7 ms·

Bikes in the age of tariffs

90 points by bobchadwick 2y ago

sandworm101 2y ago
>> Our rulers seem to think that the U.S. imports more than it exports, so the net effect will be positive. It is eye opening to see people so casually speak of American "rulers". Not politicians. Not business leaders. Rulers. That's new.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mtmail 2y ago
  That phrasing is weird indeed.
  - whynotmaybe 2y ago
    As a non native English speaker, "rulers" isn't problematic for me. Is it really that pejorative ?
    - Wumpnot 2y ago
      It means like king/queen/emperor, you wouldn't use it for an elected official, so here it is more sarcastic because Trump is acting like he is an emperor.
    - uoaei 2y ago
      It has a cultural weight because of the emphasis on the Revolution.
- a_t48 2y ago
  I think it's intended to be a bit flippant.
- taude 2y ago
  people forget he was voted in.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Many dictators are initially voted in.
  - 4ndrewl 2y ago
    As was Putin.
  - rahkiin 2y ago
    To be president, leader of the executive branch. He is using executive powers ignoring congress and actively ignores judges putting himself above all branches. That was not votes on
- akavi 2y ago
  [flagged]
- beloch 2y ago
  It reflects the nature of the current trade war. It's not congress levying import taxes. It's not the secretary of commerce. (Lutnick has been completely out of the loop at times during the Canada-U.S. trade-war.) It's Trump declaring spurious emergencies to abuse IEEPA and unilaterally pass tariff's without the approval of congress. At the same time, the Trump administration has taken issue with the independence of judiciary branch. When a judge ruled against one of their deportations, the executive branch ignored the ruling and argued that the judicial branch is subordinate. i.e. The king is above the law. So far, there have been no consequences. This is, quite literally, rule of a sort that hasn't been enjoyed by European monarchs since people became serious about enforcing the Magna Carta. For the moment, Trump is ruling as an absolute monarch. It remains to be seen if there will be a response to assert the supremacy of law and the independence of the judiciary branch, or if the Republican controlled congress will assert it's right to control economic policy. If the law is not enforced, then Americans have a de facto king. Institutions do not defend themselves. People do.
  - xmprt 2y ago
    The checks and balances still exists in theory. The problem is that a slim majority in congress and a slim Supreme Court majority aren't willing to use their checks and are instead ceding power to the President.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  It's in keeping with the times. Trump wants to be king.
pastureofplenty 2y ago
Why the light grey text on a white background? Seriously. It's every other website these days. I of course know how to fix this in Developer Tools but I resent that I have to.
giraffe_lady 2y ago
> That is a factor that’s often overlooked: The Civic Type R—and also many high-end bicycle components—barely make sense from a strict business perspective. ... International trade has made it possible to pool the global demand for such niche products and make them all in one place, achieving economies of scale that make them (almost) cost-effective. This is such an interesting insight that would never have occurred to me and seems to have a lot of explanatory power.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Of course there are enormous benefits to globalization: economies of scale, efficiency and lower prices, quality from specialization (wine from France, beer from Germany, etc), increased competition, etc. To think protectionism will benefit the economy is ignorant. The global system of free trade and human rights has been the most free, prosperous, and peaceful era of humanity by far. Whole nations lifted from deep poverty, such as China and India (with still more to be done!). Incredible prosperity for the wealthy. Freedom, self-determination, democracy and human rights as the global norms. Why are we throwing it away again? Much could be done to reform it, but we'll just throw it out?
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > Why are we throwing it away again? Because we haven't figured out how to square allowing people the freedom to work in the industries they please, no matter where in the world that industry has found itself, with allowing countries to strictly limit who is allowed inside its borders. The "just learn to code" message never sat well with those who have no interest in coding and now they are rising up to try and take back, so to speak, the work they actually want to do. The far reaching consequences that go along with that are not of their personal concern.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      I've never heard that. I don't think many people migrate for specific industries. People migrate to have any job and some income, regardless of industry. Am I not thinking of some population?
