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

When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

oldvcr.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 316 posts

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#231

Post by realo »

WalterBright wrote: post #178
iancmceachern wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the great misconceptions. There are often no "native" alternatives. Even the machines that make the chips are nearly all made in one country and then shipped around the world. The amazing, modern nature of our modern world is built on the collective effort and knowledge of humankind globally. Globally.

There's concern that if all our chips come from one country, they could cut the supply off and make demands. That's called an "embargo". It's also done to protect local industries, hence the term "protectionism". For example, Canada's large tariffs on American milk are there to protect the local Canadian milk producers. AFAIK, Trump's tariffs are meant to serve the following purposes: 1. so critical supplies, like ch…

I am Canadian. Since the USA started their economic war with Canada, I changed some habits, like my other fellow canadians.

1) Stopped buying USA wine totally

2) Canceled our plans for vacations in the USA

3) Stopped buying USA orange (or any citrus) juice

4) Carefully check the provenance of any fruit or vegetable in the supermarket and actively avoid anything that comes from the USA

... and the list goes on.

I am not alone!

How do those immediate and tangible consequences serve the interests of the USA producers and companies affected, exactly?

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#234

Post by varispeed »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #182
johnebgd wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are the best of all the bad solutions we’ve come up with so far for labor to compete with capital. The worst of course is collectivism through government, though that’s being tried again…

The best solution is antitrust enforcement and removal of anti-competitive laws/rules lobbied for by incumbents. When companies have to compete with each other for labor and customers, wages go up and prices go down. Whey they consolidate they can charge monopoly rents. Unions often even make this worse because they'll latch on to a monopolistic employer and then lobby with them to retain the monopoly at the expense…

> removal of anti-competitive laws/rules lobbied for by incumbents.

If even if there are such ideas in new government, they quickly disappear over wine and steak dinners with the lobbyists.

Unfortunately this is not seen as bypass of democratic process. Nobody voted for having less rights and any bargaining power stripped and yet here we are.

That's where security services should come in (in many countries protection of democracy is their main statutory duty) - but they are not doing their job tax payers pay them to do.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#235

Post by fcoury »

JSR_FDED wrote: post #6

Tariffs are great. They protect the struggling domestic IT industry and gives it time to ramp up its production of vintage computer parts.

It's interesting. I grew up in Brazil and if you don't know, we are very famous for having one of the most exorbitant importing tariffs in the world.

I thought that with time Brazil would modernize and get closer to the US in that regard. It's really sad to see the opposite happening.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#236

Post by lesuorac »

bruce511 wrote: post #99
like_any_other wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad all the competent politicians were dead set against preventing the "free market" from hollowing out American manufacturing.

I understand your sentiment, but I feel like your position is somewhat simplistic, and the actual situation is more complicated. First, overall, the US has increased manufacturing output over the last couple decades. 2019 was the highest year ever, covid interupted a bit, but levels are back there again. However the number of people involved has dropped a lot. US manufacturing prefers automation and prefers to manufa…

This is western-centric no?

It's not like every single Chinese consumer decided they didn't want American soybeans. More authoritarian countries have strong import controls; helps with both having high (inefficient) employment but also your citizens aren't going to wonder why all these cool stuff (fridges, etc) are always imported and the local stuff sucks.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#237

Post by jonathanlydall »

Fabricio20 wrote: post #162
jonathanlydall wrote: post #113

In the country where I live, these kinds of fees are generally referred to "import taxes", because it's the buyer who's having to pay extra money which is going to the tax authority, not the seller. While they can have an effect of encouraging domestic production, mostly they're a way to extract more money from the population.

Hello fellow Brazilian! We cry in 200-300% on top of shipping costs.

South African actually, but fellow BRICSian I guess.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#238

Post by salawat »

bruce511 wrote: post #99
like_any_other wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad all the competent politicians were dead set against preventing the "free market" from hollowing out American manufacturing.

I understand your sentiment, but I feel like your position is somewhat simplistic, and the actual situation is more complicated. First, overall, the US has increased manufacturing output over the last couple decades. 2019 was the highest year ever, covid interupted a bit, but levels are back there again. However the number of people involved has dropped a lot. US manufacturing prefers automation and prefers to manufa…

How convenient for the investor class to have such a scapegoat to always fall back on. It's the consumer's fault! Not ours! Truly!

Nevermind that the bounds of what consumers have to buy/consume are entirely drawn and selected by investor prospectus, and business collusion, in an environment shaped by regulatory capture or selective compliance!

I'm open to accepting some blame on consumers, but trying to scapegoat them as the root of the problem is horseshit of the highest order.

MBA's and investors of the past 50 years drank deep of the draught of economic growth through regulatory arbitrage by off shoring, labor replacement above all else, and trying to chase shareholder returns over stakeholder returns. Fuck you, got mine in the socioeconomic sense.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#239

Post by Retric »

defrost wrote: post #196
Retric wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America isn’t #1 in pollution per capita, that’s largely a function of per capita income and America is a long way from #1 on that metric. For example, we where ranked 16th in terms of CO2 per capita in 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... We are just #3 by population and far richer per capita than the other 2.

> For example, we where ranked 16th in terms of CO2 per capita in 2023 For home soil central north american CO2 production, sure. Things change if such rankings were to account for the CO2 production as a result of satisifying US consumption habits .. the "benefit" of having off shored industry to China is the final goods come to the USofA while the emissions and waste of industry occur elsewhere.

America has huge trade deficit from China but America imports more from the EU (605.8) and Mexico (505.9) than China (438.9) followed closely by Canada (412.7). At the same time just under 15% of China’s exports are going to the US, so America really isn’t a large fraction of their emissions.

In terms net imports vs exports staple agricultural products have a very high carbon footprint per dollar and America exports a lot of low value food. So the carbon balance is way more tricky than just suggesting America has exported its manufacturing.

Re: When UPS charged me a $684 tariff on $355 of vintage computer parts

#240

Post by Retric »

smcl wrote: post #197
Retric wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America isn’t #1 in pollution per capita, that’s largely a function of per capita income and America is a long way from #1 on that metric. For example, we where ranked 16th in terms of CO2 per capita in 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... We are just #3 by population and far richer per capita than the other 2.

You may want to take another look at that list. Proudly declaring you’re only the 16th worst per-capita (already very high!) when ahead of you are tiny places like Pulau, New Caledonia, Gibraltar and Curacao is really quite funny.

Facts are neutral, when someone says something incorrect it’s worth pointing out the truth.

UAE, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Russia, and Australia are mid sized countries that emit more CO2 than the US per capita but you need to come up with a new metric to get that list. CO2 emissions by countries with more than 10m people or whatever. Perhaps bump it to countries with over 100m people so America is #2 on a list of 16 countries, or 300m so America is #1 on a list of 3 countries.

Post reply on HN