|
Also luxury handset sorry. I've been allowing my self to be angrier than I was in the past. I also am growing increasing unnerved which is making me a bit unhinged, partially due to this threads topic being my livelyhood. Krugman wrote this recently https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/opinion/how-to-lose-a-trade-war.html [quote="" post=""] Trump’s declaration that “trade wars are good, and easy to win” is an instant classic, right up there with Herbert Hoover’s “prosperity is just around the corner.” Trump obviously believes that trade is a game in which he who runs the biggest surplus wins, and that America, which imports more than it exports, therefore has the upper hand in any conflict. That’s also why Peter Navarro predicted that nobody would retaliate against Trump’s tariffs. Since that’s actually not how trade works, we’re already facing plenty of retaliation and the strong prospect of escalation. But here’s the thing: Trump’s tariffs are badly designed even from the point of view of someone who shares his crude mercantilist view of trade. In fact, the structure of his tariffs so far is designed to inflict maximum damage on the U.S. economy, for minimal gain. Foreign retaliation, by contrast, is far more sophisticated: unlike Trump, the Chinese and other targets of his trade wrath seem to have a clear idea of what they’re trying to accomplish. The key point is that the Navarro/Trump view, aside from its fixation on trade balances, also seems to imagine that the world still looks the way it did in the 1960s, when trade was overwhelmingly in final goods like wheat and cars. In that world, putting a tariff on imported cars would cause consumers to switch to domestic cars, adding auto industry jobs, end of story (except for the foreign retaliation.) In the modern world economy, however, a large part of trade is in intermediate goods – not cars but car parts. Put a tariff on car parts, and even the first-round effect on jobs is uncertain: maybe domestic parts producers will add workers, but you’ve raised costs and reduced competitiveness for downstream producers, who will shrink their operations. So in today’s world, smart trade warriors – if such people exist – would focus their tariffs on final goods, so as to avoid raising costs for downstream producers of domestic goods. True, this would amount to a more or less direct tax on consumers; but if you’re afraid to impose any burden on consumers, you really shouldn’t be getting into a trade war in the first place. But almost none of the Trump tariffs are on consumer goods. Chad Bown and colleagues have a remarkable chart showing the distribution of the Trump China tariffs: an amazing 95 percent are either on intermediate goods or on capital goods like machinery that are also used in domestic production: Is there a strategy here? It’s hard to see one. There’s certainly no hint that the tariffs were designed to pressure China into accepting U.S. demands, since nobody can even figure out what, exactly, Trump wants from China in the first place. China’s retaliation looks very different. It doesn’t completely eschew tariffs on intermediate goods, but it’s mostly on final goods. And it’s also driven by a clear political strategy of hurting Trump voters; the Chinese, unlike the Trumpies, know what they’re trying to accomplish: What about others? Canada’s picture is complicated by its direct response to aluminum and steel tariffs, but those industries aside it, too, is following a far more sophisticated strategy than the U.S.: Except for steel and aluminum, Canada’s retaliation seemingly attempts to avoid messing up its engagement in North American supply chains. In broad terms, Canada is not targeting imports of American capital equipment or intermediate inputs, focusing instead on final goods. And like China, Canada is clearly trying to inflict maximum political damage. Trade wars aren’t good or easy to win even if you know what you’re trying to accomplish and have a clear strategy for getting there. What’s notable about the Trump tariffs, however, is that they’re so self-destructive. And we can already see hints of the economic fallout. From the Fed’s most recent minutes: [M]any District contacts expressed concern about the possible adverse effects of tariffs and other proposed trade restrictions, both domestically and abroad, on future investment activity; contacts in some Districts indicated that plans for capital spending had been scaled back or postponed as a result of uncertainty over trade policy. Contacts in the steel and aluminum industries expected higher prices as a result of the tariffs on these products but had not planned any new investments to increase capacity. So Trump and company don’t actually have a plan to win this trade war. They may, however, have stumbled onto a strategy that will lose it even more decisively than one might have expected. [/quote] I think there is somebody in the administration with a background similar to mine and I'll get into why I think that tomorrow (some odd things, shipping esoteric, have show up in speeches). I don't think the stupid Krugman is talking about is accidental. I think somebody in the administration is trying to do the most harm possible. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Jul 12, 2018 |
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:basically all of the following goods were hit by a 25% additional rate: So does that mean shirts and jorts are now taxed at 37%?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