rstarast 2y ago
With the huge differences in per-country tariff, there seems to be a large incentive to reroute and relabel imports. E.g., build a bike frame in China, export it to a sister company in Japan, and export it to the US from there, claiming production in Japan. How effective are existing controls against that? (And what are they even, I'm ignorant.)
- mmooss 2y ago
  Good point. It still would increase costs, maybe not as much.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    You forgot the part about going from China to Japan and the associated costs. It could be cheaper? Could also be more expensive as well. In any case, if too many people play that game, then it only raises the tariff on Japan. I wouldn't assume these tariffs are fixed. They seem to be tied to trade deficit. So.. yeah. No real way around them over time. Might even piss the US government off if you try that. Which is kind of like playing with fire right now. It's not clear to me that this administration believes in rule of law in the strict sense that everyone adhered to in the past. Strange days ahead.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > You forgot the part about going from China to Japan and the associated costs. That was my point. > It could be cheaper? Why would it be cheaper? Wouldn't they do that without tariffs?
- whenc 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_origin
  - OtherShrezzing 2y ago
    It's trivial to get around these rules. Northern Irelnd is (or was at some point) a country of origin for both the EU and the UK. So a company could produce something in Greece, ship it to Dublin within the EU, then truck it to Belfast in Northern Ireland, and export it to the US with a UK certificate of origin.
mullingitover 2y ago
I've never been a political donor, I might've thrown $20 into a small donation a couple times. However, it seems financially irresponsible not to pour everything up to the legal limit into punishing everyone involved in this tax hike to the maximum extent.
- eesmith 2y ago
  All I've gotten from my donations has been being added to mailing lists asking for more money to help fund the next election. Not for building grass roots organizations. Not for building resiliency. Not for active protests, and organized opposition by the politicians. I'm sure the political consultants got paid well though.
  - davidw 2y ago
    Depends where you send your money. I've used this in the past and as a huge bonus, I don't get added to 29494494292 mailing lists https://app.oath.vote/ https://app.oath.vote/
    - eesmith 2y ago
      From what I can tell, all that does is send money to campaigns. While not getting junk mail is great, it doesn't build long-term grass roots organizations or resiliency. It doesn't support active protests, or get politicians to vigorously oppose what's happening to the US. I don't like how you can't see their recommendations for previous elections. That would help others judge if their "algorithm" is effective.
      - davidw 2y ago
        Well, yes, it's for campaign donations so it doesn't do those other things. Perhaps others can recommend groups that do a good job of those. Their algorithm is basically just targeting close state races, if I recall correctly. So like a state Senator from Arizona or something. Those are races where small donations go further than whatever big ticket Senate race gets a lot of press.
typeofhuman 2y ago
"the age of tariffs" ah yes, typical ethnocentric point of view of the US. Does the author not know other nations have been engaged in charging tariffs for a very long time?
- partiallypro 2y ago
  The world's most powerful consumer country putting broad tariffs on all imports that will be historically as high as the 1800s and higher than most any other major economy is indeed a move to an "age of tariffs" and is a bfd.
  - typeofhuman 2y ago
    The "age of tariffs" would better describe the state US businesses have been suffering from - unbeknownst to the average consumer - for a very long time.
- bobchadwick 2y ago
  I think the author, Jan Heine, is originally from Germany. He does own and operate a US-based company, so it's not that surprising that he's writing from that perspective.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > Does the author not know other nations have been engaged in charging tariffs for a very long time? And, unlike the US, none of them the envy of the world because of it. It is fascinating that the US has decided it wants to give up what it has to be become like them. It is akin to watching a supermodel get surgery to make themselves uglier because everyone they saw around them wasn't nearly as beautiful as they were. Likewise, we no doubt would come up with some kind of catchphrase to recognize that surprising event.
whynotmaybe 2y ago
