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

Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 931 posts

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#771

Post by [deleted] »

d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #329
djeastm wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a particular section of society has done very well from the status quo Name me a country where this is not the case. The only thing we've failed to do is educate enough of our people to prosper as a deindustrialized nation. That and failed to protect our democracy.

I think we've promoted little else besides de-industrialized degrees. That's why it's going to be so hard to ramp up again. How many kids think it's cool to get a textile engineering or materials science degree vs marketing or software engineering?

[deleted]

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#772

Post by bayindirh »

Animats wrote: post #372

Since last night, anyway. The people who make shipping work are frantically trying to keep up. One of the biggest customs brokers posts updates twice a day on weekdays. Last update 4 PM Friday, so they haven't caught the biggest reversal. If tariff rates change while in transit, the bond paid before the item was shipped may now be insufficient. So the container goes into storage (where?) until Customs and Border Prot…

Somebody lost a ton of Bitcoin miner system motherboards [0][1].

[0]: https://bid.cwsmarketing.com/lot-details/index/catalog/167/l..., https://bid.cwsmarketing.com/lot-details/index/catalog/167/l..., https://bid.cwsmarketing.com/lot-details/index/catalog/167/l...

[1]: https://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/mb/introduction.php?S_ID=1...

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#773

Post by goosedragons »

erkt wrote: post #766
thfuran wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump has been spouting the same shit about trade deficits and the US getting ripped off for several decades. I think he legitimately believes high tariffs are a good idea to "fix" trade deficits.

It’s not about trade deficits-it’s about becoming an independent manufacturer again. Whether or not anyone international buys what we make is secondary. Wealth is disproportionately allocated to those that benefit from globalization but the vast majority of Americans are hurting from it, even if a OLED TV costs nickels.

How do these tariffs help the vast majority of Americans? Maybe in a half a decade-decade time they can get a job in some factory as a tech??? Except there's so much uncertainty and so much tariffs even on raw material that it doesn't even make sense from that perspective.

Raising prices on everything is not going to help the majority of Americans. Taxing the rich might have but half the rationale for these tariffs is tax cuts for the rich.

There is no plan or logic to this.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#774

Post by inglor_cz »

XorNot wrote: post #592
jiggawatts wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You basically go to war with the military you have. The war in Ukraine shows what a current-day war looks like: You rapidly expend stockpiled traditional weapons, and then rapidly ramp up low-cost drone manufacturing. Currently, the #1 drone manufacturer in the world is probably Ukraine, with Russia and China somewhere in the #2 and #3 spots. The United States is somewhere on the bottom of that list. Subsidising ci…

But Ukraine built that industry after the war started. And the Ukranian conflict is uniquely well suited to drones because of numerous factors which wouldn't apply in say, a fight over Taiwan - where the outcome would more or less be determined by who still had a floating Navy at the end of the day. No amount of 3D printed FPVs is going to bring down a modern warship - they're unlikely to even get near it (conversely…

"the sea drone threat is enormous - but those aren't civilian assets"

Absolutely. Ukraine was able to push Russian surface fleet into Russian ports using sea drones. If Taiwan builds a fleet thereof, the Chinese blockade fleet will face Armageddon.

I saw an interview with a former naval radar guy, who claimed that the natural state of the sea produces so many small false blips that a smartly built sea drone of certain size is basically impossible to distinguish from those.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#775

Post by inglor_cz »

jiggawatts wrote: post #616
XorNot wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Ukraine built that industry after the war started. And the Ukranian conflict is uniquely well suited to drones because of numerous factors which wouldn't apply in say, a fight over Taiwan - where the outcome would more or less be determined by who still had a floating Navy at the end of the day. No amount of 3D printed FPVs is going to bring down a modern warship - they're unlikely to even get near it (conversely…

> built that industry after the war started. Because for the first year of the war was the "burn down existing cold war era stocks" phase. More importantly, neither side realised the impact that drones would have. Now that every military has seen years of video clips on Telegram of tank after tank being blown up by $500 drones, the next war is going start with swarms of drones on day 1, not day 400.

"More importantly, neither side realised the impact that drones would have."

The Ukrainians absolutely realized that, and I saw a lot of reports about Ukrainian drone operators in 2022 already. It was just after the Nagorno-Karabakh war, where Turkish-made drones were a significant factor in Azeri victory.

There was something else at play. The supply chain had to be built up, plus the Russians were/are quite strong at radioelectronic warfare. Overcoming Russian jamming was a serious uphill battle.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#776

Post by inglor_cz »

alextingle wrote: post #551
tirant wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t count Europe as a reference of a free market at all. Regulations and bureaucracy are rampant.

A free market requires regulations in order to operate. Regulations require a bureaucracy in order to be effective.

True, but everything should be done in moderation. We could definitely do without ESG mandates and such, and even the European Commission has publicly recognized the need to debloat the European Union a bit.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#777

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

righthand wrote: post #685
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The articles you've linked are about threats of 10% to 25% tariffs in the context of active trade negotiations between the US and China. Here, there's an actually imposed tariff of 145% and no talks at all as far as has been reported. It's not the same situation.

It’s a different situation because the numbers are different even though so far the outcomes are the same. Am I reading that right?

I'm not sure what you could possibly mean by "outcome" that doesn't include a 145% tax as an outcome. Perhaps you've fallen victim to the misinformation that the exporting country pays tariffs? That's not so; a 145% tariff on imports from China means that an American business importing $10,000 of stuff from China is required to pay the US government $14,500 on top. (Or they can not do the import and lay off everyone who was involved in processing and selling the stuff, as many China-dependent businesses will likely do over the next few weeks.)

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#778

Post by _heimdall »

otterley wrote: post #725
_heimdall wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price doesn't have to be the primary factor though, that was my point. People can choose for whatever reasons they want, we just don't currently seem to care where manufacturing is being done.

Price does have to be the primary factor if you need something and can only afford the cheapest option. And this is the unfortunate reality for most people in the world, including those in first-world societies.

If we are, in fact, at the point where people are only buying the necessities and we still can't afford the cheapest options the game is kind if already lost.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#779

Post by dmd »

_heimdall wrote: post #769
lukas099 wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That leaves the executive, and personally I don't see a problem with enforcement living there. What if the executive just decides not to enforce the decisions of the legislative and judicial branches?

The legislative branch can pass a law requiring enforcement, likely within some specified parameters or timeline. If that passes and is constitutional, the courts could be tested and uphold the law.

Uphold the law ... how? Who actually does it? The courts can write as many orders as they want, but if they're ignored, they're powerless.

Re: Trump exempts phones, computers, chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

#780

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

erkt wrote: post #756
Y_Y wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://bid.cwsmarketing.com/lot-details/index/catalog/167/l... I love that I can buy a pallet of miscellaneous medical supplies, and also that someone who specifically wanted them but now can't pay for them has to go without.

The point is to inflict cost to create incentive for domestic production. Obviously the inconsistency on tariffs undermines this position but the pandemic made it very clear that there are domestic security implications for not having important products produced state side. Its not like the $500 cost of a saline bag has anything to do with its production cost. It seems credit liquidity and confidence in long term pro…

As you say, the inconsistency on tariffs completely undermines this position, because it's widely known that tariffs which change radically from day to day don't incentivize domestic production (and indeed disincentivize all domestic investment). Doesn't this prove that creating incentives for domestic production is not the point, and either there's no clever scheme or the real goal of the scheme is something else?
Post reply on HN