Tariffs in American History(imprimis.hillsdale.edu)
imprimis.hillsdale.edu
Tariffs in American History
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/tariffs-in-american-history/
264 comments
If I remember correctly, India is manufacturing iPhones for export because the government would not let Apple expand sale of iPhones(or was it open Apple stores) in the country unless they produced the phones locally?
So Apple setup production in India starting with old model iPhones. Then expanded to today…
So Apple setup production in India starting with old model iPhones. Then expanded to today…
The last thing Trump's tariffs could be described as is targeted industrial policy. They are intentionally a sledge-hammer. They are intentionally emotional. Intentionally full of jingoistic rhetoric and victimhood rhetoric.
Sadly there has been zero discussion of doing targeted industrial policy (like China's) in the US. The irony is that Trump's approach benefits China tremendously.
Sadly there has been zero discussion of doing targeted industrial policy (like China's) in the US. The irony is that Trump's approach benefits China tremendously.
A sober approach to promoting the redevelopment of production industry in America would likely involve some tariffs and could make a lot of sense.
But, yeah, the current American approach is anything but sober.
But, yeah, the current American approach is anything but sober.
There is nothing rational or sober about wanting manufacturing back.
Factories are bad for the environment and provide shitty jobs.
Factories are bad for the environment and provide shitty jobs.
[deleted]
People who downvote the above comment: please provide an actual response.
The comment isn't wrong about factories. Factories are far less productive than providing services (e.g. software), and per comparative advantage the US should be importing manufactured stuff and exporting highly labor-efficient services.
If the US expands its manufacturing without it being profitable to do so (profitable without state subsidies, I mean), that will be bad for the economy , because it will drive up the cost of labor for other stuff without an accompanying flow of profit into the economy to stimulate the demand to match said higher costs.
The comment isn't wrong about factories. Factories are far less productive than providing services (e.g. software), and per comparative advantage the US should be importing manufactured stuff and exporting highly labor-efficient services.
If the US expands its manufacturing without it being profitable to do so (profitable without state subsidies, I mean), that will be bad for the economy , because it will drive up the cost of labor for other stuff without an accompanying flow of profit into the economy to stimulate the demand to match said higher costs.
> A sober approach to promoting the redevelopment of production industry in America would likely involve some tariffs and could make a lot of sense.
If American production was optimal, or even economically feasible, it would already be in place. Take, for example, textiles.
Why would an American business go through the hassle of getting a foreign company to make textile products, get them shipped across vast oceans, taking weeks if not months to do so, only to have them in stores in relatively close proximity?
We all wear clothes and purchase them regularly. So why are they not now largely made in the US?
If American production was optimal, or even economically feasible, it would already be in place. Take, for example, textiles.
Why would an American business go through the hassle of getting a foreign company to make textile products, get them shipped across vast oceans, taking weeks if not months to do so, only to have them in stores in relatively close proximity?
We all wear clothes and purchase them regularly. So why are they not now largely made in the US?
I think people are downvoting you because it sounds like you're advocating textiles be produced in the US (I know you're not).
> I think people are downvoting you because it sounds like you're advocating textiles be produced in the US (I know you're not).
Probably.
Sometimes exploring the implications of an ill thought position leads to an unpopular conclusion. If the worst result is a few people hit a down arrow and others contemplate the exploration, so be it.
There are many worse things in life.
Probably.
Sometimes exploring the implications of an ill thought position leads to an unpopular conclusion. If the worst result is a few people hit a down arrow and others contemplate the exploration, so be it.
There are many worse things in life.
It would also involve support for science research and reasonable immigration, plus widespread acceptance for moderately higher consumer prices. People should have a real conversation about what it means to make clothing in the US instead of in Bangladesh (just for example). While the "zero sum game" is generally considered to be a sign of ignorance when discussing economics, in the short term the number of available workers is a zero sum game, and unemployment is relatively low right now.
One thing it means is local polluting. We'll have to turn of EPA regs for some industries, or re-engineer to how-to, if they return home.
The methods used 30 years ago won't work.
The methods used 30 years ago won't work.
In a way it de-NIMBYizes Americans, forcing them to face the environmental costs of their consumer behaviours. The re-engineering part is the opportunity I see in all this. How do you make manufacturing cleaner and more worker-friendly (or even better: don’t even require human labour).
> They are intentionally a sledge-hammer. They are intentionally emotional. Intentionally full of jingoistic rhetoric and victimhood rhetoric.
A sledgehammer sounds almost like an instrument of precision relative to the Trump administration tariffs. If they're applied and reversed on a whim, US companies would be fools to invest in building fabrication capability domestically only for the rug to be pulled out from under them tomorrow.
And apparently Trump doesn't want the prices on imports to rise [1]? So, if importers and retailers eat the costs of the new tariffs, how can domestic production compete any easier than it could with the baseline conditions?
It's not jingoism or victimhood, it's just ineptitude writ large. Trump can't achieve his own policy goals because he's standing in his own way.
[1] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1145236386231...
A sledgehammer sounds almost like an instrument of precision relative to the Trump administration tariffs. If they're applied and reversed on a whim, US companies would be fools to invest in building fabrication capability domestically only for the rug to be pulled out from under them tomorrow.
And apparently Trump doesn't want the prices on imports to rise [1]? So, if importers and retailers eat the costs of the new tariffs, how can domestic production compete any easier than it could with the baseline conditions?
It's not jingoism or victimhood, it's just ineptitude writ large. Trump can't achieve his own policy goals because he's standing in his own way.
[1] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1145236386231...
A more generous interpretation might be that he doesn’t expect anyone to retool until things settle down, and he is actually implementing tariffs as a shock tactic to force negotiations starting on strong terms. I haven’t read his book but my understanding is that this is an instantiating of the abstract negotiation pattern he endorses in the art of the deal.
The alternative would be to negotiate quietly in back rooms before announcing, which is what is usually done. Would that be less chaotic? Definitely. Would it result in equally good or better trade deals as the shock method? Unclear, it’s not obvious that it would.
He also likes dramatic optics.
I don’t agree with the guy on most things, but I really think many people mischaracterize him pretty severely.
The alternative would be to negotiate quietly in back rooms before announcing, which is what is usually done. Would that be less chaotic? Definitely. Would it result in equally good or better trade deals as the shock method? Unclear, it’s not obvious that it would.
He also likes dramatic optics.
I don’t agree with the guy on most things, but I really think many people mischaracterize him pretty severely.
> A more generous interpretation might be that he doesn’t expect anyone to retool until things settle down.
A sizable "retooling" already took place with Canadian oil. As of last month, Canada is now exporting more oil to China than to the US. US oil exports to China have stopped.[1] This is not projected. This has already happened.
This is a win for China. Getting oil from Canada reduces China's dependence on the Middle East. Getting tankers across the Pacific is a straight run in open water. No bottlenecks at the Straits of Hormutz, no Suez Canal, no war zones.
Expect West Coast gasoline prices to go up.
(Much of this is related to where pipeline are. Pipeline connections to the Western US from Texas barely exist. Meanwhile, in 2024, a major pipeline between the Alberta oil fields and the Vancouver region ports was completed and is in operation.)
A sizable "retooling" already took place with Canadian oil. As of last month, Canada is now exporting more oil to China than to the US. US oil exports to China have stopped.[1] This is not projected. This has already happened.
This is a win for China. Getting oil from Canada reduces China's dependence on the Middle East. Getting tankers across the Pacific is a straight run in open water. No bottlenecks at the Straits of Hormutz, no Suez Canal, no war zones.
Expect West Coast gasoline prices to go up.
(Much of this is related to where pipeline are. Pipeline connections to the Western US from Texas barely exist. Meanwhile, in 2024, a major pipeline between the Alberta oil fields and the Vancouver region ports was completed and is in operation.)
Forgot the link: [1]
[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/canadas-crude-oi...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/canadas-crude-oi...
> I don’t agree with the guy on most things, but I really think many people mischaracterize him pretty severely.
How? What do you think people think of him that’s untrue?
Since he first got seriously involved into politics I haven’t seen any evidence that he has a sophisticated understanding of anything, except two things: how to negotiate when he’s in a strong position to bully his counterparty, and pandering to his base.
Like a sibling comment points out, you refer to The Art of the Deal, but that was written entirely by his ghostwriter Tony Schwartz (according to both the author and the publisher). Schwartz has even said he thinks it should be recategorized as fiction.
How? What do you think people think of him that’s untrue?
Since he first got seriously involved into politics I haven’t seen any evidence that he has a sophisticated understanding of anything, except two things: how to negotiate when he’s in a strong position to bully his counterparty, and pandering to his base.
Like a sibling comment points out, you refer to The Art of the Deal, but that was written entirely by his ghostwriter Tony Schwartz (according to both the author and the publisher). Schwartz has even said he thinks it should be recategorized as fiction.
Watch the Joe Rogan interview with Trump to see what he's really like:
https://youtu.be/hBMoPUAeLnY?si=IJxxRE-RuL9FHKpE
What we normally see is a stage persona. He also speaks differently when dealing with hostiles vs people acting like he's a human being. Rogan's style brings out people's real personalities better.
https://youtu.be/hBMoPUAeLnY?si=IJxxRE-RuL9FHKpE
What we normally see is a stage persona. He also speaks differently when dealing with hostiles vs people acting like he's a human being. Rogan's style brings out people's real personalities better.
Is there any particular segment of this chat where he said something you found insightful or thought showed his deep understanding of some complex topic? I don’t doubt that he can be pleasant and charismatic when shooting the breeze with people in a friendly atmosphere, that’s not the critique I have of him.
Watch the parts about the windmill farms and the lake that used to be in California.
> he endorses in the art of the deal.
https://archive.is/jbYoN
https://archive.is/jbYoN
Well, gigantic tariffs with china were dropped to just huge ... and he got nothing for it. Asian counties that were willing to do deals have none, because Trump administration frustrates them by not knowing wtf they want.Talks with EU are stalled and UK deal amounts to not much.
It is easy to argue normal negotiations work better.
It is easy to argue normal negotiations work better.
A less generous---and probably more accurate, given Trump's business and legal history---interpretation is that the tariffs are not for any legitimate public policy reason at all, but are simply to give Trump personal leverage to extort foreign nations for the gain of himself and his family.
Most things
Many people
Really think
Pretty severely
Those are the biggest weasel words anyone has ever seen before
Those are the biggest weasel words anyone has ever seen before
Thank you for articulating this. I think it's what a lot of his supporters think is happening. What perplexes me are the following:
1) Is "The Art of the Deal" respected among actual business leaders and negotiators as a substantive contribution to negotiation tactics?
2) If what Trump is doing is in fact a highly effective tactic, how is it possible that so many people who are skilled at negotiation, skilled a business, far more wealthy and successful than Trump, etc., etc., fail to see the genius of it? I'm pretty sure that if there were actually something to it, at least some of those types of people would "come around" to supporting it and they would explain what he's doing to the American people (if it's right out of "The Art of the Deal" then clearly any negotiating adversary would be familiar with the tactic since the book is a short, quick read).
3) How would the negotiation tactics Trump is using be described/framed by traditional game theorists and tacticians? Suppose Trump is actually highly disciplined in the execution of a grand strategy, what would there be to object to, the tactic of acting unpredictably? Or would there be criticism of the downside risk of the strategy being unacceptable?
4) What has Trump or the US gained in the past from these kind of tactics? I'm serious when I say that I don't think Trump has improved the US negotiated position in any of the domains he's promised to. His revisions to NAFTA were trivial, his revisions to the Iran deal resulted in the US having a far weaker hand, his negotiations with N. Korea were inconsequential, and his negotiations (so far) with Mexico and Canada have seemingly harmed all parties and reduced trust, thus reducing the chances for a better outcome in the future. on Ukraine/Russia there is not really any negotiating to be done, it's more of a question of whether the US wants to keep spending money on an expensive and risky war that we are losing while pretending we are not actually in one.
5) In trade negotiations, what is the "back room"? I realize the US is opaque domestically and internationally about what is US "national interest", but typically with trade the incentives are extremely clear -- there are always domestic factions on both sides who are the relative winners or losers of any change to tariffs or trade policy, etc.
1) Is "The Art of the Deal" respected among actual business leaders and negotiators as a substantive contribution to negotiation tactics?
