5 ms·

You proved my point. Umbrella seller will sell fewer of those China-imported umbrellas. In comes African umbrella maker for $4 apiece.

mooreds 7y ago
Actually, if the African umbrella maker could make a profit at $4, they would already be doing that, pre-tariff. So they are more likely selling at $5.15 (or some other higher number), which means that the US consumer pays an extra 15 cents per umbrella. That 15 cents is additional and what people refer to as a "tax", though it isn't a traditionally levied tax.
- teknopurge 7y ago
  Markets are not perfectly efficient - this is why arbitrage exists. It likely will take some event, some slack, some inelegance for a business or entrepreneur to notice that the delta between that $5/umbrella and where they can figure out how to deliver it for $4 is worth spending time and attention on. Markets are not perfectly efficient. Markets are perfectly imperfect.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >Markets are perfectly imperfect. You should start writing speeches for Theresa May. This is the kind of guff she regularly comes out with.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how annoying another comment is or feels. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
        Yeah, sorry. I think I managed to break a few there.
      - hatchback176 7y ago
        Say whatever you want. The endgame for censorship types is to automate the process and remove the human element from online interactions.
        dang 7y ago
        Our idea here is to try to enhance the human element in online interactions, or at least to prevent it from destroying itself. If that isn't clear from the site guidelines, I'm not sure what would persuade you? All of them are meant sincerely. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        inflatableDodo 7y ago
        We are in someone else's yard. One that mysteriously seems to feature players who interact solely through disembodied text, has a numbered scoring system and also at least one non-player character who fiercely guards a list of rules, and can alter everything. Is obviously some kind of retro cyberpunk-themed text-based multiplayer D&D clone. So, personally, I try not to directly piss off dang, who appears to currently be the dungeonmaster here, just in case I then get eaten by a grue.
        dang 7y ago
        I'll take it, but would rather persuade you that the rules are worth following because they make for a more interesting game.
- btrautsc 7y ago
  Your comment just made my day. This was a perfect description.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  You make the perfect point that fair trade advocates push for. China's $5 umbrellas are heavily subsidized by the government (and mostly through debt and near zero environmental controls). African umbrella companies can now sell at $5.15 without subsidies, setting the actual market value for an umbrella without the Chinese government causing an over-investment in umbrellas through the market distortion of (grossly unfair) subsidies.
  - mooreds 7y ago
    > You make the perfect point that fair trade advocates push for. Totally get it. There's a line between a country being good at making a product through "natural" causes (having a climate to grow grapes for wine) and the government subsidizing the production of wine because they want a wine growing industry. Where that line is depends on a lot of actors, but some things fall on one side of the line and others on the other. However, for the end consumer in the importing country, they win if the government of the exporting industry wants to subsidize wine production. The consumer gets cheaper wine. Now the argument for fair trade is that the local producers of wine will be hurt. And I get that (especially when you are talking about job losses and/or loss of strategic capability around food production or technology). But overall the consumer in the importing country wins. If China wants to give dollar bills to the American consumer for umbrellas, why shouldn't the consumer take them?
    - merpnderp 7y ago
      I see what you're saying, but there's one further point you should address. It's not the Chinese free market that's giving the US consumers $5 bills for wine, it's the Chinese government. So consumers are enticed to buy wine which they might not have in a market distortion, which hurts not just US wine producers, but Chinese beer producers who compete in the tasty alcoholic treats export market. Maybe a short term gain for US consumers who enjoy their nightly reds and whites, but in the long term, market development will be unnaturally stymied.
      - mooreds 7y ago
po 7y ago
He didn't prove your point. You're not making sense. You agree with him except for the last point. The parent comment said: Tariffs against China are actually a tax on the American citizens, and only causes increased prices and unemployment. and as far as I can tell you believe: Tariffs against China are actually a tax on the American citizens, which causes increased prices and (eventually?) a shift to a different producer. but that's not the argument you're making.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Are there other locations in the world that has either the current capacity or the ability to ramp up to that quickly and cheaply to match China's current production levels? Supply doesn't come out of nowhere, and America is a prodigious consumer.
civilitty 7y ago
No he hasn't. You haven't proved that African umbrellas even exist for $4. If they did, we would have been buying them instead of the $5 chinese umbrella long ago, or at least the people who didnt want chinese umbrellas would have supported them.