> Let’s do the math: Take a kid’s bike that retails at a big box store for $ 150. Let’s assume that bike costs $ 30 to make. The rest of the cost is shipping to the U.S., warehousing, transport to the store, marketing, admin costs, customer service, warranty, retailer profits, etc. Whether the bike is made in China, Vietnam or Cambodia, the new 34-38% tariffs will increase the cost by ‘only’ $ 10-12. (The old tariffs are already part of the pricing.) Add overhead and capital costs on those $ 10-12 (financing and insuring the higher purchase price, etc.). Now the price goes up by $ 15-20, or about 10-13% of the final price of the bike. That's a great explanation of the direct impact of tarriffs for a business like this.
- yzydserd 2y ago
  And consumers will pay the $12. It won’t make it viable to make the bike in the US for < $40.
  - hx8 2y ago
    These blanket tariffs are less about protecting/encouraging domestic manufacturing and more about renegotiating trade. At this current framing ("reciprocal tariffs") there is an implication that they are short term. The negotiations with Canada and Mexico demonstrate a tic-for-tat game theory in effect. Without introducing the tariffs as a long term position businesses will be less inclined to do the capital expenditure to manufacture in the US, even for businesses within the margin (mostly manufacturing with high energy inputs and low supply chain requirements) where it would be economical.
    - jaredklewis 2y ago
      Like I hope you’re right, but what are you basing this on? Just based on the words that Trump actually says and writes, I find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than Trump strongly believes that trade imbalances are unfair, that tariffs will reshore manufacturing, and that reshoring manufacturing will make America “wealthier.” But if Trump is bluffing, it’s not clear there’s anything these other countries could give that would satisfy Trump. Vietnam could remove all tariffs against the US and in all likelihood not even make a dent in their trade surplus. It’s very hard for a small, developing country like Vietnam to import lots of stuff from a rich, expensive country like the US. Many of the countries whacked with massive tariffs by the administration already have very open trade policies with the US. What is there to negotiate?
mmooss 2y ago
An essential question is, what is the political angle for Trump and the right wing? They know what they are doing. They know it will cause economic calamity. They often seek to create calamity and crisis - with Covid; spreading fear (of immigrants, etc.), hatred and violence; disrupting health, education, and housing; international peace and security (NATO, Ukraine, etc.). You never see them spreading calm and peace - crisis seems necessary to their movement. Tanking the economy does the same thing, but it is a much bigger step that impacts many of their supporters. What is their exit plan? I expect part of their plan is to blame others: They will blame Democrats somehow, and other political enemies - it doesn't need any basis because the Dems don't have any effective means of refuting it to the public; whatever the GOP says becomes reality. I suspect they'll use it to ramp up hatred and fear, blaming their current objects of hatred such as immigrants, minorities, certain religions (a traditional object of blame, the right has already been normalizing antisemitism and general prejudice - which makes antisemitism inevitable. Rogan recently hosted a conspiracy theorist blaming Jewish people for 9/11, for example - how long before does he blames them for the economy, 'undermining President Trump'), liberals, etc. Edit: I did some rewording
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  The tech-right of musk, thiel, vance, andreessen etc are enacting the "reboot" envisioned by curtis yarvin, he wrote about it calling it "the butterfly revolution" iirc. The rest are just trying to roll back 80 years of social change along with reestablishing segregation but as national policy this time. And yeah I think your read on how they'll manage the fallout of this is correct.
  - bobchadwick 2y ago
    I think you’re right, and they’ve found their useful idiot in Trump. As for Trump himself, I think he truly believes the rest of the world is taking advantage of the US and tariffs are a way of setting things right. My guess is that in his view, the country (or at the least the rich people he cares about) will benefit from all this.
    - 2y ago
tomdawgnigger 2y ago
[dead]
metalman 2y ago
the article ends with a FUD statement about certain products bieng no longer financialy viable in the world market due to them bieng priced out of the US, and insuficient demand, elsewhere. This can only be accepted if there is no question about the obscene profits generated by all large manufacturers, where "not financisly viable" means double digit profit and growth, rather than actualy unprofitable. If there is real demand, and no way for large established industrys to meet it, then this will spur the creation of countless small manufacturers.,..............everywhere. And that once it picks up speed, will be a good thing for comunitys worldwide. Globalisation, only works for the biggest players and sharpers, and for the smallest least developé countrys, there will still be the things they need on.the world market. But ,ha!, that just me trying to see a brite side, the whole thing could be just the first stage in something much much worse. early floyd...."Ive got a bike...you can ride it if you like" excellent sound track for this world now