Yes. The regulation adds an additional ad valorem duty of 25% on top of the already existing 12% duty rate, effectively making the total rate 37%. Rice and corn are subject to a duty rate that is a function of their weight, so the 25% also comes on top of that initial rate. Some of the goods mentioned in my post were already subject to a non-trivial duty rate - that’s usually the case with agricultural products and clothing. Of course the VAT you have to base is also calculated on a basis that inculdes customs duties so you’re also paying an additional 25% of VAT. Also reading further into the EU regulation, I realize I was wrong about a detail: the additional duties on even more stuff will start in 2021, or as soon as the WTO releases a proclamation that Trump’s tariffs do not respect WTO ground rules, so that’s something we’d better keep an eye on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
Will WTO be able to do that if there are not any WTO appeals judges? Because it looks like the Trump just isn't going to allow any to be appointed again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
So since nobody could come up with any examples, I’m going to assume there are literally no examples of predatory dumping being used to crush a domestic industry followed by the exporter jacking up prices in a monopolistic manner. So far as I can tell that is simply a fantasy scenario imagined by protectionists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Squalid posted:So since nobody could come up with any examples, I’m going to assume there are literally no examples of predatory dumping being used to crush a domestic industry followed by the exporter jacking up prices in a monopolistic manner. So far as I can tell that is simply a fantasy scenario imagined by protectionists. In the modern era, dumpers get caught and appeals the WTO are made, retaliatory tariffs are put in place, etc. If you were to use google, you could find papers like this: https://www.scribd.com/doc/105983649/Dumping-with-Examples-and-case-studies all over the internet on the subject instead of assuming that our lack of doing your research for you means it never happens / has ever happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
“Lumpy” posted:In the modern era, dumpers get caught and appeals the WTO are made, retaliatory tariffs are put in place, etc. If you were to use google, you could find papers like this: https://www.scribd.com/doc/105983649/Dumping-with-Examples-and-case-studies all over the internet on the subject instead of assuming that our lack of doing your research for you means it never happens / has ever happened. That paper agrees with me though? quote:While there are very few examples of national scale dumping that succeeded in producing a national scale monopoly, there are several examples that succeeded in producing a regional scale monopoly in certain industries. I can’t read much further but the first example of regional scale dumping the paper includes is Standard Oil’d use of monopolistic practices within the United States. It mentions a few other cases of private industry attempting to undercut foreign rivals on price but they seem to be rather tenuous examples that barely meet the definition laid out by Flowers for Algeria, and it waffles on whether they succeeded. I doubt it has any examples at all of successful “national scale” dumping, otherwise it would have opened with descriptions of them. Instead the introduction starts with quotes from several 19th century mercantilist on how dumping might theoretically be harmful. There’s nothing on Wikipedia. There have to have been some empirical studies on this phenomena, maybe it worked in Latin America? I spent some time looking for examples last night and found zero. I did find lots of descriptions of how subjective definitions of dumping are and how easily they can be abused for protectionist ends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Squalid posted:That paper agrees with me though? I didn't say it didn't. I was pointing out that "you guys didn't do my research for me" was lazy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Lumpy posted:I didn't say it didn't. I was pointing out that "you guys didn't do my research for me" was lazy. Oh that post wasn't a sincere request for anyone to do research. Rather it was meant as a setup for what I'm about to say now. So far as I can tell the primary negative effects of dumping on importing countries are entirely fantastical with no basis in empirical research. Anti-dumping measures are a form of protectionism that is harmful to the overall economy, designed to protect against threats that are so overblown as to have never actually been observed in history. Anti-dumping measures have also often been abused by the United States as a bludgeon against socialist economies, whose state industries introduce complications in calculating a "fair" price. Probably I think the dumper does far more harm to itself rather than to the supposed victim. The only exceptions might be during the development of a nascent industry, or when national security requires domestic production. Otherwise I"m increasingly convinced the threat of dumping is mostly fiction, and if it wasn't there would be actual examples illustrating its harm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