2) If what Trump is doing is in fact a highly effective tactic, how is it possible that so many people who are skilled at negotiation, skilled a business, far more wealthy and successful than Trump, etc., etc., fail to see the genius of it? I'm pretty sure that if there were actually something to it, at least some of those types of people would "come around" to supporting it and they would explain what he's doing to the American people (if it's right out of "The Art of the Deal" then clearly any negotiating adversary would be familiar with the tactic since the book is a short, quick read).
3) How would the negotiation tactics Trump is using be described/framed by traditional game theorists and tacticians? Suppose Trump is actually highly disciplined in the execution of a grand strategy, what would there be to object to, the tactic of acting unpredictably? Or would there be criticism of the downside risk of the strategy being unacceptable?
4) What has Trump or the US gained in the past from these kind of tactics? I'm serious when I say that I don't think Trump has improved the US negotiated position in any of the domains he's promised to. His revisions to NAFTA were trivial, his revisions to the Iran deal resulted in the US having a far weaker hand, his negotiations with N. Korea were inconsequential, and his negotiations (so far) with Mexico and Canada have seemingly harmed all parties and reduced trust, thus reducing the chances for a better outcome in the future. on Ukraine/Russia there is not really any negotiating to be done, it's more of a question of whether the US wants to keep spending money on an expensive and risky war that we are losing while pretending we are not actually in one.
5) In trade negotiations, what is the "back room"? I realize the US is opaque domestically and internationally about what is US "national interest", but typically with trade the incentives are extremely clear -- there are always domestic factions on both sides who are the relative winners or losers of any change to tariffs or trade policy, etc.
> I don’t agree with the guy on most things, but I really think many people mischaracterize him pretty severely.
I'm not so sure you're right about that. He's dishonest, corrupt, and vain. So a lot of the disgust that is directed his way seems well-deserved.
I would believe it if you told me that if he somehow proposed a policy that was for the genuine benefit of all of his constituents that some would knee-jerk oppose it. But -- due to his vanity and corruption - we'll never see that come to pass.
I'm not so sure you're right about that. He's dishonest, corrupt, and vain. So a lot of the disgust that is directed his way seems well-deserved.
I would believe it if you told me that if he somehow proposed a policy that was for the genuine benefit of all of his constituents that some would knee-jerk oppose it. But -- due to his vanity and corruption - we'll never see that come to pass.
There's been tons of discussion and several actual laws - IRA, CHIPS etc.
A large part of why you're seeing the Trump insanity is because there's increasingly little connection between reality (ie CHIPS, IRA) and people's perception (ie your comment)
A large part of why you're seeing the Trump insanity is because there's increasingly little connection between reality (ie CHIPS, IRA) and people's perception (ie your comment)
> Sadly there has been zero discussion of doing targeted industrial policy (like China's) in the US
The CHIPS act is exactly this.
Of course Trump is killing the CHIPS act.
The CHIPS act is exactly this.
Of course Trump is killing the CHIPS act.
It’s interesting that you don’t see the cause in your second paragraph being what leads to the effect in your first paragraph. We got Trump because of the bipartisan consensus on free trade that wouldn’t admit any sort of industrial policy.
Now that Trump has blown the Overton window open, someone should offer the alternative of smarter tariffs.
Now that Trump has blown the Overton window open, someone should offer the alternative of smarter tariffs.
USA had tariffs prior. It had CHIPS act which worked. Dont blame imaginary bipartisan consensus.
Plus EV tariffs + banning of TikTok unless sold to a U.S. firm.
The Biden administration had already taken several targeted measures to defend local industry from China.
One can argue whether this was good policy or not, but it’s hilariously wrong to argue that Trump was the first person to recognize the threat of China.
In fact, Trump has been extraordinarily useful to China. One of the first steps he took in his first term was to withdraw from the TPP.
Again, one can legitimately argue whether the TPP was good or not, but the entire purpose of the TPP was to reduce dependence on and create alternatives to China, which is why the trans Pacific partnership did not include the second largest world economy despite it lying on the Pacific Ocean.
The Biden administration had already taken several targeted measures to defend local industry from China.
One can argue whether this was good policy or not, but it’s hilariously wrong to argue that Trump was the first person to recognize the threat of China.
In fact, Trump has been extraordinarily useful to China. One of the first steps he took in his first term was to withdraw from the TPP.
Again, one can legitimately argue whether the TPP was good or not, but the entire purpose of the TPP was to reduce dependence on and create alternatives to China, which is why the trans Pacific partnership did not include the second largest world economy despite it lying on the Pacific Ocean.
[deleted]
> USA had tariffs prior.
Clearly insufficient to prevent the destruction of major sectors and industries over decades. The neoliberals argued this was a normal and good thing for the country. The voters appear to disagree.
Clearly insufficient to prevent the destruction of major sectors and industries over decades. The neoliberals argued this was a normal and good thing for the country. The voters appear to disagree.
It is kind of impossible for 2022 legislation to prevent something that was happening decades ago. Tho, America is actually producing more then ever.
Republican voters did not cared about any of that. They wanted to own the libs, they wanted the destruction of project 2025 and wanted to harm the people they look down at. They did not wanted to work in factories, they did not want industrial policy and they do not want USA to be a tech leader anymore. Conservatives are not making economical choice, they are just throwing concerns around when they want to bear democrats. They dont care a put putcomes when Republicans rule.
You complaining that legislature from 2022 did not traveled back in time to change something in 2010 is quite on point here. This is not about strategy, law nor economics.
Republican voters did not cared about any of that. They wanted to own the libs, they wanted the destruction of project 2025 and wanted to harm the people they look down at. They did not wanted to work in factories, they did not want industrial policy and they do not want USA to be a tech leader anymore. Conservatives are not making economical choice, they are just throwing concerns around when they want to bear democrats. They dont care a put putcomes when Republicans rule.
You complaining that legislature from 2022 did not traveled back in time to change something in 2010 is quite on point here. This is not about strategy, law nor economics.
Near the end, the post jumps to conclusions. It starts with 'there is a tariff difference - 2.5% vs 10%, on car imports from europe to the US vs the opposite direction' and then jumps to '... and this explains why there are way more european cars on the road in the US than vice versa'.
This jump is not a reasonable one to make. Car imports and exports are vastly more complicated than this. At best, the tariff situation is one small part of a multi-factor explanation for observed phenomenon, such as how US carmakers do not appear to care about european market demands for cars at all (they do not make many cars that are clearly targeted at the needs of european car buyers), whereas european carmakers make quite a few models specifically engineered for the US market, or at least, there is a real demand for them in the US. But I'm just guessing here - possibly the situation is explained much more simply:
US carmakers make cars that US consumers want to buy and which US culture wants to make. These cars so happen to be designs that almost nobody in the EU wants.
EU carmakers make cars that EU consumers want to buy and which EU culture wants to make. These cars so happen to be designs that a significant fraction of the US also wants to buy.
'fix' the tariff imbalance and I bet almost nothing happens to the relative amount of 'flow' of cars across the atlantic.
This jump is not a reasonable one to make. Car imports and exports are vastly more complicated than this. At best, the tariff situation is one small part of a multi-factor explanation for observed phenomenon, such as how US carmakers do not appear to care about european market demands for cars at all (they do not make many cars that are clearly targeted at the needs of european car buyers), whereas european carmakers make quite a few models specifically engineered for the US market, or at least, there is a real demand for them in the US. But I'm just guessing here - possibly the situation is explained much more simply:
US carmakers make cars that US consumers want to buy and which US culture wants to make. These cars so happen to be designs that almost nobody in the EU wants.
EU carmakers make cars that EU consumers want to buy and which EU culture wants to make. These cars so happen to be designs that a significant fraction of the US also wants to buy.
'fix' the tariff imbalance and I bet almost nothing happens to the relative amount of 'flow' of cars across the atlantic.
> The U.S., for instance, has a 2.5 percent tariff on cars imported from Germany, while Germany has a ten percent tariff on American cars. In addition, Germany’s value-added tax is remitted on exports but charged on imports. As a result, while the logos of Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volkswagen are seen all over American roads, those of Ford and General Motors are a rare sight in Germany.
The fact that America has a bunch of German cars, and Germany doesn't have anywhere near as many American cars, may be influenced somewhat by tariffs, but is in no way explained by or the result of those tariffs. The issue is ultimately just that German cars are, in general, of far higher-quality, compared to American cars.
The fact that America has a bunch of German cars, and Germany doesn't have anywhere near as many American cars, may be influenced somewhat by tariffs, but is in no way explained by or the result of those tariffs. The issue is ultimately just that German cars are, in general, of far higher-quality, compared to American cars.
If you go to Asia, there are far more German cars than American. They buy Asian cars for value and German cars for luxury. American cars are simply not competitive.
Yeah, this seems... at best confused?
> As a result, while the logos of Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volkswagen are seen all over American roads, those of Ford and General Motors are a rare sight in Germany.
Ford manufactures cars in Europe, and was historically quite successful in Europe (though it seems to really be struggling in the past decade or so; other than Transit vans it'd be unusual to see a new Ford today). The cars that it made in Europe were, generally, aimed at the market, and many were never made available in the US at all.
GM also used to manufacture cars in Europe, again, aimed at local preferences. Their European division ended up part of Stellantis, the great conglomerate of car brands that you can't quite believe still exist.
The concentration on _Germany_, which doesn't have an independent trade policy, seems odd.
> As a result, while the logos of Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volkswagen are seen all over American roads, those of Ford and General Motors are a rare sight in Germany.
Ford manufactures cars in Europe, and was historically quite successful in Europe (though it seems to really be struggling in the past decade or so; other than Transit vans it'd be unusual to see a new Ford today). The cars that it made in Europe were, generally, aimed at the market, and many were never made available in the US at all.
GM also used to manufacture cars in Europe, again, aimed at local preferences. Their European division ended up part of Stellantis, the great conglomerate of car brands that you can't quite believe still exist.
The concentration on _Germany_, which doesn't have an independent trade policy, seems odd.
>In addition, Germany’s value-added tax is remitted on exports but charged on imports
Germany's, and all other countries', VAT is a tax on purchases by consumers in that country. It wouldn't make sense to levy it on exported cars. It works just as I assume it does with American car manufacturers who don't charge Ohio sales tax on cars they make in Ohio and export to the EU, or indeed California, right?
Germany's, and all other countries', VAT is a tax on purchases by consumers in that country. It wouldn't make sense to levy it on exported cars. It works just as I assume it does with American car manufacturers who don't charge Ohio sales tax on cars they make in Ohio and export to the EU, or indeed California, right?
>German cars are, in general, of far higher-quality, compared to American cars.
Automotive EE here. This is so misleading it might as well be labeled as fiction.
The German MODELS that you are familiar with are higher tier vehicles. Notice I did not say the brand was high quality.
The truth is 30 plus years ago, ok, fair statement with that note above. But now… almost all brands are using the same suppliers and the same processes. Your seats come from Johnson Controls or Recaro or a mfg you have never heard of but makes Ferrari seats on the same lines as their Toyota seats. There are three ABS / brake system / traction-stability module makers worldwide plus some trash ones in China. The X module in a Fiat is the same part number as that same module in the La Ferrari. The McClaren 500s and 600s use an Android based screen made by the same people that make the one of Polaris.
Not to be too general here, but it’s all the same shit.
Yes, specs matter. But your programming is coming out of India whether you drive a G Wagon or a Ford.
The disparity in your post, is not only about tarrifs, but also the size of the most popular Ford GM Stellatis vehicles. That the above three lose money on their cars and basically only push them as hard as they do in order to tilt CAFE scales.
No offense meant, it’s just that when people talk about cars, 99% of the time they have no idea what they’re talking about and myths become reality.
Automotive EE here. This is so misleading it might as well be labeled as fiction.
The German MODELS that you are familiar with are higher tier vehicles. Notice I did not say the brand was high quality.
The truth is 30 plus years ago, ok, fair statement with that note above. But now… almost all brands are using the same suppliers and the same processes. Your seats come from Johnson Controls or Recaro or a mfg you have never heard of but makes Ferrari seats on the same lines as their Toyota seats. There are three ABS / brake system / traction-stability module makers worldwide plus some trash ones in China. The X module in a Fiat is the same part number as that same module in the La Ferrari. The McClaren 500s and 600s use an Android based screen made by the same people that make the one of Polaris.
Not to be too general here, but it’s all the same shit.
Yes, specs matter. But your programming is coming out of India whether you drive a G Wagon or a Ford.
The disparity in your post, is not only about tarrifs, but also the size of the most popular Ford GM Stellatis vehicles. That the above three lose money on their cars and basically only push them as hard as they do in order to tilt CAFE scales.