- mmooss 2y ago
  The point is that there are products for which there is not enough of domestic market for domestic small manufacturers. There is enough market worldwide for those manufacturers. > Globalisation, only works for the biggest players and sharpers That's just not true. Many small businesses sell their products worldwide via online marketplaces. Have you downloaded software from another country? Bought something on Alibaba? > once it picks up speed, will be a good thing for comunitys worldwide How about the people in those communities paying higher prices for worse goods - the extra money going into the pockets of large domestic corporations.
  - metalman 2y ago
    Missreading my emphasis.....Globisation ....I thought....refered to the creaping take over of "multinational" corporations consolodating whole industrys under one companys rule....locking out small businesses...like mine so ending the competion that realy boils down to makeing it easyer for BTB to buy from the giant multi national, but use my(and other) small businesses just to get that 3'rd quote, with no intent to purchase from me, is a good thing The supposed efficiencies in "economys of scale" are false, and wink wink, refer to the efficiency of extracting profits from a captured market, rather that the localisation of economys, which actualy stregthen comunitys. Problem with trump, is that, some of what he is doing, resonates strongly with actual local comunities, and the possitive effects there, could be quick and profound.Underestimating this, is a big mistake, if you are opposed to his other, shall we say......initiatives.
osigurdson 2y ago
At least for high end mountain bikes, carbon frames are mostly made in Taiwan, not China.
- davidw 2y ago
  Maybe everyone will start buying from https://argonautcycles.com/ https://argonautcycles.com/ - right?
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    I don't like carbon but I tend to prefer supporting USA and Taiwanese manufacturers. I'd love to see more domestic fabrication. I was/am going to buy an Otso titanium frame, but they're made in Taiwan. Depending on the final price adjustment due to tariffs, it might actually be more cost effective for me to buy a Moots (made in America) frame to build.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Considering their bikes start at $15K, "everyone" is unlikely to be able to afford it. I love to buy local, and I love to cycle, but what I can afford is $2K. Which is why I'm still riding the same Kestrel (full carbon w/ SRAM Force drivetrain) I got on Craigslist 8 years ago for $700, and on which I've since replaced a number of components, but have still spent < $2K overall. A comparable bike new these days would be at least $5K.
    - davidw 2y ago
      Yeah I was being a bit sarcastic. Those are cool bikes for sure - I used to work right next door - but I can't afford that.
    - osigurdson 2y ago
      It is fine to ride a cheaper / older bike but if you are really into it, you will tend to spend more (just like other sports / hobbies). Mountain bikes have come a very long way in the past 5-10 years.
- 2y ago
crawdog 2y ago
The supply chain impact on manufacturers in the US on contracts is overlooked in this tariff fiasco. For example - auto manufacturers enter into long term agreements as a fixed price for a product. The only negotiation point they may have to reset that price would be a government action, which a tariff checks the box. The genie is out of the bottle, lots of contracts will be negotiated and prices will go up. I would like to think this is some kind of 4-d chess game to avoid rate hikes and to devalue the dollar, but on implementation it will accomplish none of the above with a sprinkle of recession.
mmooss 2y ago
It's the enshittification of the US economy, in a way: The method of enshittification, as I understand it, is to create businesses with a moat that prevents competition, cheapen the product in every way possible, and squeeze as much rent out as possible. Also, extract as much as possible via debt. The tariffs are the moat. The debt I don't need to explain (though Dems aren't great with it either). It's all the opposite of competitive business and free markets.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
An excellent summary that applies to many other small industries. Too bad the Trump Administration economists didn't read this article before coming up with their tariffs plan (of course considering its stupidity, especially in how the tariffs were calculated, it's plausible no actual economists were involved).

