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

61–70 of 286 posts

Re: What if tariffs?

#61

Post by bootsmann »

nicois wrote: post #21

This would be more impactful if we could see the cost to US purchasers was actually 39% more. Sadly some manufacturers spread the cost across all consumers, which actually means non-US customers are actually paying some of the tariff costs too.

This was a big worry initially when the tariffs were announced but it doesn’t actually seem to be happening. Most manufacturers are not adjusting their price structure because the effects are super hard to estimate (don’t forget that the US is still just 20% of worldwide demand)

Re: What if tariffs?

#62

Post by kitd »

Whoever said tariffs were bad for business? There's a whole industry springing up of people taking the piss out of the POTUS.

Re: What if tariffs?

#63

Post by bigfudge »

exe34 wrote: post #49
onion2k wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine some manufacturers used tariffs as a reason to lower the price of their products that imported into the US while also raising the price outside of the US to balance that change, but that doesn't mean the manufacturer or their customers outside of the USA are paying anything towards tariffs. The entire tariff transaction is between the customer and the US government, and it's all transacted within the USA. T…

The manufacturer are subsidising the tariffs if they lower their price in the us to counteract part of the tariff. When they charge other markets more to make up for the cost, they are making those markets pay for the subsidy.

That might be a short term strategy to avoid losing market share in the states and it’s rational if you think the tariffs are temporary. For goods like iPhones which are truly global that might last. But It doesn’t look like a stable equilibrium in the long term for any food which can support multiple suppliers because manufacturers who don’t do this will be more competitive in non us markets.

Re: What if tariffs?

#64

Post by InsideOutSanta »

nunorbatista wrote: post #39
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swatch makes thousands of different watches in all kinds of styles, from 80s-inspired neon fever dreams to understated mechanical watches. What type of watch are you looking for that they don't make?

agree with your comment, but to be honest, I'm not sure there's any Swatch I would wear: which model would you choose if you wanted to dress business casual? Ok, I can give you a Skin Irony, but then you would be paying +200 for a Quartz, why not buy an Orient Bambino or a Hamilton Khaki? much better bang for the buck. Not to mention the clicking noise of a Swatch quartz. In silence, it drives me nuts. The most under…

It depends on what you consider a Swatch. If it has to say "Swatch" on it, yeah, any Skin Irony is fine for business casual. Or a Swatch Essentials. I'd probably wear something like Boxengasse for business casual, but that's just me; I like complications. Maybe it's too much.

Whether the quartz movement bothers you depends on why you bought the watch. It doesn't bother me, but it's certainly true that you can get similar watches for much less money.

Re: What if tariffs?

#65

Post by thesumofall »

jakewins wrote: post #58
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?

This isn’t actually how it works though. Who pays the tariff is the same as who pays a tax: it depends on the price elasticity of supply and demand. If the demand curve is very price sensitive - like people might stop buying wool blankets if the price went up 50%, and buy cotton blankets instead - then the tariff will be paid by the suppliers, because they must lower their prices to make the final price the same. And…

As with many things in economics the effect of a measure often depends on the timeframe one considers. Honestly, anything could be true if one just chooses the appropriate timeframe. However, the tariffs clearly introduce an inefficiency which - globally speaking - will be net negative. Locally speaking, though, who knows …

Re: What if tariffs?

#66

Post by [deleted] »

simmerup wrote: post #42
nunorbatista wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would actually be working against his interest: he has been seen wearing multiple Swiss watches - Patek's, Rolex, Vacheron, etc,

You don't think they're gifts for services rendered and therefore tarriff free?

[deleted]

Re: What if tariffs?

#67

Post by vasco »

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…

>I find it mildly amusing that there are so many people claiming that it's 100% on one side or other, when it's trivially easy to see why that can't be GUARANTEED TO BE the case.

To be fair most people on one side think they know better than Adam Smith and the people on the other side usually never opened a book, so it's a tough bargain.

Re: What if tariffs?

#68

Post by vasco »

thesumofall wrote: post #65
jakewins wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t actually how it works though. Who pays the tariff is the same as who pays a tax: it depends on the price elasticity of supply and demand. If the demand curve is very price sensitive - like people might stop buying wool blankets if the price went up 50%, and buy cotton blankets instead - then the tariff will be paid by the suppliers, because they must lower their prices to make the final price the same. And…

As with many things in economics the effect of a measure often depends on the timeframe one considers. Honestly, anything could be true if one just chooses the appropriate timeframe. However, the tariffs clearly introduce an inefficiency which - globally speaking - will be net negative. Locally speaking, though, who knows …

> However, the tariffs clearly introduce an inefficiency which - globally speaking - will be net negative.

Nobody can predict this. Tariffs are used by trump mostly as a negotiation and distraction tactic. In that sense they've been extremely effective.

Re: What if tariffs?

#69

Post by hshdhdhehd »

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.

10:09:30 is probably the closest to 120 degree equal separation.

Re: What if tariffs?

#70

Post by lucianbr »

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…

Isn't your example actually perfectly elastic? It does not change the conclusion at all, of course.

One problem with this analysis is that I can't imagine Trump doing it, or even understanding it. Well, it's not a problem with the analysis, but with the overall situation.

Post reply on HN