6 ms·

Can you provide an example, especially for the EU? From what I read, the average tariff applied by the EU is under 1%. Other comments say Trump has just divide

Can you provide an example, especially for the EU? From what I read, the average tariff applied by the EU is under 1%. Other comments say Trump has just divided imports by exports to calculate his tariff rates.

pembrook 2y ago
On a trade weighted basis it’s more like 3%-4%. The US is indeed lower on average, but marginally by like 1-2% on average. But I think the concern is more key industries for the US like autos, tech (EU never ending fines are essentially tariffs), etc. where the disparity is more dramatic. But it’s still not a 20% difference. Another concern is the devaluation of the Euro vs the dollar due to certain economic policies. Which again is a defacto tariff. Anyways, my guess is this is a negotiating position since 20% seems excessive, but I could be wrong.
- youngtaff 2y ago
  > EU never ending fines are essentially tariffs) Comply with EU legislation for activity within the EU and there are no fines so it’s hardly a tariff
  - pembrook 2y ago
    Listen I get this is wildly counter-narrative on HN (all tech legislation = good and EU = default good on this forum) so I will never win this argument. But I’ve dealt closely with EU compliance on these matters, and the fines are absolutely levied selectively and in bad faith on areas that are impossible to comply with on the timelines provided or ever. They have absolutely turned into strategically punitive taxes on an industry that the EU has no answer to, so in effect, yes, they are tariffs.
    - throwaway_20357 2y ago
      Yes, fines sometimes appear levied selectively. Where do you draw the line though? Would you consider the tens of billions Volkswagen had to spent in the US to settle their emissions scandal as "tariffs"?
    - olau 2y ago
      I have also dealt with EU compliance, and I have never seen the EU act quickly on anything concerning business. It's a slow, bureaucratic institution. With all due respect, when you are given years to comply, the problem is not that the timeline is impossible, but that your organization chooses to ignore the regulation. If the same laws had been passed in the US, the company would have complied already.
- orwin 2y ago
  I mean, if you respect the law, you don't get fined. How hard it is?
  - gman83 2y ago
    This whole "the EU fining us for breaking EU law is a tariff" narrative is such BS. The big tech companies just don't like the privacy & consumer protection laws in the EU so now they're getting the US government to help them bully the EU into submission.
    - orwin 2y ago
      Yes, criminals get fined, I don't understand why part of the HN crowd support criminals that much.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        The fines are not all crime-related. They don't come out of a criminal court.
        orwin 2y ago
        In my country, any fine > 135€ have to be given by a judge. If you want to discriminate between 'crime' and 'offense', be my guest, breaking the law get you fined, respect it, you'll be fine.
  - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
    Also it's not as if the US doesn't fine EU banks disproportionately compared to US ones.
  - pembrook 2y ago
    Yep, and if you respect the tariff, you don't get fined. How hard is it? "THE LAW IS THE LAW" is not an logical argument. Tariffs are also imposed via legislation (laws). Just as EU companies have to abide by EU privacy regs, US firms also have to abide by US tariff regs.
- jeltz 2y ago
  EU's fines are not tariffs. They are fines for breaking the law. EU companies are also fined.
  - pembrook 2y ago
    I see this devolving into a circular argument. But you can rebrand tariffs as “fines” all you want. When they’re applied wildly disproportionately to certain firms in a certain industry from a certain 3rd party country…it’s a defacto tariff.
    - anon_e-moose 2y ago
      The other day I got a massive tariff from the police, alleging that my parking was somehow wrong. This is a free country, I can park where I want.
      - pembrook 2y ago
        Great example. Your government has decided they will levy additional fees for parking in geographic areas deemed undesirable. This is also what a tariff does for manufacturing (US firms also have to pay tariffs on imported goods). Let’s continue down the circular argument drain!
        short_sells_poo 2y ago
        I mean, you are not presenting any robust or even reasonable arguments for your view. What you seem to be completely missing is intent. The EU privacy laws were not put in place to tariff US tech companies. The fact that US tech runs routinely afoul EU privacy laws and actually mostly gets away with it is entirely their choice. They could always abide by the rules and then they wouldn't get fined.
        anon_e-moose 2y ago
        Aligning incentives through financial penalties = forcing an entity to give you money until what you want happens. The key question here is intent - 1)which entity, 2)what's the scope of what you want to happen, 3)what happened before and 4) can you do something about it if you're disadvantaged? Tariffs and fines, for lack of better words, are both aligning incentives through financial penalties, but they are still different things. The EU (governmental body) created laws to price in negative externalities and punish offenders until they correct their behavior. Fines will punish corps (private citizens) directly, with little collateral damage, until they stop being anti-competitive. A fine forces a 1)small target to follow 2)a specific law and uses, like tariffs, financial penalties to achieve this. That law is a long term reflection of people's local culture and values, and it 4)can be appealed and judged. 3)A negative externality was priced in as a law and a fine. -- Right now, you have the Trump admin (gov body) applying tariffs to other countries (gov body) because they want manufacturing (private citizens) back in US soil. There is clear widespread collateral damage. A tariff shapes the economic behavior of a 1)big target and, like fines, also uses financial penalties to achieves this. The desired economic outcome is a 2)trading strategy of a temporary administration. There is collateral damage. 4)There is no court, judge or 3rd party to appeal to, you as a government can only try to negotiate with the other government. 3) Two governments that were having mutually beneficial and consensual trading are now no longer doing so, there was no negative externality here, and while Trump may claim so it does not make it true that other countries were taking advantage of America. See trade balances considering products and services, as one example of lies trying to make it look like US was getting short changed by the world, it was not. If tariffs and fines still feel like the same thing, it's only because 1)corporations have become government-sized and have achieved government-like powers; and 4) that 3rd party of the judicial branch seems to be more and more taken over by just the government itself, who might actually be a gov-sized and gov-powered corporation.