90 points by bobchadwick 2y ago

>> Our rulers seem to think that the U.S. imports more than it exports, so the net effect will be positive. It is eye opening to see people so casually speak of American "rulers". Not politicians. Not business leaders. Rulers. That's new.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mtmail 2y ago
That phrasing is weird indeed.
- whynotmaybe 2y ago
  As a non native English speaker, "rulers" isn't problematic for me. Is it really that pejorative ?
  - Wumpnot 2y ago
    It means like king/queen/emperor, you wouldn't use it for an elected official, so here it is more sarcastic because Trump is acting like he is an emperor.
  - uoaei 2y ago
    It has a cultural weight because of the emphasis on the Revolution.
a_t48 2y ago
I think it's intended to be a bit flippant.
taude 2y ago
people forget he was voted in.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Many dictators are initially voted in.
- 4ndrewl 2y ago
  As was Putin.
- rahkiin 2y ago
  To be president, leader of the executive branch. He is using executive powers ignoring congress and actively ignores judges putting himself above all branches. That was not votes on
akavi 2y ago
[flagged]
beloch 2y ago
It reflects the nature of the current trade war. It's not congress levying import taxes. It's not the secretary of commerce. (Lutnick has been completely out of the loop at times during the Canada-U.S. trade-war.) It's Trump declaring spurious emergencies to abuse IEEPA and unilaterally pass tariff's without the approval of congress. At the same time, the Trump administration has taken issue with the independence of judiciary branch. When a judge ruled against one of their deportations, the executive branch ignored the ruling and argued that the judicial branch is subordinate. i.e. The king is above the law. So far, there have been no consequences. This is, quite literally, rule of a sort that hasn't been enjoyed by European monarchs since people became serious about enforcing the Magna Carta. For the moment, Trump is ruling as an absolute monarch. It remains to be seen if there will be a response to assert the supremacy of law and the independence of the judiciary branch, or if the Republican controlled congress will assert it's right to control economic policy. If the law is not enforced, then Americans have a de facto king. Institutions do not defend themselves. People do.
- xmprt 2y ago
  The checks and balances still exists in theory. The problem is that a slim majority in congress and a slim Supreme Court majority aren't willing to use their checks and are instead ceding power to the President.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
It's in keeping with the times. Trump wants to be king.

pastureofplenty 2y ago

Why the light grey text on a white background? Seriously. It's every other website these days. I of course know how to fix this in Developer Tools but I resent that I have to.

giraffe_lady 2y ago

> That is a factor that’s often overlooked: The Civic Type R—and also many high-end bicycle components—barely make sense from a strict business perspective. ... International trade has made it possible to pool the global demand for such niche products and make them all in one place, achieving economies of scale that make them (almost) cost-effective. This is such an interesting insight that would never have occurred to me and seems to have a lot of explanatory power.

mmooss 2y ago
Of course there are enormous benefits to globalization: economies of scale, efficiency and lower prices, quality from specialization (wine from France, beer from Germany, etc), increased competition, etc. To think protectionism will benefit the economy is ignorant. The global system of free trade and human rights has been the most free, prosperous, and peaceful era of humanity by far. Whole nations lifted from deep poverty, such as China and India (with still more to be done!). Incredible prosperity for the wealthy. Freedom, self-determination, democracy and human rights as the global norms. Why are we throwing it away again? Much could be done to reform it, but we'll just throw it out?
- 9rx 2y ago
  > Why are we throwing it away again? Because we haven't figured out how to square allowing people the freedom to work in the industries they please, no matter where in the world that industry has found itself, with allowing countries to strictly limit who is allowed inside its borders. The "just learn to code" message never sat well with those who have no interest in coding and now they are rising up to try and take back, so to speak, the work they actually want to do. The far reaching consequences that go along with that are not of their personal concern.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    I've never heard that. I don't think many people migrate for specific industries. People migrate to have any job and some income, regardless of industry. Am I not thinking of some population?