No offense meant, it’s just that when people talk about cars, 99% of the time they have no idea what they’re talking about and myths become reality.
I spent a little time writing software for a plastic injection moulding company who supplied parts for a range of different automotive suppliers.
You could say that they were all made the same way — they were all moulded from tiny little plastic balls that are melted down — but the reality is that there was a huge difference in the products produced for each vehicle.
The vent for an A/C is one example. To produce that piece for a Ford might be one piece of plastic, which falls off the conveyor at about 1 every 20 seconds. The same piece for an Audi would take 3 different types of plastic, and some rubbery material, and would take about two minutes per unit - as well as some assembly, by a human, before it is done.
You could say that they were all made the same way — they were all moulded from tiny little plastic balls that are melted down — but the reality is that there was a huge difference in the products produced for each vehicle.
The vent for an A/C is one example. To produce that piece for a Ford might be one piece of plastic, which falls off the conveyor at about 1 every 20 seconds. The same piece for an Audi would take 3 different types of plastic, and some rubbery material, and would take about two minutes per unit - as well as some assembly, by a human, before it is done.
Injection molding and engineering over the last 20 years has basically been homogenized to works and doesn’t work.
I can promise you at Diamler, they’re designing the shape of the vent, and sending it to the supplier just like GM is doing. Same suppliers, and the details are being offloaded for like ten reason but among them is that it doesn’t make sense to have the mold experts in house, and every supplier knows their machines and abilities, the customer doesn’t.
I can promise you at Diamler, they’re designing the shape of the vent, and sending it to the supplier just like GM is doing. Same suppliers, and the details are being offloaded for like ten reason but among them is that it doesn’t make sense to have the mold experts in house, and every supplier knows their machines and abilities, the customer doesn’t.
It is misleading to say that "all brands are using the same suppliers" and straight up false to say that they're using "the same processes", especially in the context of German cars (I'm referring to all German cars, not just premium makes from Mercedes or BMW) vs. American cars. There is a universe of difference between VW's manufacturing process and Chrysler's process, which is pretty self-evident if you drive a VW and a Chrysler back-to-back, there really isn't any comparison.
The best part about this, as I don’t need to argue with you at all.
You can have your opinion, unobstructed by my career experience.
Same suppliers, same processes, sometimes the engineering is a little better or worse. I can promise you the Volkswagen has made absolute goddamn bonehead fucking mistake mistakes, where Chrysler has solved that X problem since the 80s. And that a high-end Mercedes AMG has some worse Y than any Hyundai on the road.
The truth is the suppliers built vehicles. There are good and bad decisions by vendors and suppliers everywhere.
But it’s all coming out of the same shops. CARpocalypse 2008 was not about bailing out GM Chrysler. But knowing if either of them went down, the entire automotive industry was going to knock on and tumble over.
You can have your opinion, unobstructed by my career experience.
Same suppliers, same processes, sometimes the engineering is a little better or worse. I can promise you the Volkswagen has made absolute goddamn bonehead fucking mistake mistakes, where Chrysler has solved that X problem since the 80s. And that a high-end Mercedes AMG has some worse Y than any Hyundai on the road.
The truth is the suppliers built vehicles. There are good and bad decisions by vendors and suppliers everywhere.
But it’s all coming out of the same shops. CARpocalypse 2008 was not about bailing out GM Chrysler. But knowing if either of them went down, the entire automotive industry was going to knock on and tumble over.
You're suggesting the quality of a car is a function of the quality of its constituent parts. That's not the case. Quality is a function of those things, but also and more importantly the processes by which the car is assembled, and really ultimately dominated by the end-user experience of the driver.
>processes by which the car is assembled
Jesus man, stop. What industry are you in?
Because if it isn’t automotive, just stop. And if it is automotive, have your managers send you to a plant.
It’s like you think someone is turning wrenches to assemble your car :D short version… wrenches are not allowed in major production lines of any brand.
Jesus man, stop. What industry are you in?
Because if it isn’t automotive, just stop. And if it is automotive, have your managers send you to a plant.
It’s like you think someone is turning wrenches to assemble your car :D short version… wrenches are not allowed in major production lines of any brand.
Literally Chrysler uses rubber mallets to install windshields.
Mallet in to what? Windshields are glued in.
It in the 30 years I’ve been in the industry. I’ve never seen that at any plant, and if I had, I wouldnt be the least bit shocked because things that seem strange to you might make sense on the 1-vehicle per minute scale.
Please help me out… mallet into what? All Chrsyler, DCX, Fiat, and now Stellantis vehicles I’ve worked on have exactly the same windshield attachment method that almost all vehicles have.
It’s all sheet metal or a frame trim that the windshield is glued to. No exceptions that I can think but maybe Tesla or Rivian does something dumb.
From McClaren to Chrysler 200, all vehicles on the road attach their windshields exactly the same way.
How do you think someone would repair it otherwise? Aside from being ignorant about the industry, you don’t even know how you local windshield repair shop works?
I want to know what magic attachment mechanism holds the glass!
Again, you’re allowed to be wrong, you just aren’t allowed to be this dumb without being corrected for the next person that knows nothing to come along and not realize you are making up claims left and right.
It in the 30 years I’ve been in the industry. I’ve never seen that at any plant, and if I had, I wouldnt be the least bit shocked because things that seem strange to you might make sense on the 1-vehicle per minute scale.
Please help me out… mallet into what? All Chrsyler, DCX, Fiat, and now Stellantis vehicles I’ve worked on have exactly the same windshield attachment method that almost all vehicles have.
It’s all sheet metal or a frame trim that the windshield is glued to. No exceptions that I can think but maybe Tesla or Rivian does something dumb.
From McClaren to Chrysler 200, all vehicles on the road attach their windshields exactly the same way.
How do you think someone would repair it otherwise? Aside from being ignorant about the industry, you don’t even know how you local windshield repair shop works?
I want to know what magic attachment mechanism holds the glass!
Again, you’re allowed to be wrong, you just aren’t allowed to be this dumb without being corrected for the next person that knows nothing to come along and not realize you are making up claims left and right.
I really have no idea what your problem is with me, nor do I understand what you're trying to convey. I certainly don't see how any of this stuff relates to what I said. But, in any case, good sealioning effort, 10 on 10.
Yes, this statement is so old and wrong that it gets boring real quick…
You can just look at the roads of any country that has the same tariffs for U.S. and European cars and you will still not see all that many American cars there.
You can just look at the roads of any country that has the same tariffs for U.S. and European cars and you will still not see all that many American cars there.
So much that I actually thought GM was a thing of the past, didn’t know they still existed!
Also there are plenty of Fords and Tesla's to be seen on the roads in Germany.
There are some Fords and Teslas on the roads in Germany, yes. But percentage-wise they're not really significant. https://www.statista.com/statistics/815073/new-registrations... is one reference among many.
Ford's European division has generally faded from relevance over the last decade or so, but that's nothing to do with tariffs (virtually all Ford cars sold in Europe have been made in Europe, for decades); that's very much on Ford.
What if you include statistics on vans rather than just passenger cars?
10% will sway some purchases, and exclusively removes American autos from the “Value” category.
As someone who drives a Japanese car, I don't disagree with the premise - but its worth double clicking on whether there is a motivation for American automakers to abandon the value/reliability category.
As someone who drives a Japanese car, I don't disagree with the premise - but its worth double clicking on whether there is a motivation for American automakers to abandon the value/reliability category.
10% VAT is sales tax that applies to German cars exactly the same way as to American ones.
Article is lying.
Article is lying.
If German cars are so good, why does Germany need a 10% tariff on American cars?
If what you say is true, Germany should lower tariffs as part of negotiations to get a better deal on exporting to the US. It would be a win-win for them then.
If what you say is true, Germany should lower tariffs as part of negotiations to get a better deal on exporting to the US. It would be a win-win for them then.
Germany does not have 10% tariffs on American cars. This part is simply not true. Germany has 10% sales tax called VAT on all the cars - German cars included. Teslas were popular in Germany, prior Musk open support for far right. Even Fords are common in Germany, although mostly small ones not huge ones.
Oh ... and America has outright ban on Japanese cars. They are reliable and popular pretty much anywhere else.
tl;dr this is a problem with hillsdale and heretage foundation - they simply lie.
Oh ... and America has outright ban on Japanese cars. They are reliable and popular pretty much anywhere else.
tl;dr this is a problem with hillsdale and heretage foundation - they simply lie.
Germany has a 10% tariff on any non-EU car.
That is separate from the 19% VAT.
Japanese cars are very popular in the US.
That is separate from the 19% VAT.
Japanese cars are very popular in the US.
[deleted]
Could you cite a source for the japanese car ban claim please?
Are there not Asian imports in Germany?
What seems to be lost in these discussions is how the American system rides on global respect for American IP, and that this respect for IP is part of the whole global trade system.
With global trade falling apart, this respect for IP is in grave danger. Robust IP protections contributed significantly to America's wealth.
The short-sighted focus on tariffs and re-shoring manufacturing completely neglects the whole balance and will damage America's position long-term.
With global trade falling apart, this respect for IP is in grave danger. Robust IP protections contributed significantly to America's wealth.
The short-sighted focus on tariffs and re-shoring manufacturing completely neglects the whole balance and will damage America's position long-term.
> Robust IP protections contributed significantly to America's wealth.
Quite the opposite, the US didn't enforce IP protections during the first few years of industrialization, exactly because they were stealing IP from England.
Quite the opposite, the US didn't enforce IP protections during the first few years of industrialization, exactly because they were stealing IP from England.
I should clarify that I meant "recently". The US has exported extended copyright laws and other IP protections world-wide for their own benefit.
You do realize that that was irrelevant long ago? That context has nothing to do with modern international trade.
Ok, so when the US steals it's irrelevant, but when the situation is the opposite now is relevant??
Why is hypocrisy brought up here? We are talking about national prosperity. Obviously what was beneficial to the US when it was a fledgling state is different than today
IP conventions were not formalized and nations were not signatories. Back in the early colonies Britain embargoes tech to prevent us from leapfrogging them, there was no IP protection framework, so I’m not sure what you’re on about.
It was more akin to intellectual property secrets.
It was more akin to intellectual property secrets.
No, IP law goes back much further than you imagine. The US started to grant patents in 1790 and the British even before that. What the US was doing was IP theft even in the law system that existed back then.
It wasn’t till the late 1700s that patents became form of intellectual property, before that it was a form of granting economic monopoly. Some of these “patents” were for already existing things, to give the grantee a monopoly over the sale of a particular common item. In addition, patents as we understand them today as a form of intellectual property didn’t coalesce till mid to late 1800s.
You can delude yourself anyway you want by reinterpreting things you don't like.
When the US was behind on IP, its respect for IP was irrelevant to the US's economy because most IP holders were European and thus respecting IP mostly just benefited Europe.
When the US is ahead on IP, it's respect for IP is incredibly relevant to the US's economy because respecting IP mostly benefits the US.
When the US is ahead on IP, it's respect for IP is incredibly relevant to the US's economy because respecting IP mostly benefits the US.
200 years ago?
It's all over the place, depending on the industry. I mean Hollywood's rise was also due to IP theft, things only became the way they are now in the 1950s.
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/2012-05-10/research/bumpy-histor...
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/2012-05-10/research/bumpy-histor...
Will IP survive?
We’ve all heard of IP theft from China but if Meta doesn’t face domestic punishment for its wholesale theft I really see no legs left to stand on.
We’ve all heard of IP theft from China but if Meta doesn’t face domestic punishment for its wholesale theft I really see no legs left to stand on.
> Will IP survive?
I hope not, at least not in it's present form. As far as copyright goes a return to the Statute of Anne or something similar would provide time for authors to profit from their labours while putting them in the public domain within a reasonable time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
I hope not, at least not in it's present form. As far as copyright goes a return to the Statute of Anne or something similar would provide time for authors to profit from their labours while putting them in the public domain within a reasonable time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
>but if Meta doesn’t face domestic punishment for its wholesale theft
Is this in reference to AI training data and Meta torrenting stuff? Or did Meta do some other theft?
Is this in reference to AI training data and Meta torrenting stuff? Or did Meta do some other theft?
[deleted]
I’m open to arguments that tariffs can be effective, but their advocates rarely seem open to the argument that the way they’re implemented matters.
To put it kindly a lot them are chaos apologists.