pembrook 2y ago

On a trade weighted basis it’s more like 3%-4%. The US is indeed lower on average, but marginally by like 1-2% on average. But I think the concern is more key industries for the US like autos, tech (EU never ending fines are essentially tariffs), etc. where the disparity is more dramatic. But it’s still not a 20% difference. Another concern is the devaluation of the Euro vs the dollar due to certain economic policies. Which again is a defacto tariff. Anyways, my guess is this is a negotiating position since 20% seems excessive, but I could be wrong.

youngtaff 2y ago
> EU never ending fines are essentially tariffs) Comply with EU legislation for activity within the EU and there are no fines so it’s hardly a tariff
- pembrook 2y ago
  Listen I get this is wildly counter-narrative on HN (all tech legislation = good and EU = default good on this forum) so I will never win this argument. But I’ve dealt closely with EU compliance on these matters, and the fines are absolutely levied selectively and in bad faith on areas that are impossible to comply with on the timelines provided or ever. They have absolutely turned into strategically punitive taxes on an industry that the EU has no answer to, so in effect, yes, they are tariffs.
  - throwaway_20357 2y ago
    Yes, fines sometimes appear levied selectively. Where do you draw the line though? Would you consider the tens of billions Volkswagen had to spent in the US to settle their emissions scandal as "tariffs"?
  - olau 2y ago
    I have also dealt with EU compliance, and I have never seen the EU act quickly on anything concerning business. It's a slow, bureaucratic institution. With all due respect, when you are given years to comply, the problem is not that the timeline is impossible, but that your organization chooses to ignore the regulation. If the same laws had been passed in the US, the company would have complied already.
orwin 2y ago
I mean, if you respect the law, you don't get fined. How hard it is?
- gman83 2y ago
  This whole "the EU fining us for breaking EU law is a tariff" narrative is such BS. The big tech companies just don't like the privacy & consumer protection laws in the EU so now they're getting the US government to help them bully the EU into submission.
  - orwin 2y ago
    Yes, criminals get fined, I don't understand why part of the HN crowd support criminals that much.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      The fines are not all crime-related. They don't come out of a criminal court.
      - orwin 2y ago
        In my country, any fine > 135€ have to be given by a judge. If you want to discriminate between 'crime' and 'offense', be my guest, breaking the law get you fined, respect it, you'll be fine.
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  Also it's not as if the US doesn't fine EU banks disproportionately compared to US ones.
- pembrook 2y ago
  Yep, and if you respect the tariff, you don't get fined. How hard is it? "THE LAW IS THE LAW" is not an logical argument. Tariffs are also imposed via legislation (laws). Just as EU companies have to abide by EU privacy regs, US firms also have to abide by US tariff regs.
jeltz 2y ago
EU's fines are not tariffs. They are fines for breaking the law. EU companies are also fined.
- pembrook 2y ago
  I see this devolving into a circular argument. But you can rebrand tariffs as “fines” all you want. When they’re applied wildly disproportionately to certain firms in a certain industry from a certain 3rd party country…it’s a defacto tariff.
  - anon_e-moose 2y ago
    The other day I got a massive tariff from the police, alleging that my parking was somehow wrong. This is a free country, I can park where I want.
    - pembrook 2y ago
      Great example. Your government has decided they will levy additional fees for parking in geographic areas deemed undesirable. This is also what a tariff does for manufacturing (US firms also have to pay tariffs on imported goods). Let’s continue down the circular argument drain!
      - short_sells_poo 2y ago
        I mean, you are not presenting any robust or even reasonable arguments for your view. What you seem to be completely missing is intent. The EU privacy laws were not put in place to tariff US tech companies. The fact that US tech runs routinely afoul EU privacy laws and actually mostly gets away with it is entirely their choice. They could always abide by the rules and then they wouldn't get fined.
      - anon_e-moose 2y ago
        Aligning incentives through financial penalties = forcing an entity to give you money until what you want happens. The key question here is intent - 1)which entity, 2)what's the scope of what you want to happen, 3)what happened before and 4) can you do something about it if you're disadvantaged? Tariffs and fines, for lack of better words, are both aligning incentives through financial penalties, but they are still different things. The EU (governmental body) created laws to price in negative externalities and punish offenders until they correct their behavior. Fines will punish corps (private citizens) directly, with little collateral damage, until they stop being anti-competitive. A fine forces a 1)small target to follow 2)a specific law and uses, like tariffs, financial penalties to achieve this. That law is a long term reflection of people's local culture and values, and it 4)can be appealed and judged. 3)A negative externality was priced in as a law and a fine. -- Right now, you have the Trump admin (gov body) applying tariffs to other countries (gov body) because they want manufacturing (private citizens) back in US soil. There is clear widespread collateral damage. A tariff shapes the economic behavior of a 1)big target and, like fines, also uses financial penalties to achieves this. The desired economic outcome is a 2)trading strategy of a temporary administration. There is collateral damage. 4)There is no court, judge or 3rd party to appeal to, you as a government can only try to negotiate with the other government. 3) Two governments that were having mutually beneficial and consensual trading are now no longer doing so, there was no negative externality here, and while Trump may claim so it does not make it true that other countries were taking advantage of America. See trade balances considering products and services, as one example of lies trying to make it look like US was getting short changed by the world, it was not. If tariffs and fines still feel like the same thing, it's only because 1)corporations have become government-sized and have achieved government-like powers; and 4) that 3rd party of the judicial branch seems to be more and more taken over by just the government itself, who might actually be a gov-sized and gov-powered corporation.