So your first post is "I don't know if...", then you turn it into "I'm going to assume...", then "I doubt there's any counter-example", then "So far as I can tell", and then finally purely affirmative statements. It's... a bit weird, seeing someone form definite opinions on a topic they merely seem to have discovered hours before. As far as I can tell from my interactions with people trying to avoid having their goods classified under a certain customs nomenclatures in order to avoid anti-dumping duties, and from what I know about the algorithms that determine what customs declarations will be double-checked by actual flesh-and-blood customs officers in the EU, yeah, I'd say that dumping practices by sellers are pretty good at enticing buyers. It's not about forming monopolies, just making more money and paying less in taxes. The fact that dumpers harm competitors is just a side-effect. It's always funny when you open your mailbox and are greeted with a 50-page memoir written by some lawyer formally contesting the customs nomenclature you've assigned to their client's product and telling you that you're going to kill businesses if you don't reconsider because they just can't absorb a 90% price increase on their extremely cheap Chinese tubes. Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jul 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:So your first post is "I don't know if...", then you turn it into "I'm going to assume...", then "I doubt there's any counter-example", then "So far as I can tell", and then finally purely affirmative statements. It's... a bit weird, seeing someone form definite opinions on a topic they merely seem to have discovered hours before. Well the subject has been in the news a bit lately so I thought I’d have a look at the issue. Almost everything I’ve found written on the matter for a general audience borders on nonsensical and contradictory. If China can’t cut steel production because it is running the industry as a national jobs program, they won’t be able to engage in monopolistic practices because that would necessarily result in job reductions. Nor will they actually be able to achieve a monopoly as long as at least one other major market protects its own industry. Instead the dumping is just a Chinese subsidy on steel consumption enjoyed by the rest of the world. When pressed for examples of the negative impacts of dumping writers seem to turn instantly to irrelevant responses. Standard Oil undercutting domestic competition strikes me as fundamentally different from international commerce, yet that appears to be the go-to example of dumping. Presumably people turn to nonsense as a response because the problem is imagined. Of course if my confidence is misplaced I should be set strait. Maybe 19th European states utilized dumping to crush colonial industry? Or maybe it worked against Latin America? Surely we can find it’s nefarious effects illustrated somewhere, otherwise I might be inclined to believe it is but a thin excuse to protect parochial interests at the expense of the rest of the nation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
...But China isn't trying to gain a monopoly on welded non-alloy non-threaded steel tubes of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 168,3 mm, and not plated or coated with zinc. Chinese companies are, however, trying to attract more international clients to get rid of all their god damned tubes. These are markets worth millions or tens of millions, which is not a lot, but enough to make EU companies realize that they're not being as competitive. And so they grumble. You gotta realize that these antidumping duties don't come out of nowhere. In Europe, they are often the product of lobbying by companies or industrial interest groups who can provide the Commission with evidence that they're getting priced out. Hell, some companies even lobby for the creation of ad hoc customs nomenclatures for their products and get them exempted, just to save a few tens of thousands of euros. Even a few points of percentage in customs duties is enough to get companies to alter their product so that it won't fit into a certain category. This is the reason why digital camescopes in Europe don't record for more than 30 minutes at a time, or why quads in Europe have grooves of a certain size on their wheels and have a wheel-and-axle behind them, or why plastic figurines of video game characters are of such and such size, etc. Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Jul 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:...But China isn't trying to gain a monopoly on welded non-alloy non-threaded steel tubes of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 168,3 mm, and not plated or coated with zinc. i shouldn't find this fascinating it's too late for me save yourselves
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Squalid posted:So since nobody could come up with any examples, I’m going to assume there are literally no examples of predatory dumping being used to crush a domestic industry followed by the exporter jacking up prices in a monopolistic manner. So far as I can tell that is simply a fantasy scenario imagined by protectionists. You see little predatory dumping followed by raising prices because everyone knows about it, so if it is attempted it won't get to to the "raise prices" part, which deters anyone from trying it. It can only really work against undeveloped countries that lack the military power to prevent foreign goods from getting in their borders. Worrying about predatory dumping is exactly what prevents predatory dumping.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