To put it kindly a lot them are chaos apologists.
They seem to be quite effective here in Norway. We have very high rates on imported food that competes with local production. The goal is to ensure we can be fairly self-sufficient when it comes to food.
So far it seems to be doing a good job at keeping cheap EU-made food out of our grocery stores.
Of course implementation matters a lot. We have no farmers growing corn in Norway, so we don't have any tariffs on corn. We do have farmers growing apples, but there's no harvesting those during our snowy winters so our tariffs on apples are just active when local apples are in season. We do produce beef all year, but not always enough so they hand out limited quotas allowing for massive reduction in duties to compensate and meet demand.
So far it seems to be doing a good job at keeping cheap EU-made food out of our grocery stores.
Of course implementation matters a lot. We have no farmers growing corn in Norway, so we don't have any tariffs on corn. We do have farmers growing apples, but there's no harvesting those during our snowy winters so our tariffs on apples are just active when local apples are in season. We do produce beef all year, but not always enough so they hand out limited quotas allowing for massive reduction in duties to compensate and meet demand.
And I think the most important part: Tariffs are only a part of a larger system of a comprehensive agricultural policy in Norway, covering region-specific subsidies, research, agro-tourism and sustainbility. The country doesn't just make food more expensive at the border.
> We do have farmers growing apples, but there's no harvesting those during our snowy winters so our tariffs on apples are just active when local apples are in season
I'm curious: apples are fairly easy to store in bulk. That's a large part of why we have them year round.
So what's stopping someone from importing apples outside the season and then sorting them to circumvent those tariffs?
I'm curious: apples are fairly easy to store in bulk. That's a large part of why we have them year round.
So what's stopping someone from importing apples outside the season and then sorting them to circumvent those tariffs?
Nothing, AFAIK. And we do see imported apples year round here[1], many which are not stored but imported directly with duties paid.
Though a lot of local apples goes to production of other goods.
For example various apple juices made from local apples have become popular, especially as an alternative to wine. The price of a 1L bottle of quality, loc apple juice can be the same as a 0.7L bottle of Riesling wine, around $7. And you need a lot of apples to make juice.
[1]: https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/provosert-av-kiwi-rema-og-...
Though a lot of local apples goes to production of other goods.
For example various apple juices made from local apples have become popular, especially as an alternative to wine. The price of a 1L bottle of quality, loc apple juice can be the same as a 0.7L bottle of Riesling wine, around $7. And you need a lot of apples to make juice.
[1]: https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/provosert-av-kiwi-rema-og-...
If we're putting words in peoples' mouths, are the opponents of chaos apologists "wealth-class parasitism apologists"? Because the benefits of a goods-in debt-out trade arrangement have skewed the prosperity curve in one clear direction.
A policy, however good an idea, must be implemented properly for lasting success.
“Wealth-class parasites” as you call them did that for decades under the guise of stability.
Why are none of the new protectionist policies implemented with a modicum of stability? Why must everything be done with flip-flipping gusto? Why do we have to become the laughing stock of the world?
For some reason, every sensible person arguing for protectionism (e.g. Oren Cass) at no point argues that how it’s being implemented is detrimental to the cause.
Do you really think tarrifs or any other policy experiments will survive if congress flips? The implementation of these ideas is a farce that will only encourage their elimination. This is not how policy persists for decades.
“Wealth-class parasites” as you call them did that for decades under the guise of stability.
Why are none of the new protectionist policies implemented with a modicum of stability? Why must everything be done with flip-flipping gusto? Why do we have to become the laughing stock of the world?
For some reason, every sensible person arguing for protectionism (e.g. Oren Cass) at no point argues that how it’s being implemented is detrimental to the cause.
Do you really think tarrifs or any other policy experiments will survive if congress flips? The implementation of these ideas is a farce that will only encourage their elimination. This is not how policy persists for decades.
Why stability? If the stable state is not working, flip it. The stable order is facing popular resistance for a reason. Everyone who benefited from the stable state will feel pain and complain, and they'll correct their strategic stances for the newer unstable order: Onshored supply chains, better inventories than just-in-time, less reliance on inflation assets and more on production assets. Even those feeling the pain can see why, but the only ones blind to it are those ideologically staked to the old order, which was not working. Those people don't deserve to be stakeholders anymore, and if they're knocked off their perches, all the better. Renewal will happen.
If it won't persist because democracy will flip it around schizophrenically, then you're just speaking ill of democracy at that point. Can't have that.
If it won't persist because democracy will flip it around schizophrenically, then you're just speaking ill of democracy at that point. Can't have that.
> Why stability? If the stable state is not working, flip it.
Because this is a weird talk where only extremes are talked about, that is popular when you have only two established parties and no system that enables more nuanced ideas.
> and they'll correct their strategic stances for the newer unstable order: Onshored supply chains,
In a decade or so... maybe.
But why touch that stable state? Maybe lets bring back slavery? Or how about mandatory service and some land invasion? Or split out the states as independent countries? What else would you like to flip to check if it maybe works better, since stable state is not great?
Because this is a weird talk where only extremes are talked about, that is popular when you have only two established parties and no system that enables more nuanced ideas.
> and they'll correct their strategic stances for the newer unstable order: Onshored supply chains,
In a decade or so... maybe.
But why touch that stable state? Maybe lets bring back slavery? Or how about mandatory service and some land invasion? Or split out the states as independent countries? What else would you like to flip to check if it maybe works better, since stable state is not great?
>But why touch that stable state?
Because it's not working for a majority of people? In a democracy, those are the rules.
Because it's not working for a majority of people? In a democracy, those are the rules.
The questions was why touch that stable state specifically. As in, why random tariffs, if you're up for flipping random switches with no good plan anyway. (My guess - it made some people lots of money. Not in a way that would make majority happy.)
> they'll correct their strategic stances for the newer unstable order: Onshored supply chains, better inventories than just-in-time, less reliance on inflation assets and more on production assets
How exactly do you think instability encourages long-term investment in manufacturing? Not the dynamic of being in a better position if factories simply popped into existence, but actually plunking down money hoping for a return in the face of economic slowdown and political instability.
The actual response I expect is even more goods shipped directly from China, with tariff taxes built right into the sale price (Aliexpress didn't miss a beat on that one), and with the general uncertainty raising Chinese sellers' profit margins.
How exactly do you think instability encourages long-term investment in manufacturing? Not the dynamic of being in a better position if factories simply popped into existence, but actually plunking down money hoping for a return in the face of economic slowdown and political instability.
The actual response I expect is even more goods shipped directly from China, with tariff taxes built right into the sale price (Aliexpress didn't miss a beat on that one), and with the general uncertainty raising Chinese sellers' profit margins.
How does disincentivizing rival supply chains and incentivizing domestic supply chains incentivize the construction of domestic supply chains? Are you really asking this question? Is there an echo?
I am asking how the construction of domestic supply chains is actually being incentivized here. And how it isn't just disincentivizing the remaining few domestic hops of the current supply chains and moving even the warehousing to foreign shores.
If the minimum viable customer-sale price after importing a given product rises above the minimum viable customer-sale price when domestically manufactured, the choice becomes obvious to entrepreneurs. This isn't difficult, and it isn't a trick.
Markets are not computationally easy (ie globally efficient), as you seem to be assuming. If they were, central planning would actually work.
Rather there are many sticky intrinsic factors like network effects, path dependency, and economies of scale that would need to be overcome to make the scales tip the other way. This is why once manufacturing started going to China, it then continued accelerating. To start bringing it back, we would need to clear a high activation energy.
Then there are the additional issues with the current approach. For starters, building new factories requires a bunch of industrial equipment. But with the blanket import taxes that has all shot up in price as well.
There is also the uncertainty of trying to plan on the long term scales of capital payback in the presence of an administration that flip flops on policies by the month, has seemingly no clue what they're doing, carves exceptions for the politically connected who bribe at McDonalds-al-Lago, and continues escalating the attacks against our traditionally stable-for-capital rule of law. From the investment perspective, it feels we're moving in the direction of a South American dictatorship where it only makes sense to run economically-colonizing "suitcase operations" rather than broad-base industrialization.
Rather there are many sticky intrinsic factors like network effects, path dependency, and economies of scale that would need to be overcome to make the scales tip the other way. This is why once manufacturing started going to China, it then continued accelerating. To start bringing it back, we would need to clear a high activation energy.
Then there are the additional issues with the current approach. For starters, building new factories requires a bunch of industrial equipment. But with the blanket import taxes that has all shot up in price as well.
There is also the uncertainty of trying to plan on the long term scales of capital payback in the presence of an administration that flip flops on policies by the month, has seemingly no clue what they're doing, carves exceptions for the politically connected who bribe at McDonalds-al-Lago, and continues escalating the attacks against our traditionally stable-for-capital rule of law. From the investment perspective, it feels we're moving in the direction of a South American dictatorship where it only makes sense to run economically-colonizing "suitcase operations" rather than broad-base industrialization.
The "stability" is referring to how Trump's trade policies are constantly changing every few days, and are thus too unstable to plan business policy around. If Trump wants to promote US manufacturing, it's important that his policies to do so are stable enough for investors to plan profitable future US factories.
It is not talking about a stable government and the benefits/drawbacks of that.
It is not talking about a stable government and the benefits/drawbacks of that.
The point is that if the trade policies are unstable, manufacturers will minimize imports and shipping across their supply chain. This isn't difficult to comprehend.
And now we have circled back to the chaos apologists.
[deleted]
Yes. And you profusely apologized for wealth-class parasitism by way of stability for stability's sake, which is a core heterodox criticism of the previous order.
You can have a parasitic wealth class with a goods out trade arrangement. This is China’s situation
There's nothing wrong with a parasitic wealth class. They have been running the Netherlands against all adversaries quite successfully for 500 years.
You just need to tax them.
You just need to tax them.
Being raised Republican, you are taught from elementary age that taxes are morally evil. They should only be imposed as necessary and as a disincentive against evil behavior.
Also the government is incompetent, bloated, and also evil. The only truly good government is god and his appointed ~grifters~ [messengers].
I wish I was joking. That's what I was taught at home for like 30y.
Also the government is incompetent, bloated, and also evil. The only truly good government is god and his appointed ~grifters~ [messengers].
I wish I was joking. That's what I was taught at home for like 30y.
> Hillsdale College is a member of the advisory board of Project 2025, a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals from The Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power since Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
It's a conservative christian baptist university. One notable alumni: Erik Prince.
What a weird end to a fascinating article.
It's like I'm reading the words of a political prisoner. Everything in the first ~80% of it sets up for a conclusion of 'one-sidedly slapping a ton of tariffs on all the things and expecting this to lead to prosperity and the closing of deficits is sheer lunacy', and then ends with: "Well, what an interesting and possibly smart move, lets see how it works out!".
It's like I'm reading the words of a political prisoner. Everything in the first ~80% of it sets up for a conclusion of 'one-sidedly slapping a ton of tariffs on all the things and expecting this to lead to prosperity and the closing of deficits is sheer lunacy', and then ends with: "Well, what an interesting and possibly smart move, lets see how it works out!".
It might help to know that hillsdale college is a training ground for far right folks. It presents itself as a bastion of free thought but caters to exclusively well off far right folks.
Perhaps worth noting that there are situations that tariffs can be considered a good idea:
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good
It's just that generally speaking, most of why they're being implemented by the US now are not valid.
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good
It's just that generally speaking, most of why they're being implemented by the US now are not valid.
There's a difference of applying tariffs to imported goods that are cheaper than domestically produced goods so that their prices are not sold at drastically cheaper prices then making it impossible for imports to compete.
It’s funny how most of what I read these days boils down to, “it could be a good idea, but when trump does it it’s bad”
Do you think details don't matter?
Is a house fire good because a campfire is good?
Is a flood good because droughts are bad?
Your comment seems to indicate an incredible lack of curiosity.
Is a house fire good because a campfire is good?
Is a flood good because droughts are bad?
Your comment seems to indicate an incredible lack of curiosity.
TFG talks about trade debts as being ripped off, but these are only on goods, not the broader services industry the US has largely transitioned to, which if accounted for, change the numbers drastically. It also doesn't account for the vast rise in global living standards that freer trade and specialization brought. Nor do the tariffs reflect the reality of what is possible and the timelines needed to reshore.
