place are targeted as opposed to the sweeping tariffs Trump is implementing.

They could seek other opportunities elsewhere without adding tariff themselves: continue to import from the US and other countries like before. They may indeed export less to the US due to reduced demand from the US, but reciprocating the tariff won't help with that.
Post reply on HN