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

US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#971

Post by wesapien »

ccorcos wrote: post #686
lumb63 wrote: post #625

Everyone is quick to deride this move as stupid. I don’t disagree that there are downsides to the approach, but there is a set of very real national problems that this might address. For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well…

I really want to read a good response to this comment. I have the same questions, and I’ll add one more thought. Lots of people talk about how the US should be more like Europe. People say the average European has a better quality of life, etc. Well, Europe has tariffs…

Tarrifs can be useful in protecting your players in an new industry. In specific situations not using it like carpet bombing.

Thomas Sowell who is 94 has some wisdom to share: https://x.com/HooverInst/status/1907630250135273527?ref_src=...

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#972

Post by raxxorraxor »

svara wrote: post #750

It's true that free trade is hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole, particularly with the USD being the reserve currency. The flow of goods is balanced by a flow of US dollars to other countries, which are ultimately cycled back into the US financial system - enabling budget deficits and an abundance of capital to invest in high growth industries. The flip side of this is that it also drives inequality - the…

Tariffs will probably be bad, but on the other hand the old system didn't really work either in the long run. Perhaps he can bring some manufacturing back and I don't really believe consumer goods getting more expensive will be immediately felt. Could be wrong though.

Well, at least it might get interesting if you like crazy. I don't really believe those crying the loudest that they are particularly interested in combating inequality or are too interested in protecting low income people. Yes, maybe they need industries protected by tarrifs instead of cheap t-shirts. Maybe this perspective is rather stupid though. We will find out if that works or not. Economics projecting the next depression aren't really sources to trust either.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#973

Post by agumonkey »

jodacola wrote: post #886

I'm an American. I've generally benefited from the system here (which speaks to my privilege, of which I'm aware). I don't want to wade into political battles, but I'm genuinely concerned for my future and the future of my children from an economic standpoint, based on where things seem to be going. I am considering options on the spectrum with ends like: * Staying here, because this is where I was born and raised an…

I'm not American so this is a newb question, would moving to a saner state help ?

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#974

Post by lesostep »

api wrote: post #846
svara wrote: post #750

It's true that free trade is hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole, particularly with the USD being the reserve currency. The flow of goods is balanced by a flow of US dollars to other countries, which are ultimately cycled back into the US financial system - enabling budget deficits and an abundance of capital to invest in high growth industries. The flip side of this is that it also drives inequality - the…

> for the government to lower the cost of high-quality education Devils advocate point, and one nobody wants to talk about: what if everyone can't be a high-skill employee? Imagine if the highest earning jobs required immense physical endurance and strength. Nobody would argue that everyone can do that. It would be obvious that only a subset of people are capable of doing those jobs. For some reason, with intellectua…

Lowering the cost of high-quality education makes it more accessible, which isn't the same thing as "accessible for all".

But lowering the cost of tuition also have positive effect on economy, because people who are starting their career will have more money roughly at the same age where they will want to spend more money. They are figuring their living situation, they are trying to figure out what independence means, a lot of people will want to start families at the first 10 years of their career.

If you paid your tuition fees for 15 years, then you most likely already figured where you live/had kids and the additional money will go into savings for retirement. It's will not be "buyer" money, that will go to pay for products and services, and so it wouldn't go towards someone's paycheck.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#975

Post by jumpman_miya »

roxolotl wrote: post #479

Aside from everything else one thing what strikes me as particularly insane is how it’s not even defensible as a protective measure. My favorite everyday olive oil comes from Tunisia. They now have a 38% tariff on them. There are no out of work olive farmers in the US. The orange man wanted tariffs, the orange man is going to get tariffs. Now we have to hope the American people aren’t so dumb as to still be convinced…

[dead]

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#976

Post by tekknik »

TrackerFF wrote: post #62

From what I understand, de minimis exemption has also been removed. That is a huge, huge deal. It effectively means that all goods imported from China will be slapped with a 30% import tax, as soon as said goods arrive the US border / customs. Usually what happens then, is that the courier will pay that tax, and then bill the recipient later on - as well as charge some fee/fees for the work done. This is why in some…

crazy thought, maybe a $1 item shouldn’t be shipped from overseas at great expense to the environment? 5 years ago all anybody would talk about is the environment and now people are burning down EVs and complaining that they’ll have to pay more for a cheap $1 shirt they don’t need to be moved 6000 or more miles? make this make sense.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#977