If you import more from the US than you export, you're still seeing a 10% tariff. These things are being used by a bully to bully, nothing more, the way he ran things as a landlord. They lack coherence and strategy, and are often portrayed in conflicting terms (the are to reshore vs they are temporary negotiation tactics... hint, they are actually for extorting praise and bribes)
The only way out so far is to pay tribute, largely by American companies who don't want to pay tariffs on their imports.
More recently it seems TFG is once again dialing back the tariffs because the economic fallout is being voiced by more parties.
It's not bad just because TFG does it, but because he doesn't understand economics and many other things the leader of America ought to have some basic understanding of. It's clear he's too old for the job
If you import more from the US than you export, you're still seeing a 10% tariff. These things are being used by a bully to bully, nothing more, the way he ran things as a landlord. They lack coherence and strategy, and are often portrayed in conflicting terms (the are to reshore vs they are temporary negotiation tactics... hint, they are actually for extorting praise and bribes)
The only way out so far is to pay tribute, largely by American companies who don't want to pay tariffs on their imports.
More recently it seems TFG is once again dialing back the tariffs because the economic fallout is being voiced by more parties.
It's not bad just because TFG does it, but because he doesn't understand economics and many other things the leader of America ought to have some basic understanding of. It's clear he's too old for the job
The focus here on "tariffs good vs tariffs bad" is missing the point. Tools can be used in a productive way or an unproductive way. I think anyone with even a basic understanding of global economics knew what the outcome would be when he started putting out blanket tariffs for no fucking reason, and the way he did it is objectively unproductive; we will live with the damage from this action for decades.
Missing the point? You demonstrated exactly what I’m talking about. You wrote what I wrote, with more words
I mean, it's in the same sense as, say, using fire to cook food might be good, but setting fire to your house is generally bad.
What about "it could be a good idea, but when it's done haphazardly it's bad"? Both sentences describe the situation accurately.
Ideas are one thing, execution is another. Based on bad execution it's possible for the cure to be worse than the disease.
Tarifs are a powerful tool to product specific industries. When implemented properly (focused on specific industries) they can change behavior, support local jobs, increase national objectives.
Applied consistently, in a predictable way, across decades, they allow rational players to predict the future, and invest accordingly. If I can see that washing machines have a floor price I can invest in a washing machine factory.
When implemented broadly (like across all industries, globally, at random percentages) they achieve none of the above. All they achieve are higher prices. Tariffs on coffee serve no domestic goals since the US has no coffee industry.
The problem is not that Trumps ideas are bad. Voters love his policies. But he's lazy. It's easiest to just slap "10% on the world" than say 10% on lumber to protect the local lumber industry. Worse, there's no stability. The here-today-gone-tomorrow approach defeats the point. I'm not investing in a new lumber mill if those 50% tarifs will be gone by July.
So to answer the post higher up, Trump takes good ideas, but executes them badly. It's not a double-standard, it's just that he's good at talking but really, really bad at doing things. Doing hard things is hard, and he's lazy.
On the other hand he's a good grifter. No one grifts like he does. If his goal in getting elected was to enrich himself, then he's doing a great job.
Tarifs are a powerful tool to product specific industries. When implemented properly (focused on specific industries) they can change behavior, support local jobs, increase national objectives.
Applied consistently, in a predictable way, across decades, they allow rational players to predict the future, and invest accordingly. If I can see that washing machines have a floor price I can invest in a washing machine factory.
When implemented broadly (like across all industries, globally, at random percentages) they achieve none of the above. All they achieve are higher prices. Tariffs on coffee serve no domestic goals since the US has no coffee industry.
The problem is not that Trumps ideas are bad. Voters love his policies. But he's lazy. It's easiest to just slap "10% on the world" than say 10% on lumber to protect the local lumber industry. Worse, there's no stability. The here-today-gone-tomorrow approach defeats the point. I'm not investing in a new lumber mill if those 50% tarifs will be gone by July.
So to answer the post higher up, Trump takes good ideas, but executes them badly. It's not a double-standard, it's just that he's good at talking but really, really bad at doing things. Doing hard things is hard, and he's lazy.
On the other hand he's a good grifter. No one grifts like he does. If his goal in getting elected was to enrich himself, then he's doing a great job.
> It’s funny how most of what I read these days boils down to, “it could be a good idea, but when trump does it it’s bad”
It could be a good idea for the right reasons and with a good implementation. Is Trump doing it for the right reasons and in with a good implementation?
It could be a good idea for the right reasons and with a good implementation. Is Trump doing it for the right reasons and in with a good implementation?
> The U.S., for instance, has a 2.5 percent tariff on cars imported from Germany, while Germany has a ten percent tariff on American cars. In addition, Germany’s value-added tax is remitted on exports but charged on imports. As a result, while the logos of Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volkswagen are seen all over American roads, those of Ford and General Motors are a rare sight in Germany.
What does that part about VAT have to do with this? VAT is essentially a sales tax with a more involved collection process.
The big difference in collections is that VAT is collected at each step of the chain of manufacture and distribution but refunded if the next step is not to a consumer, whereas in sales tax it is only collected on the final sale to a consumer.
As for why VAT is remitted on exports, it is the same reason why if GM builds a Tahoe in their factory in Arlington, Texas and sells it to a dealer or consumer that is not in Texas they do not pay Texas sales tax. Sales tax and VAT are both destination based. Exports, whether from Texas or Germany, are not to the final consumer and so VAT and sales tax are not owed.
Saying that VAT has anything to do with why BMW is more common than GM in Germany makes as much sense as saying that sales tax is why GM is more common than BMW in Texas.
What does that part about VAT have to do with this? VAT is essentially a sales tax with a more involved collection process.
The big difference in collections is that VAT is collected at each step of the chain of manufacture and distribution but refunded if the next step is not to a consumer, whereas in sales tax it is only collected on the final sale to a consumer.
As for why VAT is remitted on exports, it is the same reason why if GM builds a Tahoe in their factory in Arlington, Texas and sells it to a dealer or consumer that is not in Texas they do not pay Texas sales tax. Sales tax and VAT are both destination based. Exports, whether from Texas or Germany, are not to the final consumer and so VAT and sales tax are not owed.
Saying that VAT has anything to do with why BMW is more common than GM in Germany makes as much sense as saying that sales tax is why GM is more common than BMW in Texas.
> What does that part about VAT have to do with this? VAT is essentially a sales tax with a more involved collection process.
To add some further context that helped me understand VAT:
Sales taxes are great, with minimal dead weight loss and distortion, but have the downside of encouraging black markets since it's easy to avoid reporting final sale transactions.
VATs are designed to be mathematically the same as sales taxes, but robust to black markets. The sales tax is captured on the manufacturing end, which is much harder to avoid reporting for a variety of reasons.
To add some further context that helped me understand VAT:
Sales taxes are great, with minimal dead weight loss and distortion, but have the downside of encouraging black markets since it's easy to avoid reporting final sale transactions.
VATs are designed to be mathematically the same as sales taxes, but robust to black markets. The sales tax is captured on the manufacturing end, which is much harder to avoid reporting for a variety of reasons.
Sales taxes have the disadvantage of being regressive: the less prosperous spend a relatively larger proportion of their income on taxable goods. There are states that offer deductions from income tax for sales tax paid on food and perhaps other items, but as I recall it took a very disciplined filer to claim it.
Some states don't require tax collection at point of sale, so things like basic food or essential clothing are not charged sales tax. There's no need to apply for refund when computing personal income tax.
> Sales taxes are great, with minimal dead weight loss and distortion
That's not context for VAT. Or a fact. As far as deadweight loss and distortion go, a uniform VAT is the same thing as an income tax.
If you want a tax with minimal deadweight loss, you're pretty much stuck with a capitation tax.
That's not context for VAT. Or a fact. As far as deadweight loss and distortion go, a uniform VAT is the same thing as an income tax.
If you want a tax with minimal deadweight loss, you're pretty much stuck with a capitation tax.
VAT only reduces consumption. Income tax also reduces investment.
For example, if a distiller buys a tank, income tax is immediately paid. But VAT only generates revenue many years later for the country when the beverage leaves the store. So it's really a consumption tax.
For example, if a distiller buys a tank, income tax is immediately paid. But VAT only generates revenue many years later for the country when the beverage leaves the store. So it's really a consumption tax.
No, there's no difference. Whether all prices rise by 25%, or all incomes fall by 20%, the system will reach exactly the same equilibrium. When a VAT is enacted, you can model this as everyone with an income paying the corresponding income tax. (For full accuracy, you'd also need everyone with monetary holdings to pay a one-time wealth tax, but you can safely ignore this because the amount of wealth is so small relative to the amount of income.)
The effect of the VAT is to make all money less valuable. This means that people will seek to earn less of it.
> For example, if a distiller buys a tank, income tax is immediately paid. But VAT only generates revenue many years later for the country
VAT is paid on all transactions; that's the whole point of VAT. You're thinking of a sales tax that exempts business purchases. As soon as the tank is purchased, its seller must pay the appropriate VAT.
The effect of the VAT is to make all money less valuable. This means that people will seek to earn less of it.
> For example, if a distiller buys a tank, income tax is immediately paid. But VAT only generates revenue many years later for the country
VAT is paid on all transactions; that's the whole point of VAT. You're thinking of a sales tax that exempts business purchases. As soon as the tank is purchased, its seller must pay the appropriate VAT.
Yes, VAT is levied on the sale of the tank by it's manufacturer. But the distiller can claim back that VAT. This continues up the value chain except for the consumer who is not allowed the claim back VAT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax
What do you want me to read in that link?
On its face, it directly contradicts you:
> Using invoices, each seller pays VAT on their sales and passes the buyer an invoice that indicates the amount of tax paid excluding deductions (input tax). Buyers who themselves add value and resell the product pay VAT on their own sales (output tax). The difference between output tax and input tax is the amount paid to the government (or refunded, in the case of a negative amount).
Though of course a distiller isn't reselling its still; it is the final consumer of the tank.
> [example of] 10% VAT:
> At each stage of production, the seller collects a tax and the buyer pays that tax. The buyer can then be reimbursed for paying the tax, but only by successfully selling the value-added product to the buyer at the next stage.
That reimbursement comes from the customer, not the taxing authority.
On its face, it directly contradicts you:
> Using invoices, each seller pays VAT on their sales and passes the buyer an invoice that indicates the amount of tax paid excluding deductions (input tax). Buyers who themselves add value and resell the product pay VAT on their own sales (output tax). The difference between output tax and input tax is the amount paid to the government (or refunded, in the case of a negative amount).
Though of course a distiller isn't reselling its still; it is the final consumer of the tank.
> [example of] 10% VAT:
> At each stage of production, the seller collects a tax and the buyer pays that tax. The buyer can then be reimbursed for paying the tax, but only by successfully selling the value-added product to the buyer at the next stage.
That reimbursement comes from the customer, not the taxing authority.
This link explains it better. And it proves my point: VAT on capital goods (in this case helmets) bought by VAT registered businesses are effectively refunded in full.
https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/vat/vat-direc...
https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/vat/vat-direc...
That link says... exactly the same thing as wikipedia, still directly contradicting you. There is a question mark here that I'll take up later.
But the example goes:
1. A vertically integrated helmet producer produces helmets out of nothing and sells a batch of them to a mine for a total price of €240. This producer has added "€200" of value, despite the sale price of €240, and owes VAT of €40 at a "20%" rate, which it pays out of the revenue from the sale of helmets.
2. The mine has purchased €240 euros of helmets and converts that purchase into €1200 of ore. This might look like adding €960 of value, but it isn't. It sells the ore for €1200, and since it has added "€800" of value, it owes VAT of €160, 20% of €800, which it pays out of the revenue from the sale of ore.
3. Because the ore sold for €1200, the government is owed "20%" of that, or €200, which it receives in one payment of €40 (when the helmets are sold) and another payment of €160 (when the ore is sold).
So far the terminology here is deeply stupid but logically coherent.
The question mark I mentioned before is what happens if the helmets fail to be consumed in the production of this batch of ore. Presumably they'll be reused to produce more ore. It would be odd if they still counted against the mine's "value added" for the second batch of ore.
I tend to suspect that the mine is considered to have added more value to the second batch of ore, but the page doesn't address the issue. This would mean that capital goods depreciate in full immediately.
Now, your original comment:
>> For example, if a distiller buys a tank, income tax is immediately paid. But VAT only generates revenue many years later for the country when the beverage leaves the store.
This is clearly false. Both of your links say it's false. The taxing authority receives revenue on exactly the same schedule that it would if the VAT were an income tax. Try running all the same transactions again with a VAT of zero and an income tax of 17%.