the thing that maybe isn't being said enough is that most allegations of dumping are obvious bullshit by an noncompetitive industry wanting an excuse for tariffs rather than dumping actually occurring, and everyone knows it. it's basically the "i thought i smelled pot" of international trade law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
qkkl posted:You see little predatory dumping followed by raising prices because everyone knows about it, so if it is attempted it won't get to to the "raise prices" part, which deters anyone from trying it. It can only really work against undeveloped countries that lack the military power to prevent foreign goods from getting in their borders. Has it ever worked against undeveloped countries? Because so far as I can tell the answer is no. The WTO hasn't existed THAT long, surely there must be SOME example that wasn't pulled from Alexander Hamilton's rear end. Flowers For Algeria posted:...But China isn't trying to gain a monopoly on welded non-alloy non-threaded steel tubes of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 168,3 mm, and not plated or coated with zinc. But if China is willing to sell you steel tubes at a loss isn't that good for the EU? It seems like a stupid and wasteful policy for China but hey if they didn't want to be taken advantage of they should man up and and tell those steelworkers to get a new job
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
Squalid posted:But if China is willing to sell you steel tubes at a loss isn't that good for the EU? It seems like a stupid and wasteful policy for China but hey if they didn't want to be taken advantage of they should man up and and tell those steelworkers to get a new job Steel is an essential component in ie buildings and cars and ships and stuff. It's integral to the economy. You can't just assume you'll have time to get foundries online when trade flows are disrupted so strategically you need to keep some minimum of domestic production or hand over leverage to other parties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
What the Chinese government does really isn't dumping to gain higher profit, what they do is in spirit subsidizing various markets to ensure 1 employment 2 access to strategically important commodity. There should be a different word in place of dumping. What the west and China disagree on is the government shouldn't have so much control over export industries, currency, flow of money and a whole bunch of other stuff. I see this as the fundamental difference between free market capitalism and state capitalism. Also organizations like TPP has a hidden motive of creating a supernational guide book to regulate trade laws of all countries in benefit of the small group of international capitalists who are not royal to any nation state (maybe a small royalty to the western civilization value), it's a shame Obama didn't see through it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 11:51
|
|
|
tino posted:What the west and China disagree on is the government shouldn't have so much control over export industries, currency, flow of money and a whole bunch of other stuff. I see this as the fundamental difference between free market capitalism and state capitalism. yeah. it's hard for china not to dump if chinese industry is geared more towards securing employment and not the economical production of goods. are they just supposed to dump all the surplus goods in the desert
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
Speaking of steel - can someone specify the reasons behind the decline of the steel industry in the US? My understanding is that it was increased global trade leading to Chinese steel being cheaper due combined with plastics and other synthetics being used increasingly in place of steel. Is this accurate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Stexils posted:Speaking of steel - can someone specify the reasons behind the decline of the steel industry in the US? My understanding is that it was increased global trade leading to Chinese steel being cheaper due combined with plastics and other synthetics being used increasingly in place of steel. Is this accurate? We still make a poo poo load of steel. For example The Great Lakes have some logistical advantages that are unmatched for steel making any where on the planet! There are still large steel making facilities in Gary and Chicago even. What has happened is that blast furnaces have gotten much much larger. So there are far fewer facilities making about the same amount, and some of them are foreign owned. And the rest of the world makes much more, and had newer better facilities. Also small boutique electric arc facilties to make specialized steels (starting with pig iron not raw ores ) were actually coming back in the states for a while, but I'm not sure this trend has continued. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
This also gets at something else. Much of the perceived loses to trade are really losses to automation and economies of scale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Man, and to think they’d promised fewer hours of work, higher pay and more paid vacation days as a result of mechanization and automation! drat the people who own the capital, they’ve shafted us right and proper!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Man, and to think they’d promised fewer hours of work, higher pay and more paid vacation days as a result of mechanization and automation! drat the people who own the capital, they’ve shafted us right and proper! Reminds me of conversations I've had with programmers who became apopleptic when I told them of the actual history of the word luddite and that actually the Luddite had some legitimate grievances about the way technology was going to be used to gently caress them. Ofcourse I was wrong and should instead prepare for Our Lord and Savior Elon to bring us the Singularity or whatever pseudo-religious nonsense techies believe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