rstarast 2y ago

With the huge differences in per-country tariff, there seems to be a large incentive to reroute and relabel imports. E.g., build a bike frame in China, export it to a sister company in Japan, and export it to the US from there, claiming production in Japan. How effective are existing controls against that? (And what are they even, I'm ignorant.)

mmooss 2y ago
Good point. It still would increase costs, maybe not as much.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  You forgot the part about going from China to Japan and the associated costs. It could be cheaper? Could also be more expensive as well. In any case, if too many people play that game, then it only raises the tariff on Japan. I wouldn't assume these tariffs are fixed. They seem to be tied to trade deficit. So.. yeah. No real way around them over time. Might even piss the US government off if you try that. Which is kind of like playing with fire right now. It's not clear to me that this administration believes in rule of law in the strict sense that everyone adhered to in the past. Strange days ahead.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > You forgot the part about going from China to Japan and the associated costs. That was my point. > It could be cheaper? Why would it be cheaper? Wouldn't they do that without tariffs?
whenc 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_origin
- OtherShrezzing 2y ago
  It's trivial to get around these rules. Northern Irelnd is (or was at some point) a country of origin for both the EU and the UK. So a company could produce something in Greece, ship it to Dublin within the EU, then truck it to Belfast in Northern Ireland, and export it to the US with a UK certificate of origin.

mullingitover 2y ago

I've never been a political donor, I might've thrown $20 into a small donation a couple times. However, it seems financially irresponsible not to pour everything up to the legal limit into punishing everyone involved in this tax hike to the maximum extent.

eesmith 2y ago
All I've gotten from my donations has been being added to mailing lists asking for more money to help fund the next election. Not for building grass roots organizations. Not for building resiliency. Not for active protests, and organized opposition by the politicians. I'm sure the political consultants got paid well though.
- davidw 2y ago
  Depends where you send your money. I've used this in the past and as a huge bonus, I don't get added to 29494494292 mailing lists https://app.oath.vote/ https://app.oath.vote/
  - eesmith 2y ago
    From what I can tell, all that does is send money to campaigns. While not getting junk mail is great, it doesn't build long-term grass roots organizations or resiliency. It doesn't support active protests, or get politicians to vigorously oppose what's happening to the US. I don't like how you can't see their recommendations for previous elections. That would help others judge if their "algorithm" is effective.
    - davidw 2y ago
      Well, yes, it's for campaign donations so it doesn't do those other things. Perhaps others can recommend groups that do a good job of those. Their algorithm is basically just targeting close state races, if I recall correctly. So like a state Senator from Arizona or something. Those are races where small donations go further than whatever big ticket Senate race gets a lot of press.

typeofhuman 2y ago

"the age of tariffs" ah yes, typical ethnocentric point of view of the US. Does the author not know other nations have been engaged in charging tariffs for a very long time?

partiallypro 2y ago
The world's most powerful consumer country putting broad tariffs on all imports that will be historically as high as the 1800s and higher than most any other major economy is indeed a move to an "age of tariffs" and is a bfd.
- typeofhuman 2y ago
  The "age of tariffs" would better describe the state US businesses have been suffering from - unbeknownst to the average consumer - for a very long time.
bobchadwick 2y ago
I think the author, Jan Heine, is originally from Germany. He does own and operate a US-based company, so it's not that surprising that he's writing from that perspective.
9rx 2y ago
> Does the author not know other nations have been engaged in charging tariffs for a very long time? And, unlike the US, none of them the envy of the world because of it. It is fascinating that the US has decided it wants to give up what it has to be become like them. It is akin to watching a supermodel get surgery to make themselves uglier because everyone they saw around them wasn't nearly as beautiful as they were. Likewise, we no doubt would come up with some kind of catchphrase to recognize that surprising event.

