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

201–210 of 286 posts

Re: What if tariffs?

#201

Post by mbrumlow »

exe34 wrote: post #48
charcircuit wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It flies in the face of any common sense. The consumer paying the tariff is merely an optimization over the exporter paying the tariff such that the tariff money passes through one less hand. Practically they seem pretty similar.

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

The buyer might pay more. If the importer (which is often a foreign institution) tries to pass the cost along to the customer. And the customer looks at the product group and decides to buy the higher priced item. But on average the tariff is doing what it was meant to do.

Promote the consumption products provided by a different vendor. Namely ones that tariffs don’t apply to.

It’s not a hard concept to understand, and talking about who pays is a distraction. Namely because it will be case by case involving 3 or more parties who won’t all chose the same choices they have every time.

Re: What if tariffs?

#202

Post by ajross »

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…

This is all true, but in practice end consumer demand tends to be much more elastic for almost everything else in the chain. You don't get to decide not to buy toothpaste for more then $2.50 when you run out, you need a new phone when your old one breaks (and not when the price goes back down), etc... Consumers buy products to fill needs, and *needs* are the inelastic part.

In particular your "Let's imagine" case is sort of ridiculous. There are no such goods, nor anything even comparable. The very existence of inflation disproves the idea (since if those inelastic goods existed, they'd see demand drop to zero if the price needed to inflate).

Re: What if tariffs?

#203

Post by dieortin »

mbrumlow wrote: post #200
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.

So why would the Swiss company care then? Care so much to make a special watch? It’s no skin off their back, they don’t pay the tariff right? Americans are the only ones affected right?

It obviously affects Swiss companies too, because their products become more expensive to American consumers, which makes it more unlikely they will buy them. No one said Americans are the only ones affected. But it’s Americans that pay the tariffs.

Re: What if tariffs?

#204

Post by mbrumlow »

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…

Finally. It’s not a cut and dry as one side or the other. People have lost their minds. It’s case by case for every product and every consumer.

Some companies might chose to loose the margin (few but still passable ). Some might try to pass some or all to the sale price (which creates all sorts another dynamics) and finally the customer does not have to buy that product. There are many note breakdowns that all adjust who pays and when they pay.

Re: What if tariffs?

#205

Post by burnerRhodov2 »

dieortin wrote: post #203
mbrumlow wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why would the Swiss company care then? Care so much to make a special watch? It’s no skin off their back, they don’t pay the tariff right? Americans are the only ones affected right?

It obviously affects Swiss companies too, because their products become more expensive to American consumers, which makes it more unlikely they will buy them. No one said Americans are the only ones affected. But it’s Americans that pay the tariffs.

if i charge a 39% tarrif on swiss watches, doesn't that make american watches 39% more competitive?

So, people will just buy more american watches in your example, no?

Re: What if tariffs?

#206

Post by tzs »

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 even worse than that. Their argument against corporate income taxes is that any tax imposed on a corporation is just passed on to consumers.

Hard to see why companies would pass on a government imposed tax if it is an income tax but not a tariff.

If anything you'd expect it to be the other way around, because an income tax allows deductions for much of the cost of making that income which generally means the amount of tax is lower in times when the business is not making much money, whereas a tariff is on the cost if the businesses imports which can remain high even in times where the business is not making money.

Re: What if tariffs?

#207

Post by SlightlyLeftPad »

1oooqooq wrote: post #140
SlightlyLeftPad wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we could be amazed although you seem to be jumping past another, more controversial yet still equally possible conclusion which is that our elections aren’t as pure as we’d all like to believe. Certainly, I’m not here to spread conspiracy and I agree with you here, the results are the only evidence we have of the current situation. Given that, I think many of us were amazed.

did you ever try (barelly a research, im not even asking if you got up from your chair) to know about joining a party or participating in voting counts?

Sigh…I’m NOT referring to the popular voter fraud case here. My point has more to do with gerrymandering and a variety of strategic and tactical choices by the two parties to sway elections. Manipulation of Social and mainstream media for instance. When you think about it even a little but beyond the vitriol, it makes sense.

Re: What if tariffs?

#208

Post by johnnyanmac »

burnerRhodov2 wrote: post #205
dieortin wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It obviously affects Swiss companies too, because their products become more expensive to American consumers, which makes it more unlikely they will buy them. No one said Americans are the only ones affected. But it’s Americans that pay the tariffs.

if i charge a 39% tarrif on swiss watches, doesn't that make american watches 39% more competitive? So, people will just buy more american watches in your example, no?

You'd be correct in an economy not tumbling towards recesssion due to said tarrifs being universal, and not just focusing on specific industries to make american ones more competitive.

As it is, American spending is way down and hurts everyone. A small stock crash (the thing propping the US up as of now) would truly hit with a 2nd depression at this point.

Re: What if tariffs?

#209

Post by johnnyanmac »

TrackerFF wrote: post #167
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.

"But she had a weird laugh!"

I guess most voting Americans didn't need much to throw the country's century long superpower streak down the toilet. Or worse yet, just pretend that both sides are equally bad and not use their voice that many died to give them.

Re: What if tariffs?

#210

Post by johnnyanmac »

sneak wrote: post #197
Ekaros wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish there was simple three strike policy on any elected official. Three proven lies and they are remove from office for life. And these can be anything. And not knowing at time does not change it. Only silence or absolute truth should be accepted.

So someone gets to arbitrarily decide what is or isn’t true, and thus arbitrarily remove anyone from any office for life? Sounds like a foolproof plan. Did we not read 1984?

That's how it works right now. Besides Trump, the US's last presidental impeachment was over a sex scandal. They "say" it was because he lied about it, but I think we know better at this point. It's just really hard to impeach because you need 66 or 67 of the Senate to agree on something, not the usual 51.

But yes, we'd need some truly neutral Ombudsmen to back up such a system. And they themselves would need to be accountable should they corrupt. I don't think it's impossible, but hard to do with the current power structures.

Post reply on HN