Stexils posted:Speaking of steel - can someone specify the reasons behind the decline of the steel industry in the US? My understanding is that it was increased global trade leading to Chinese steel being cheaper due combined with plastics and other synthetics being used increasingly in place of steel. Is this accurate? I can only speak for the taconite industry in Minnesota, but for those miners a huge part of the demand for steel was coming from China, and many of the mines are owned by Chinese companies. A few years back, China's heavy investment into make-work infrastructure for no one caught up with itself, and suddenly a major source of demand was sitting on metric tons of extra inventory. I can only assume this shock went down the supply line to the steel mills across the lakes. Furloughing those miners has practically no consequences for the owners, the workers are lifers who make decent wages with no shot at transferring their skills without a huge drop in income. Now, with the US economy and foreign demand humming along, all of those same miners are back in business, except the ownership has had a few years to automate more systems without disrupting production.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Stexils posted:Speaking of steel - can someone specify the reasons behind the decline of the steel industry in the US? My understanding is that it was increased global trade leading to Chinese steel being cheaper due combined with plastics and other synthetics being used increasingly in place of steel. Is this accurate? BrandorKP is right that productivity increases account for a lot of the loss of employment (as in all manufacturing sectors over the last several decades), but the real decline in the US steel industry happened in the 70's and was principally the result of: -Enormous increases in foreign steel production since the 1950's (the US produced nearly half of the world's steel in 1950, and obviously that wasn't going to last forever in the postwar period) -Declining demand due to the tapering off of massive postwar growth in the US and elsewhere -More acute declines in demand due to various economic and geopolitical crises in the 1970's, most notably the 1973 and '79 oil/energy crises. There were other issues too, like the increase in the relative cost of labor in the US, which was not fully offset by productivity gains until later in the 20th century. But in any case, going from a situation where there is a huge postwar demand for steel and half of it is produced by the US, to a situation with flat growth and more foreign competition, necessarily meant a huge number of steel plants closing. Since the 1970's/early 80's, US steel production has remained relatively constant at around 60-65% of what it was during the early 70s. Since then, most of the job losses have been driven by productivity increases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
US doesn't do infrastructure project anymore, why would you make steel for infrastructures in the other side of the globe. The largest infrastructure project in the US is Hudson Yard in Manhattan, which is a 10? building office complex.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
tino posted:... To make money...and this is exactly what the US did during the 1950's and 60's where it was the dominant global supplier of steel. But the bottom line is it's an obvious strategic interest for those countries to be able to produce steel for themselves if they can, and as they have, the US steel industry has shrunk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Morbus posted:To make money...and this is exactly what the US did during the 1950's and 60's where it was the dominant global supplier of steel. But the bottom line is it's an obvious strategic interest for those countries to be able to produce steel for themselves if they can, and as they have, the US steel industry has shrunk. Shrunk relatively to the world total, my understanding is that absolute production isn't that much smaller, especially once the foreign firms that operate in the US are included. But then again I haven't looked closely at steel for about a decade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
It's lower in an absolute sense. As per the post I made before, the steel industry in the US declined pretty significantly in the mid 1970s--mostly as a result of increased competition--and since that decline it has been relatively stable in terms of output. Basically output shrank in the 70's as a result of competition, which resulted in pretty massive layoffs and plant closures in a short time. Output has been steady since then, but employment in the sector continues to shrink due to productivity increases like you say. Even compared to the peak production in 1973, current output is "only" 30-40% lower. But employment is maybe 80% lower.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
That's a bigger drop than I remember and it looks like you are correct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