Post by TaurenHunter »

rthomas6 wrote: post #613
TaurenHunter wrote: post #599

I don't see anyone mentioning that the United States needs to manage its massive national debt, currently in the trillions, by issuing Treasury securities. These securities mature at varying intervals and require continuous "rolling" or refinancing to pay off old debt with new borrowing. Significant rollovers are expected from April through September 2025, with additional short-term maturities due by June. Higher int…

The flaw I see is centered around this paragraph. > How can rates come down? The present uncertainty around tariffs and a potential crisis could create conditions that pressure interest rates downward before those Treasury securities mature, by influencing Federal Reserve policy. Rising prices due to tariffs won't pressure the Fed to lower interest rates. It will increase inflation and worries of inflation, which wil…

The Fed may raise interest rates, that is, proposing that securities be sold at a higher discount.

A fearful market may end up bidding up these securities anyway, bring the effective rate down.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#978

Post by nobankai »

tekknik wrote: post #976
TrackerFF wrote: post #62

From what I understand, de minimis exemption has also been removed. That is a huge, huge deal. It effectively means that all goods imported from China will be slapped with a 30% import tax, as soon as said goods arrive the US border / customs. Usually what happens then, is that the courier will pay that tax, and then bill the recipient later on - as well as charge some fee/fees for the work done. This is why in some…

crazy thought, maybe a $1 item shouldn’t be shipped from overseas at great expense to the environment? 5 years ago all anybody would talk about is the environment and now people are burning down EVs and complaining that they’ll have to pay more for a cheap $1 shirt they don’t need to be moved 6000 or more miles? make this make sense.

> make this make sense.

Sure. Modern Chinese RoRo vessels fit more than 1 shirt on them. The average shipping manifest to America looks more like 125,000 shirts, 10,000 tons displacement of natural gas, 40,000 sex toys, 20,000 Macbooks and a few dozen merchant marines making the trip. The "great cost to the environment" was manufacturing these products. The carbon footprint for shipping linens around the world is negligible, and cheaper than buying American-made.

It doesn't take a genius to see that this isn't an environmental issue, China will fuel up their boats regardless and take their surplus elsewhere. This is about American businesses outright failing to compete in the free market in places that matter, like car manufacturing and $1 tee shirt factories.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#979

Post by wasabi991011 »

zjp wrote: post #804
svara wrote: post #750

It's true that free trade is hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole, particularly with the USD being the reserve currency. The flow of goods is balanced by a flow of US dollars to other countries, which are ultimately cycled back into the US financial system - enabling budget deficits and an abundance of capital to invest in high growth industries. The flip side of this is that it also drives inequality - the…

Yes! I've been consistently frustrated at both sides of the issue. It became salient for me when I read about how China had sanctioned three American drone manufacturers that were supplying Ukraine last year, and how it disrupted their supply chains and ultimately the war effort. It is unacceptable for any other country to be able to do this to any part of the western-aligned military supply chain. We needed a target…

>We needed a targeted policy -

>But the conversation has been frustratingly reduced to 'reshore low skill work' vs 'save my infinite trough of cheap plastic slop'

The conversation has been reduced to that because this administration's tariffs are and have always been indiscriminate.

You bring up an interesting issue, but people aren't discussing it because it's orthogonal to what is currently happening.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#980

Post by LinuxBender »

keithxm23 wrote: post #820
svara wrote: post #750

It's true that free trade is hugely beneficial to the US economy as a whole, particularly with the USD being the reserve currency. The flow of goods is balanced by a flow of US dollars to other countries, which are ultimately cycled back into the US financial system - enabling budget deficits and an abundance of capital to invest in high growth industries. The flip side of this is that it also drives inequality - the…

> but many on this very site would need to give up a little bit of their privilege to reduce the pain felt by many of their fellow citizens. Agreed. However, by imposing tariffs it is not the privileged who are going to be affected the most. The pain is felt most by the low-skill workers you mentioned earlier. If the solution was instead along the lines of changing tax-brackets to tax the 'privileged' more, that migh…

By low-skilled workers do you mean the working class in general? If so it is my understanding that the overall goal is to help them at the same time as the privileged by shifting taxes at the same time as tariffs start to come down to create a re-balance of sorts in theory. Here [1] is a quick interview of Treasury Secretary Bessent by CNN Kaitlan Collins that I think covers this idea at least a little bit. I am curious to see how this plays out in practice. It's explained a little more in depth here [2] including how this was done in the past. I know videos are an unpopular medium on HN but I believe they are both worth the time to watch.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8WWvBEiFvE [video][10 mins][cnn interview]

[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ts5wJ6OfzA [video][24 mins]

Post reply on HN