But the example goes:
1. A vertically integrated helmet producer produces helmets out of nothing and sells a batch of them to a mine for a total price of €240. This producer has added "€200" of value, despite the sale price of €240, and owes VAT of €40 at a "20%" rate, which it pays out of the revenue from the sale of helmets.
2. The mine has purchased €240 euros of helmets and converts that purchase into €1200 of ore. This might look like adding €960 of value, but it isn't. It sells the ore for €1200, and since it has added "€800" of value, it owes VAT of €160, 20% of €800, which it pays out of the revenue from the sale of ore.
3. Because the ore sold for €1200, the government is owed "20%" of that, or €200, which it receives in one payment of €40 (when the helmets are sold) and another payment of €160 (when the ore is sold).
So far the terminology here is deeply stupid but logically coherent.
The question mark I mentioned before is what happens if the helmets fail to be consumed in the production of this batch of ore. Presumably they'll be reused to produce more ore. It would be odd if they still counted against the mine's "value added" for the second batch of ore.
I tend to suspect that the mine is considered to have added more value to the second batch of ore, but the page doesn't address the issue. This would mean that capital goods depreciate in full immediately.
Now, your original comment:
>> For example, if a distiller buys a tank, income tax is immediately paid. But VAT only generates revenue many years later for the country when the beverage leaves the store.
This is clearly false. Both of your links say it's false. The taxing authority receives revenue on exactly the same schedule that it would if the VAT were an income tax. Try running all the same transactions again with a VAT of zero and an income tax of 17%.
German car makers deduct VAT on machinery, equipment, factory supplies, and sometimes even utilities or specific components. Some US states offer car manufacturers tax exceptions on things like raw materials, but it is by no means apples to apples. When BMW builds a car in Germany, it enters the show floor free of embedded taxes on inputs. Thats not necessarily the case for US cars
Another important difference has to do with the size of the VAT tax compared to single-stage taxes. For example, in the US if you taxed 19% on inputs every step of the way, no one would be able to afford the final sticker price. Instead, the US taxes a much smaller amount but does not refund this like the VAT system, and the end consumer tax is the same small percentage. VAT can be much higher because it avoids the cascading tax effect. In the end maybe 19% tax was collected on the manufacture and sale in both the US and Germany, and all you changed was one having a higher tax versus cost but the sticker price evened out in the end.
Because of this difference in the two tax systems, VAT can be, and is, much higher than US state/local tax. But then, this means that differences in tariffs creates a compounding effect. A German manufacturer can sell to a US end consumer on average about: 100% cost + 2.5% tariff + 102.5% * (8.5% consumption tax) = 111% after tax cost. On the other hand, if Ford builds in the US and sells to a German end consumer, then the calculation goes: 100% cost + 10% tariff +110% * (19% VAT) = 131% after tax cost. So while Germany's VAT is 10.5% higher than the average US sales tax, and equal to the VAT any German would pay in Germany, its actually almost double that amount when you take into account the compounding affect of Germany's higher tariffs.
In short, the differences in the two tax systems result in systemically higher tax rates for VAT. And this means that EU car manufacturers do see a trade advantage in terms of selling to EU end consumers compared to US manufacturers selling to EU end consumers (when compared to either selling in the US) since the final after-tax cost calculation is multiplicative.
Another important difference has to do with the size of the VAT tax compared to single-stage taxes. For example, in the US if you taxed 19% on inputs every step of the way, no one would be able to afford the final sticker price. Instead, the US taxes a much smaller amount but does not refund this like the VAT system, and the end consumer tax is the same small percentage. VAT can be much higher because it avoids the cascading tax effect. In the end maybe 19% tax was collected on the manufacture and sale in both the US and Germany, and all you changed was one having a higher tax versus cost but the sticker price evened out in the end.
Because of this difference in the two tax systems, VAT can be, and is, much higher than US state/local tax. But then, this means that differences in tariffs creates a compounding effect. A German manufacturer can sell to a US end consumer on average about: 100% cost + 2.5% tariff + 102.5% * (8.5% consumption tax) = 111% after tax cost. On the other hand, if Ford builds in the US and sells to a German end consumer, then the calculation goes: 100% cost + 10% tariff +110% * (19% VAT) = 131% after tax cost. So while Germany's VAT is 10.5% higher than the average US sales tax, and equal to the VAT any German would pay in Germany, its actually almost double that amount when you take into account the compounding affect of Germany's higher tariffs.
In short, the differences in the two tax systems result in systemically higher tax rates for VAT. And this means that EU car manufacturers do see a trade advantage in terms of selling to EU end consumers compared to US manufacturers selling to EU end consumers (when compared to either selling in the US) since the final after-tax cost calculation is multiplicative.
You have a lot of words here, but it still seems like the VAT is irrelevant here as it applies equally to both domestic and foreign production.
I agree the 10% tariff on US cars that is problematic, but that has nothing to do with the VAT
I agree the 10% tariff on US cars that is problematic, but that has nothing to do with the VAT
I'll try to summarize it for you. My first point was that with from the EU buyer's perspective, the German car can be delivered a bit cheaper because VAT is totally removed from it up until the end. The US car entering the EU market might have has sales tax embedded into the cost due to the differences in the tax systems.
To illustrate my second point, let's imagine both countries have a 10% tariff, and it takes $50,000 to build a car (ignoring point #1). In Germany, the German car's after tax cost is 50000*1.19=59500 and the US car's is 50000*1.1*1.19. The difference between the two cars in the German market is 5950.
In the US market, taking the average sales tax, the German car's after tax cost is 50000*1.1*1.085=59675 and the US built car is 54250, a difference of 5425. The difference between the cars is $525 tighter in the US market compared to the EU market. The German car makers get an advantage by virtue of how VAT is systemically higher and the resulting multiplicative effect, even when the tariffs are the same. When the EU tariffs are relatively higher, as they are now, the effect is even greater.
To illustrate my second point, let's imagine both countries have a 10% tariff, and it takes $50,000 to build a car (ignoring point #1). In Germany, the German car's after tax cost is 50000*1.19=59500 and the US car's is 50000*1.1*1.19. The difference between the two cars in the German market is 5950.
In the US market, taking the average sales tax, the German car's after tax cost is 50000*1.1*1.085=59675 and the US built car is 54250, a difference of 5425. The difference between the cars is $525 tighter in the US market compared to the EU market. The German car makers get an advantage by virtue of how VAT is systemically higher and the resulting multiplicative effect, even when the tariffs are the same. When the EU tariffs are relatively higher, as they are now, the effect is even greater.
That's because sales taxes are even more shitty than VAT, it's not one of the many issues with VAT.
I actually dislike all consumption taxes, but I find myself defending VAT way too much on this platform :/
I actually dislike all consumption taxes, but I find myself defending VAT way too much on this platform :/
> VAT can be, and is, much higher than US state/local tax.
> And this means that EU car manufacturers do see a trade advantage in terms of selling to EU...
What is never mentioned in these discussions is that high VAT means higher prices as a whole and that has a chilling effect on consumer spending. German (and all other EU) manufacturers have a disadvantage of a smaller home market. This is then compounded by having other taxes on gas (+VAT too of course), which is much more expensive than in the US. So it's simply less affordable to have a car in the EU. And as a result, a high VAT and other taxes are not a competitive advantage for any local industry. This is different to tariffs or direct support, which are an advantage.
> And this means that EU car manufacturers do see a trade advantage in terms of selling to EU...
What is never mentioned in these discussions is that high VAT means higher prices as a whole and that has a chilling effect on consumer spending. German (and all other EU) manufacturers have a disadvantage of a smaller home market. This is then compounded by having other taxes on gas (+VAT too of course), which is much more expensive than in the US. So it's simply less affordable to have a car in the EU. And as a result, a high VAT and other taxes are not a competitive advantage for any local industry. This is different to tariffs or direct support, which are an advantage.
There are plenty of Fords and Opels (was GM) on German roads, not ones built in the US though.
Funny how, when a policy that was considered completely crazy a few years ago is introduced, there will be an army of people trying to find every justification for that policy to become normalized.
A lot of people derive their politics not from principles, but from association. If my Team is for it and opponents are against it, then I am for it.
Yes and I believe this one of the most problematic aspects of representative democracies. Policies are often complex so hardly anyone has the time to educate themselves on all policies of a party, instead many revert to the other extreme and simply cheer for their team.
An interesting concept to alleviate this problem has been pioneered in Melbourne local politics is citizen councils.
An interesting concept to alleviate this problem has been pioneered in Melbourne local politics is citizen councils.
My Google skills are failing me here — can you provide a link, and/or some more search terms, regarding these citizen councils? Is it specific to Melbourne municipal council or other Victorian LGA’s?
The correct term seems to be citizen assemblies (apologies). Here's a link:
https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/independent-citizens-assembl...
I only ever hear this used by people who insist that bad faith interlocutors just need to be given a 10th chance to make their point.
No one has infinite time or attention.
No one has infinite time or attention.
You also have the crazies that initially advocated for the policy now reversing their positions.
Policies don't just appear from the aether; it takes quite a big push to get a government to move in one direction or another. They are sedentary beasts by nature. So it is a safe bet that every implemented policy has a number of people who quite like it, but the community that likes it may well be considered fringe up until they prove to have the numbers and get their preferred policy implemented.
Every flavour of economics enjoys some level of widespread support, there are still a bunch of people who profess a commitment to Marxism. Nobody listens to them (hurrah!) but they're still there. If we had Marxists in charge their articles would probably get a lot more traction though because people want to know what is going to happen next. Ditto things like the gold standard, fiat currency, ultra-low taxes, ultra-high taxes, globalism and economic independence strategies.
TLDR; there is probably a strong selection bias here.
Every flavour of economics enjoys some level of widespread support, there are still a bunch of people who profess a commitment to Marxism. Nobody listens to them (hurrah!) but they're still there. If we had Marxists in charge their articles would probably get a lot more traction though because people want to know what is going to happen next. Ditto things like the gold standard, fiat currency, ultra-low taxes, ultra-high taxes, globalism and economic independence strategies.
TLDR; there is probably a strong selection bias here.
Funny how, both sides read this and think it's the other side you're referencing.
As someone from a developing economy whenever I see a new .edu domain or .ac.uk domain I immediately try to find the institute’s establishment date. I rarely find anything above 1800s from these two countries- US, UK. I often wonder how much this aspect of a certain country contributes to its (sometimes meteoric) growth and how my own country was actually at the pinnacle once and how it coincided with having literally the best of the educational institutions of that time. But that was past — today a 20 year old institute is considered “old” here.
(Though I wonder how much they contribute? 30-40%? Or more? How does one find this out?)
Anyway, I am sure there are other factors like colonialism and what not. But even if you manage to rob someone else and then by the end of next week your money is gone in the various waterholes of your neighbourhood then you are right where you started ready to rob again until you can’t rob anymore. Are there other, from past, “robber” nations that squandered their loot in watering holes?
I wonder how “meteoric” the decline would be if those same academic institutes are undermined and are stifled, the ones that contributed to the rise.
PS. When I was applying to unis in mainland Europe (because US/UK was too costly) any place below at least a hundred year old was “too nuvo” for my academic taste ;-)
(Though I wonder how much they contribute? 30-40%? Or more? How does one find this out?)
Anyway, I am sure there are other factors like colonialism and what not. But even if you manage to rob someone else and then by the end of next week your money is gone in the various waterholes of your neighbourhood then you are right where you started ready to rob again until you can’t rob anymore. Are there other, from past, “robber” nations that squandered their loot in watering holes?
I wonder how “meteoric” the decline would be if those same academic institutes are undermined and are stifled, the ones that contributed to the rise.
PS. When I was applying to unis in mainland Europe (because US/UK was too costly) any place below at least a hundred year old was “too nuvo” for my academic taste ;-)
>As someone from a developing economy whenever I see a new .edu domain or .ac.uk domain I immediately try to find the institute’s establishment date. I rarely find anything above 1800s from these two countries- US, UK.
I don't really understand this comment. Are you saying that there are not many colleges or universities in the US founded in the twentieth century? That's not really true. I haven't done this exhaustively, but I took the lists of US colleges and universities for just three US states (CT, ME, MA) from wikipedia. 101 of the 167 listed were founded after 1900.
I don't know exactly how this would work out for all 50 states but I am sure that we'd find many more, likely a large majority, founded after 1900.