whynotmaybe 2y ago

> Let’s do the math: Take a kid’s bike that retails at a big box store for $ 150. Let’s assume that bike costs $ 30 to make. The rest of the cost is shipping to the U.S., warehousing, transport to the store, marketing, admin costs, customer service, warranty, retailer profits, etc. Whether the bike is made in China, Vietnam or Cambodia, the new 34-38% tariffs will increase the cost by ‘only’ $ 10-12. (The old tariffs are already part of the pricing.) Add overhead and capital costs on those $ 10-12 (financing and insuring the higher purchase price, etc.). Now the price goes up by $ 15-20, or about 10-13% of the final price of the bike. That's a great explanation of the direct impact of tarriffs for a business like this.

yzydserd 2y ago
And consumers will pay the $12. It won’t make it viable to make the bike in the US for < $40.
- hx8 2y ago
  These blanket tariffs are less about protecting/encouraging domestic manufacturing and more about renegotiating trade. At this current framing ("reciprocal tariffs") there is an implication that they are short term. The negotiations with Canada and Mexico demonstrate a tic-for-tat game theory in effect. Without introducing the tariffs as a long term position businesses will be less inclined to do the capital expenditure to manufacture in the US, even for businesses within the margin (mostly manufacturing with high energy inputs and low supply chain requirements) where it would be economical.
  - jaredklewis 2y ago
    Like I hope you’re right, but what are you basing this on? Just based on the words that Trump actually says and writes, I find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than Trump strongly believes that trade imbalances are unfair, that tariffs will reshore manufacturing, and that reshoring manufacturing will make America “wealthier.” But if Trump is bluffing, it’s not clear there’s anything these other countries could give that would satisfy Trump. Vietnam could remove all tariffs against the US and in all likelihood not even make a dent in their trade surplus. It’s very hard for a small, developing country like Vietnam to import lots of stuff from a rich, expensive country like the US. Many of the countries whacked with massive tariffs by the administration already have very open trade policies with the US. What is there to negotiate?

mmooss 2y ago

An essential question is, what is the political angle for Trump and the right wing? They know what they are doing. They know it will cause economic calamity. They often seek to create calamity and crisis - with Covid; spreading fear (of immigrants, etc.), hatred and violence; disrupting health, education, and housing; international peace and security (NATO, Ukraine, etc.). You never see them spreading calm and peace - crisis seems necessary to their movement. Tanking the economy does the same thing, but it is a much bigger step that impacts many of their supporters. What is their exit plan? I expect part of their plan is to blame others: They will blame Democrats somehow, and other political enemies - it doesn't need any basis because the Dems don't have any effective means of refuting it to the public; whatever the GOP says becomes reality. I suspect they'll use it to ramp up hatred and fear, blaming their current objects of hatred such as immigrants, minorities, certain religions (a traditional object of blame, the right has already been normalizing antisemitism and general prejudice - which makes antisemitism inevitable. Rogan recently hosted a conspiracy theorist blaming Jewish people for 9/11, for example - how long before does he blames them for the economy, 'undermining President Trump'), liberals, etc. Edit: I did some rewording

giraffe_lady 2y ago
The tech-right of musk, thiel, vance, andreessen etc are enacting the "reboot" envisioned by curtis yarvin, he wrote about it calling it "the butterfly revolution" iirc. The rest are just trying to roll back 80 years of social change along with reestablishing segregation but as national policy this time. And yeah I think your read on how they'll manage the fallout of this is correct.
- bobchadwick 2y ago
  I think you’re right, and they’ve found their useful idiot in Trump. As for Trump himself, I think he truly believes the rest of the world is taking advantage of the US and tariffs are a way of setting things right. My guess is that in his view, the country (or at the least the rich people he cares about) will benefit from all this.
  - 2y ago

tomdawgnigger 2y ago

[dead]

metalman 2y ago

the article ends with a FUD statement about certain products bieng no longer financialy viable in the world market due to them bieng priced out of the US, and insuficient demand, elsewhere. This can only be accepted if there is no question about the obscene profits generated by all large manufacturers, where "not financisly viable" means double digit profit and growth, rather than actualy unprofitable. If there is real demand, and no way for large established industrys to meet it, then this will spur the creation of countless small manufacturers.,..............everywhere. And that once it picks up speed, will be a good thing for comunitys worldwide. Globalisation, only works for the biggest players and sharpers, and for the smallest least developé countrys, there will still be the things they need on.the world market. But ,ha!, that just me trying to see a brite side, the whole thing could be just the first stage in something much much worse. early floyd...."Ive got a bike...you can ride it if you like" excellent sound track for this world now