mooreds 7y ago

Actually, if the African umbrella maker could make a profit at $4, they would already be doing that, pre-tariff. So they are more likely selling at $5.15 (or some other higher number), which means that the US consumer pays an extra 15 cents per umbrella. That 15 cents is additional and what people refer to as a "tax", though it isn't a traditionally levied tax.

teknopurge 7y ago
Markets are not perfectly efficient - this is why arbitrage exists. It likely will take some event, some slack, some inelegance for a business or entrepreneur to notice that the delta between that $5/umbrella and where they can figure out how to deliver it for $4 is worth spending time and attention on. Markets are not perfectly efficient. Markets are perfectly imperfect.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >Markets are perfectly imperfect. You should start writing speeches for Theresa May. This is the kind of guff she regularly comes out with.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how annoying another comment is or feels. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      Yeah, sorry. I think I managed to break a few there.
    - hatchback176 7y ago
      Say whatever you want. The endgame for censorship types is to automate the process and remove the human element from online interactions.
      - dang 7y ago
        Our idea here is to try to enhance the human element in online interactions, or at least to prevent it from destroying itself. If that isn't clear from the site guidelines, I'm not sure what would persuade you? All of them are meant sincerely. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
        We are in someone else's yard. One that mysteriously seems to feature players who interact solely through disembodied text, has a numbered scoring system and also at least one non-player character who fiercely guards a list of rules, and can alter everything. Is obviously some kind of retro cyberpunk-themed text-based multiplayer D&D clone. So, personally, I try not to directly piss off dang, who appears to currently be the dungeonmaster here, just in case I then get eaten by a grue.
        dang 7y ago
        I'll take it, but would rather persuade you that the rules are worth following because they make for a more interesting game.
btrautsc 7y ago
Your comment just made my day. This was a perfect description.
merpnderp 7y ago
You make the perfect point that fair trade advocates push for. China's $5 umbrellas are heavily subsidized by the government (and mostly through debt and near zero environmental controls). African umbrella companies can now sell at $5.15 without subsidies, setting the actual market value for an umbrella without the Chinese government causing an over-investment in umbrellas through the market distortion of (grossly unfair) subsidies.
- mooreds 7y ago
  > You make the perfect point that fair trade advocates push for. Totally get it. There's a line between a country being good at making a product through "natural" causes (having a climate to grow grapes for wine) and the government subsidizing the production of wine because they want a wine growing industry. Where that line is depends on a lot of actors, but some things fall on one side of the line and others on the other. However, for the end consumer in the importing country, they win if the government of the exporting industry wants to subsidize wine production. The consumer gets cheaper wine. Now the argument for fair trade is that the local producers of wine will be hurt. And I get that (especially when you are talking about job losses and/or loss of strategic capability around food production or technology). But overall the consumer in the importing country wins. If China wants to give dollar bills to the American consumer for umbrellas, why shouldn't the consumer take them?
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    I see what you're saying, but there's one further point you should address. It's not the Chinese free market that's giving the US consumers $5 bills for wine, it's the Chinese government. So consumers are enticed to buy wine which they might not have in a market distortion, which hurts not just US wine producers, but Chinese beer producers who compete in the tasty alcoholic treats export market. Maybe a short term gain for US consumers who enjoy their nightly reds and whites, but in the long term, market development will be unnaturally stymied.
    - mooreds 7y ago

po 7y ago

He didn't prove your point. You're not making sense. You agree with him except for the last point. The parent comment said: Tariffs against China are actually a tax on the American citizens, and only causes increased prices and unemployment. and as far as I can tell you believe: Tariffs against China are actually a tax on the American citizens, which causes increased prices and (eventually?) a shift to a different producer. but that's not the argument you're making.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

Are there other locations in the world that has either the current capacity or the ability to ramp up to that quickly and cheaply to match China's current production levels? Supply doesn't come out of nowhere, and America is a prodigious consumer.

civilitty 7y ago

No he hasn't. You haven't proved that African umbrellas even exist for $4. If they did, we would have been buying them instead of the $5 chinese umbrella long ago, or at least the people who didnt want chinese umbrellas would have supported them.