There are around 4,000 or so postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the US. I think what's going on here is that you never hear of the vast majority of them.
Or are you saying that you rarely find US academic institutions founded before the 1800s? In that case, well, yeah, the vast majority were not.
I don't really understand this comment. Are you saying that there are not many colleges or universities in the US founded in the twentieth century? That's not really true. I haven't done this exhaustively, but I took the lists of US colleges and universities for just three US states (CT, ME, MA) from wikipedia. 101 of the 167 listed were founded after 1900.
I don't know exactly how this would work out for all 50 states but I am sure that we'd find many more, likely a large majority, founded after 1900.
There are around 4,000 or so postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the US. I think what's going on here is that you never hear of the vast majority of them.
Or are you saying that you rarely find US academic institutions founded before the 1800s? In that case, well, yeah, the vast majority were not.
> When I was applying to unis in mainland Europe (because US/UK was too costly) any place below at least a hundred year old was “too nuvo” for my academic taste ;-)
Hillsdale is a college founded expressly to be a conservative alternative to the Ivies/older liberal arts schools. And its graduates have been very influential in the recent American conservative movement.
Hillsdale is a college founded expressly to be a conservative alternative to the Ivies/older liberal arts schools. And its graduates have been very influential in the recent American conservative movement.
Hillsdale college is a fundamentalist Christian college. “Bible is the literal word of god” stuff. Many people there believe the world is 6000 years old and evolution didn’t happen.
Need to understand that there are many Christians that are not young earth creationists nor have an with evolution. It is pure materialism that they would have an issue with. Don’t stereotype an entire group of people.
This is a complex topic, as alluded by others here as well. My dad's employer sent him to take an economics course at Hillsdale in the 1980s. I attended college at a Christian liberal arts school around the same time. Reaganomics and the Moral Majority were in their ascendance. As a freshman, I took Econ 101, and it was taught from what the professor called a "Christian economics" perspective, which was essentially Reaganomics. We even learned the Laffer Curve. I learned a pro tip, which is that professors with a strong ideological bias tend to be easy graders, because they want to be liked. The course was fluff.
"Fundamentalism" was getting a lot of buzz during that time, and I remember my fellow freshmen debating whether their sect was "fundamentalist" or not. On the other hand, the biology department taught straight-up evolution with no religious disclaimers, and no objections from the college administration. If there were any objections, it was from a handful of students.
What it suggests to me is that the actual character of an officially Christian college can defy expectations, conflict with the technicalities of official doctrine, and change over time. My own rule, which I think is fair to everybody, is to avoid speculating about anybody's religious beliefs unless they actually say what they are, and then, it's whatever they want.
"Fundamentalism" was getting a lot of buzz during that time, and I remember my fellow freshmen debating whether their sect was "fundamentalist" or not. On the other hand, the biology department taught straight-up evolution with no religious disclaimers, and no objections from the college administration. If there were any objections, it was from a handful of students.
What it suggests to me is that the actual character of an officially Christian college can defy expectations, conflict with the technicalities of official doctrine, and change over time. My own rule, which I think is fair to everybody, is to avoid speculating about anybody's religious beliefs unless they actually say what they are, and then, it's whatever they want.
I think the fundamentalist Christian radicalism is more a comorbidity of the West Coast Straussian obsession of the place than a primary focus; nonetheless, the school is pretty much the funnel into the DC Trump echelons, and the students are politically radicalized to the degree one would expect from a Liberty or a Bob Jones, rather than, say, a GMU or even Washington-Lee. (It also has essentially zero STEM footprint — I believe one, maybe two comp sci professors, for example — and its liberal arts curriculum is, to put it mildly, somewhat outside the mainstream of every discipline represented.)
Source for that claim? If you had spent half a second researching before blindly launching into “Christians r dum” rhetoric you’d have noticed that they actually teach a course on evolution: https://www.hillsdale.edu/courses/evolution-biological-diver...
It is not clear at all from the course description what that course teaches:
"An introduction to the vast diversity of life from prokaryotic forms to the eukaryotic vertebrate mammals. This course introduces the beginning biology student to all the major groups of organisms and to their fundamental taxonomic relationships."
"This vast diversity exists because that's the way God made them" is perfectly compatible with that description.
Also, from the description of an event held April 11, 2025:
"Are the special creation of Adam and Eve and the evolution of humans over millions of years compatible? 100 years after the Scopes Trial, the debate continues."
So "they actually teach a course on evolution" seems to fall well short of a full description of exactly what they teach there.
"An introduction to the vast diversity of life from prokaryotic forms to the eukaryotic vertebrate mammals. This course introduces the beginning biology student to all the major groups of organisms and to their fundamental taxonomic relationships."
"This vast diversity exists because that's the way God made them" is perfectly compatible with that description.
Also, from the description of an event held April 11, 2025:
"Are the special creation of Adam and Eve and the evolution of humans over millions of years compatible? 100 years after the Scopes Trial, the debate continues."
So "they actually teach a course on evolution" seems to fall well short of a full description of exactly what they teach there.
For comparison's sake, here is a description of a more typical Evolutionary Biology course:
"Emphasizes the fundamental evolutionary concepts that provide explanations for the diversification of life on Earth. Specific topics include the evidence for evolution, adaptation by natural selection, speciation, systematics, molecular and genome evolution, and macroevolutionary patterns and processes."
"Emphasizes the fundamental evolutionary concepts that provide explanations for the diversification of life on Earth. Specific topics include the evidence for evolution, adaptation by natural selection, speciation, systematics, molecular and genome evolution, and macroevolutionary patterns and processes."
xienze(2)
My sister went there and her and her friends and their families believe these things.
[deleted]
I mentioned that part about my own country. I think it was not clear. I’ll try to edit. (Edit: it is clear)
> Hillsdale is a college founded expressly to be a conservative alternative to the Ivies/older liberal arts schools.
This is not correct. Hillsdale was founded in 1844 at a time when the contemporary so-called "conservative" movement in the US didn't even exist.
This is not correct. Hillsdale was founded in 1844 at a time when the contemporary so-called "conservative" movement in the US didn't even exist.
Hillsdale was co-oped in living memory to be an expressly conservative liberal arts school. Not the kind of place the values freedom of expression.
Can you show where they don't value freedom of expression?
Are departments free to implement DEI for their hiring a Hillsdale? How many Hillsdale presentations begin with a land acknowledgment? Would it be allowed?
You made an assertion and it appears you cannot back it up. Asking a bunch of irrelevant questions isn’t helping your case much.
By the way, I have a sincere question about land acknowledgments. How far do they go back? For example, should the Comanche do land acknowledgments for the Apaches? Are the descendants of Vikings responsible for land acknowledgments to the British whom they conquered?
Should modern Mexicans start their speeches with land acknowledgments to the Maya, Inca, and other Mestizo Indians? Indians and Mayans committed genocide at a big scale. Should their descendants be responsible for land acknowledgments?
Should modern Mexicans start their speeches with land acknowledgments to the Maya, Inca, and other Mestizo Indians? Indians and Mayans committed genocide at a big scale. Should their descendants be responsible for land acknowledgments?
I would say it is exactly the opposite. Most other universities have given up freedom of expression. You would be far freer at Hillsdale than most universities.
> This is not correct.
Oops this is my mistake. I shouldn't have said founded when I didn't actually know. These days it is at the very least marketed as such. A conservative alternative to...
Oops this is my mistake. I shouldn't have said founded when I didn't actually know. These days it is at the very least marketed as such. A conservative alternative to...
Well, the US is a pretty young country. It was the last continent to be settled (by Europeans) and the history of (European) civilization here is just not very long.
The US does have prestigious organizations from early in its history, but that history is still pretty recent in comparison to Europe. All things considered, the US has a pretty good amount of prestigious history and accomplishments compared to classical European history. It's just hard to compare 18th century America to 5th century Italy. For as long as the USA has been a country, it's not significantly less accomplished than any historic European nation of the same age.
The US does have prestigious organizations from early in its history, but that history is still pretty recent in comparison to Europe. All things considered, the US has a pretty good amount of prestigious history and accomplishments compared to classical European history. It's just hard to compare 18th century America to 5th century Italy. For as long as the USA has been a country, it's not significantly less accomplished than any historic European nation of the same age.
Complete aside but I believe you meant/it is spelled "too nouveau" (assuming you meant more recently founded schools are too "new money" and lack sufficient prestige due to their young age).
Completely unscientific (quick AI research) of top car models imported from the EU to the US + their approximate (end consumer) prices in the US (first price) vs Germany (second) with roughly same specs.
Volkswagen Tiguan ~$28,880 ~$39,500
BMW 3 Series (330i) ~$44,500 ~$66,200
Mercedes-Benz GLC ~$47,100 ~$64,500
Audi Q8 e-tron ~$74,400 ~$82,000
Volvo XC90 ~$56,000 ~$87,900
Land Rover Defender 110 ~$60,600 ~$73,500
Porsche Macan ~$62,550 ~$88,000
BMW i4 eDrive40 ~$57,300 ~$66,000
Aren't the end-consumer prices all that matters in the end? Plus its mostly what most people would describe as luxury vehicles - so few percent here/there is just a smoke screen.
The other way around its also just Mustangs, Corvettes, Jeeps, Cadillacs, Teslas - again much cheaper in the US than the EU.
Volkswagen Tiguan ~$28,880 ~$39,500
BMW 3 Series (330i) ~$44,500 ~$66,200
Mercedes-Benz GLC ~$47,100 ~$64,500
Audi Q8 e-tron ~$74,400 ~$82,000
Volvo XC90 ~$56,000 ~$87,900
Land Rover Defender 110 ~$60,600 ~$73,500
Porsche Macan ~$62,550 ~$88,000
BMW i4 eDrive40 ~$57,300 ~$66,000
Aren't the end-consumer prices all that matters in the end? Plus its mostly what most people would describe as luxury vehicles - so few percent here/there is just a smoke screen.
The other way around its also just Mustangs, Corvettes, Jeeps, Cadillacs, Teslas - again much cheaper in the US than the EU.
I agree, we have pretty insane taxes here so difference could be what we "do to ourselves". So These prices are not real indicative of anything related to Tariffs?
I mean - isn't the whole discussion on tariffs based on the premise that EU is (mis)using the US somehow? Consumer prices don't show that at all - no matter imported or exported goods, in the end everything is still much cheaper in the US.
A part of this is VAT of course but some prices are still much lower in US even when you discount the VAT amount.
A part of this is VAT of course but some prices are still much lower in US even when you discount the VAT amount.
Yeah, the numbers are certainly very interesting, and indeed perhaps more relevant than I thought. They do highlight the complexity of the issue imho.
It's funny how simple it was back then for a person to go to Britain, memorize plans of machinery, smuggle himself back into America, and start an industrial revolution. Such a legend!
This tariff discussion is insipid. The question is not whether there are some historic antecedents for tariffs. Of course there may be, like there are historical antecedents for slavery, but the question is what is the current econometric justification.
Some claims are just out and out misleading, like:
> One of the provisions agreed to by the U.S. in the early GATT negotiations following World War II was differential tariffs: the U.S. lowered its tariffs more than its trading partners did. Again, the purpose of this was to speed the economic rebuilding of allies and former enemies who had suffered devastation during the war.
Perhaps that was a purpose of those tariffs, but this ignores the more general purpose of US policy which was, at the time, to reduce trade barriers, by more closely integrating all these economies (see European Coal and Steel Community), and creating a customs union (see the Paris and Rome Treaties), all in service of preventing another world war.
> The U.S., for instance, has a 2.5 percent tariff on cars imported from Germany, while Germany has a ten percent tariff on American cars.
Hard to believe, in the age of Trump, but tariff rates are generally negotiated for provisions, as part of a broader trade agreement. TTIP, a new EU-US agreement, was dropped by the US without a deal in 2016. Guess why.
> As a result, while the logos of Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volkswagen are seen all over American roads, those of Ford and General Motors are a rare sight in Germany.
MB and BMW have a long history making cars, longer in many cases than the American companies. That is -- this is a mature industry, and, in general, Ford and GM are not regarded as making cars of the same quality both in the US or in Germany. So -- the reason you don't see many Cadillacs in Germany is because MB and BMW and Porsche make a better alternative, and the consumers know it.
Japan for instance has a 0% tariff rate on US cars and the Japanese still don't buy them.