mmooss 2y ago
The point is that there are products for which there is not enough of domestic market for domestic small manufacturers. There is enough market worldwide for those manufacturers. > Globalisation, only works for the biggest players and sharpers That's just not true. Many small businesses sell their products worldwide via online marketplaces. Have you downloaded software from another country? Bought something on Alibaba? > once it picks up speed, will be a good thing for comunitys worldwide How about the people in those communities paying higher prices for worse goods - the extra money going into the pockets of large domestic corporations.
- metalman 2y ago
  Missreading my emphasis.....Globisation ....I thought....refered to the creaping take over of "multinational" corporations consolodating whole industrys under one companys rule....locking out small businesses...like mine so ending the competion that realy boils down to makeing it easyer for BTB to buy from the giant multi national, but use my(and other) small businesses just to get that 3'rd quote, with no intent to purchase from me, is a good thing The supposed efficiencies in "economys of scale" are false, and wink wink, refer to the efficiency of extracting profits from a captured market, rather that the localisation of economys, which actualy stregthen comunitys. Problem with trump, is that, some of what he is doing, resonates strongly with actual local comunities, and the possitive effects there, could be quick and profound.Underestimating this, is a big mistake, if you are opposed to his other, shall we say......initiatives.

osigurdson 2y ago

At least for high end mountain bikes, carbon frames are mostly made in Taiwan, not China.

davidw 2y ago
Maybe everyone will start buying from https://argonautcycles.com/ https://argonautcycles.com/ - right?
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  I don't like carbon but I tend to prefer supporting USA and Taiwanese manufacturers. I'd love to see more domestic fabrication. I was/am going to buy an Otso titanium frame, but they're made in Taiwan. Depending on the final price adjustment due to tariffs, it might actually be more cost effective for me to buy a Moots (made in America) frame to build.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Considering their bikes start at $15K, "everyone" is unlikely to be able to afford it. I love to buy local, and I love to cycle, but what I can afford is $2K. Which is why I'm still riding the same Kestrel (full carbon w/ SRAM Force drivetrain) I got on Craigslist 8 years ago for $700, and on which I've since replaced a number of components, but have still spent < $2K overall. A comparable bike new these days would be at least $5K.
  - davidw 2y ago
    Yeah I was being a bit sarcastic. Those are cool bikes for sure - I used to work right next door - but I can't afford that.
  - osigurdson 2y ago
    It is fine to ride a cheaper / older bike but if you are really into it, you will tend to spend more (just like other sports / hobbies). Mountain bikes have come a very long way in the past 5-10 years.
2y ago

crawdog 2y ago

The supply chain impact on manufacturers in the US on contracts is overlooked in this tariff fiasco. For example - auto manufacturers enter into long term agreements as a fixed price for a product. The only negotiation point they may have to reset that price would be a government action, which a tariff checks the box. The genie is out of the bottle, lots of contracts will be negotiated and prices will go up. I would like to think this is some kind of 4-d chess game to avoid rate hikes and to devalue the dollar, but on implementation it will accomplish none of the above with a sprinkle of recession.

mmooss 2y ago

It's the enshittification of the US economy, in a way: The method of enshittification, as I understand it, is to create businesses with a moat that prevents competition, cheapen the product in every way possible, and squeeze as much rent out as possible. Also, extract as much as possible via debt. The tariffs are the moat. The debt I don't need to explain (though Dems aren't great with it either). It's all the opposite of competitive business and free markets.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

An excellent summary that applies to many other small industries. Too bad the Trump Administration economists didn't read this article before coming up with their tariffs plan (of course considering its stupidity, especially in how the tariffs were calculated, it's plausible no actual economists were involved).