To be fair, when most people talk about the decline of the US steel industry (real or perceived), they are imagining a time frame more recent than 40 years ago. I think a lot of people would tell you that US steel production today is way lower than it was in 1982 (thanks to Chinaaaa!!!!) and they'd be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
I am surprised the steel industry still has so much lobbying power, how come Walmart doesn't send somebody in and give pissbaby a smack talk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
Yeah I never understood how those things work. Like Alphabet Inc. has 10x the market cap of the entire 21st Century Fox conglomerate, and 4-6x as much revenue, income, total assets, and employees, but somehow we end up with Chief of Staff Sean Hannity and no net neutrality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Yeah I never understood how those things work. Like Alphabet Inc. has 10x the market cap of the entire 21st Century Fox conglomerate, and 4-6x as much revenue, income, total assets, and employees, but somehow we end up with Chief of Staff Sean Hannity and no net neutrality. The thing about politicians is that they're old and stupid and have careers based on payola from industries whose best days are behind them both despite and because of conglomeration, and now things are changing too fast for them to adapt. When millenials hit 50 Alphabet will absofuckinglutely be the bigger, badder Time Warner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
U.S politics makes a lot more sense when you realize it's run by senile old Boomers who haven't interacted with the real world for forty years
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Something I haven't seen talked about. They implemented in 15 days. Everybody in transit got hosed. According to what I'm hearing on the radio, most people that were in transit applied for exemptions. All those exemptions are being denied on technicalities. Welp wrong code even though we accepted and released it with that code type of stuff. Now this was either stupid or malicious. References to Mahan and some esoteric knowledge about canadian grain imports in some of his speeches make me think malicious. Somebody who writes some of his speeches has a maritime background. Now he obviously shits on them. But this person would have know transit times for the Pacific for containers and bulk. On the container side there are two basic types of routes between asia and the US. The biggest ships go Asian ports then US ports, just back and forth. The ones that fit through the canal do something a bit different. These route looks like a horseshoe, Asia - Canada - US West Coast - Canal -US East Coast - Europe. The point here is many of these containers would be in transit 30 - 60 days. Sounds like affected shippers are getting hit with the lol gently caress your exemption application, now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
Where else could they possibly go, though? USD still spends, last I checked. To my understanding its not like they're gonna stop servicing ports because they got done dirty on a hitherto utterly undramatic route and now have some exciting contributions to the North Pacific Gyre in their holds. They'll factor in the tariff, and rear end in a top hat Tax besides, and the workers will ultimately foot the bill like always happens when politicians start pissing on each others' legs. I really wish I knew more about the finer points of international logistics, but all the primary sources I've yet found are very tight lipped about anything other than generalities because.... well... I don't actually know, because they're VERY tight-lipped about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Supply chains will shift to between companies in counties that don't have the tariff fuckery going on. We will see more Europe - Asia trade I think at the expense of previous trading with the US between those areas. Look here's the thing one needs to know. Individual companies don't compete, supply chains compete. These tariffs screw over our supply chains. They screw over the supply chains of foreign companies that have components that are US (because of the retaliatory tariffs). It makes the supply chains that benefit and include the US less competetive and ones that do not include the US more competetive. They're tight lipped for two reasons. Clients don't like them to talk about thier business. They don't want the competition to know how they do what they do they might lose thier competetive advantage. What things do you want to know about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Something I haven't seen talked about. They implemented in 15 days. Everybody in transit got hosed. According to what I'm hearing on the radio, most people that were in transit applied for exemptions. All those exemptions are being denied on technicalities. Welp wrong code even though we accepted and released it with that code type of stuff. I think I heard the same radio interview. There's was a guy on complaing that his steel tubes got hit with tariffs while in transit and he lost his life savings to pay the bill. He was real mad he didn't get an exemption, for what seemed like a technicality. This is going to cause trouble for Republicans, because these kinds of relatively small businessmen are the donor base of the Republican party. Plus they probably have a disproportionate influence in organization and etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 04:34
|
|