Some claims are just out and out misleading, like:
> One of the provisions agreed to by the U.S. in the early GATT negotiations following World War II was differential tariffs: the U.S. lowered its tariffs more than its trading partners did. Again, the purpose of this was to speed the economic rebuilding of allies and former enemies who had suffered devastation during the war.
Perhaps that was a purpose of those tariffs, but this ignores the more general purpose of US policy which was, at the time, to reduce trade barriers, by more closely integrating all these economies (see European Coal and Steel Community), and creating a customs union (see the Paris and Rome Treaties), all in service of preventing another world war.
> The U.S., for instance, has a 2.5 percent tariff on cars imported from Germany, while Germany has a ten percent tariff on American cars.
Hard to believe, in the age of Trump, but tariff rates are generally negotiated for provisions, as part of a broader trade agreement. TTIP, a new EU-US agreement, was dropped by the US without a deal in 2016. Guess why.
> As a result, while the logos of Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volkswagen are seen all over American roads, those of Ford and General Motors are a rare sight in Germany.
MB and BMW have a long history making cars, longer in many cases than the American companies. That is -- this is a mature industry, and, in general, Ford and GM are not regarded as making cars of the same quality both in the US or in Germany. So -- the reason you don't see many Cadillacs in Germany is because MB and BMW and Porsche make a better alternative, and the consumers know it.
Japan for instance has a 0% tariff rate on US cars and the Japanese still don't buy them.
> Ford and General Motors are a rare sight in Germany.
It's not even true that Ford is a rare sight. Ford outsells Toyota in Germany, employs 28 000 people in Germany, and has been incorporated there since 1925.
US Fords are of course a rare sight but that has nothing to do with tariffs, it is simply that most buyers don't want them.
It's not even true that Ford is a rare sight. Ford outsells Toyota in Germany, employs 28 000 people in Germany, and has been incorporated there since 1925.
US Fords are of course a rare sight but that has nothing to do with tariffs, it is simply that most buyers don't want them.
I disagree for Ford. Fords are well regarded in the EU, probably the US brand who sold the most car. But they do mostly small, efficient cars here, not the monsters they sell in the US.
In fact this probably gets to the most important fact on American vehicle import taxes. The rate on imported “cars” may be 2.5%, but it is 25% on foreign made light trucks.
This 25% tariff in 1964 was technically written to address an entire category in order to comply with GATT rules against retaliatory tariffs, but was specifically targeting the VW bus, because the EU had implemented a tariff against all foreign chicken. Because the EU taxed Europeans on foreign chicken to protect its domestic chicken production, the US taxed Americans on foreign made trucks to protect its domestic automakers, and these tariffs have been referred to as the “Chicken Tax” ever since.
The end result of chicken tax was the transformation of American roads, where the F-150 is the highest selling vehicle in most states. Rather than improving a product class, American automakers over time switched away from making cars and improving their offering, and toward making trucks where they would not need to compete.
The weakness of domestic trucks as a product might even contradict an argument for protective tariffs. Protection was not important for allowing a fledgling industry to flourish; instead it largely lead to abandoning one product class, and shifting development toward a class that was artificially protected from competitive pressure. This was especially problematic because these trucks were not marketable overseas. Partially, that is because American roads were always larger, but also because these were weak products that had been developed in an overprotected environment.
This 25% tariff in 1964 was technically written to address an entire category in order to comply with GATT rules against retaliatory tariffs, but was specifically targeting the VW bus, because the EU had implemented a tariff against all foreign chicken. Because the EU taxed Europeans on foreign chicken to protect its domestic chicken production, the US taxed Americans on foreign made trucks to protect its domestic automakers, and these tariffs have been referred to as the “Chicken Tax” ever since.
The end result of chicken tax was the transformation of American roads, where the F-150 is the highest selling vehicle in most states. Rather than improving a product class, American automakers over time switched away from making cars and improving their offering, and toward making trucks where they would not need to compete.
The weakness of domestic trucks as a product might even contradict an argument for protective tariffs. Protection was not important for allowing a fledgling industry to flourish; instead it largely lead to abandoning one product class, and shifting development toward a class that was artificially protected from competitive pressure. This was especially problematic because these trucks were not marketable overseas. Partially, that is because American roads were always larger, but also because these were weak products that had been developed in an overprotected environment.
Isn't it ironic how overlooked this is in the current discussion? American cars makers struggle with global competition nowadays /because/ they have cornered themselves into an uncompetitive niche /because/ it was protected by a retaliatory tariff. Now what could possibly go wrong if you protect them some more!
This is a retcon attempt. While sure, tariffs are just a tax like any other and can be applied to lots of different policy aims, and don't have to be the end of the world...
None of these arguments were presented in a reasonable way, with numbers, ahead of a policy decision that made a considered attempt to find an optimal balance.
No, we elected an administration that had been shouting "Tariffs!" during the campaign, then enacted "Tariffs!" once in office, then engaged in a quite frankly pathetic flurry of increases/decreases/suspensions/delays to try to fix the critical problems being introduced by the "Tariffs!". Most of which have been to other nations' benefit, even.
It's a bit much to look back after three months of this madness and try to pretend how reasonable it was all along. We're still in the madness (Q2/Q3 numbers haven't landed yet to show actual effects, it's going to be a rocky year, folks).
None of these arguments were presented in a reasonable way, with numbers, ahead of a policy decision that made a considered attempt to find an optimal balance.
No, we elected an administration that had been shouting "Tariffs!" during the campaign, then enacted "Tariffs!" once in office, then engaged in a quite frankly pathetic flurry of increases/decreases/suspensions/delays to try to fix the critical problems being introduced by the "Tariffs!". Most of which have been to other nations' benefit, even.
It's a bit much to look back after three months of this madness and try to pretend how reasonable it was all along. We're still in the madness (Q2/Q3 numbers haven't landed yet to show actual effects, it's going to be a rocky year, folks).
The administration still routinely presents VAT as a tariff. To think there is any real policy thought behind the actions is akin to looking for meaning in the clouds.
Well, I mean, sorta? This is the point where, indeed, rational discussion can happen. In the real world, VATs and tariffs are both taxes collected at the point of trade. The distinction is just about what boundary constitutes a "trade" and what accounting is done to determine the "value" of the trade. But they're close cousins and do most of the same thing and can be used for most of the same policy purposes.
But again, that's not what's happening in US policymaking right now. They don't want tariffs, they want "Tarrifs!", and splitting hairs over the precise definition isn't going to change their mind.
But again, that's not what's happening in US policymaking right now. They don't want tariffs, they want "Tarrifs!", and splitting hairs over the precise definition isn't going to change their mind.
No this is incorrect. The VAT is paid by all the steps in the line and reclaimed until it hits the final seller. That seller collects the VAT and pays it to the taxman. If you import something into a European country, you pay VAT but the VAT is reclaimable basically immediately. Many European countries allow you to postpone the payment of vat as long as you are VAT-registered in that country. You can then declare it to your VAT tax return and basically deducted in the same return. So although the vat might give some cashflow problems, you cannot put it in the same ballpark as a tariff or import tax.
FWIW, I don't see how any of that rebuts the idea that VATs and tariffs are both taxes collected at the point of trade and that they can be used for basically all of the same policy purposes (which, as we all know, is not limited to revenue generation).
Yes yes yes, complex rules are complicated. So what? You can do things with a VAT that you can with a tariff, and that you can not with an income tax or estate tax or usage fee or whatever.
They are closely related policy instruments.
Yes yes yes, complex rules are complicated. So what? You can do things with a VAT that you can with a tariff, and that you can not with an income tax or estate tax or usage fee or whatever.
They are closely related policy instruments.
To some extent, they seem interchangeable.
For instance, any time System76 is brought up for Europeans, VAT is immediately mentioned, along with why they don't have a European distribution center.
Why would opening a European distribution center be relevant if you have to pay the same VAT either way?
A few examples:
https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2204089
https://www.reddit.com/r/System76/comments/1c9djrj/taxes_on_...
For instance, any time System76 is brought up for Europeans, VAT is immediately mentioned, along with why they don't have a European distribution center.
Why would opening a European distribution center be relevant if you have to pay the same VAT either way?
A few examples:
https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2204089
https://www.reddit.com/r/System76/comments/1c9djrj/taxes_on_...
EU distribution center is a proxy for "seller handles VAT and it wont be my problem as a customer to deal with the border authorities or the shipping company that in turn is dealing with the border authorities". VAT and tariffs get paid either way, but as a consumer I very much like it if its your problem, not mine, and "we ship from an EU location" is a very obvious way of ensuring that.
Why does it matter if it's the same number as a line item on the invoice vs you pay it to UPS upon receipt? It's the same price.
> you pay it to UPS upon receipt?
So now I gotta be home 100% to receive the package, instead of it getting it dropped off at a neighbors if I happen to be out/at work/...? And I hope they picked a shipping company that takes card/allows online payments and not someone who expects me to pay in exact cash.
And that's the happy path where everything worked correctly, and not one where something in the paperwork is wrong or got messed up and now you get to try figure out what exact proof the shipping company wants to release your package/believe that they got the amount wrong/... Or it gets shipped in a way where it ends up stuck with actual customs and you get to deal with them. If a seller has their shit in order it's relatively unlikely to happen, but well, random small-ish companies not necessarily do, and if it goes wrong its really annoying.
+ of course if the seller has an actual legal presence here it makes it clear consumer rights as I expect them apply.
I'm not someone who absolutely won't order from abroad if I want something, but a local source or a known distributor just avoids a whole category of potential issues. And computers are the kind of high-value item where people really want to avoid them (and some of the simplifications aren't available, e.g. I think the most straight-forward pre-payment mechanism for sellers is restricted to low-value parcels).
So now I gotta be home 100% to receive the package, instead of it getting it dropped off at a neighbors if I happen to be out/at work/...? And I hope they picked a shipping company that takes card/allows online payments and not someone who expects me to pay in exact cash.
And that's the happy path where everything worked correctly, and not one where something in the paperwork is wrong or got messed up and now you get to try figure out what exact proof the shipping company wants to release your package/believe that they got the amount wrong/... Or it gets shipped in a way where it ends up stuck with actual customs and you get to deal with them. If a seller has their shit in order it's relatively unlikely to happen, but well, random small-ish companies not necessarily do, and if it goes wrong its really annoying.
+ of course if the seller has an actual legal presence here it makes it clear consumer rights as I expect them apply.
I'm not someone who absolutely won't order from abroad if I want something, but a local source or a known distributor just avoids a whole category of potential issues. And computers are the kind of high-value item where people really want to avoid them (and some of the simplifications aren't available, e.g. I think the most straight-forward pre-payment mechanism for sellers is restricted to low-value parcels).
Thanks. Fair points all around.
We do not have any of these considerations in the US, which is perhaps part of why so much stuff comes directly from abroad.
We do not have any of these considerations in the US, which is perhaps part of why so much stuff comes directly from abroad.
I'd guess for things like computers it actually did apply, because these are too expensive for the old de-minimus rules, but of course there's probably not that many small computer makers outside the US shipping there, and large ones either have their own infrastructure or have it figured out. And its certainly possible the overall bureaucracy was easier to deal with too (for all the common rules the EU has brought, fundamentally a lot of it is still per-country stuff and the needs of small sellers are often not really considered, and we also just have more rules in many sectors).
But $800 (I think that was the value?) de-minimus indeed makes a lot of cases easy.
But $800 (I think that was the value?) de-minimus indeed makes a lot of cases easy.
Just to note, you forgot that UPS also adds an absolutely outrageous fee for handling customs.
It's not the same price. The shipping companies charge you a processing fee in addition to the actual tax, so you often end up paying a lot more. Bulk shipping is more efficient.
The VAT is akin to a sales tax. It's paid regardless of where the item is manufactured or distributed from (and mostly regardless of the item). The US typically applies between 5-10% sales tax on most items. I have no idea why someone from System76 would think it's relevant to have an EU distribution center, but it wouldn't change the VAT.
BTW, it's not just the EU that wants you to pay the sales tax when bringing items across the border, but the US also. It just so happens that it's rarely if ever enforced.
EDIT I should add that the key difference of the VAT and tariff is that VAT is not made to advantage one product over another. It's simply a sales tax on nearly all products, just like the US sales taxes.
BTW, it's not just the EU that wants you to pay the sales tax when bringing items across the border, but the US also. It just so happens that it's rarely if ever enforced.
EDIT I should add that the key difference of the VAT and tariff is that VAT is not made to advantage one product over another. It's simply a sales tax on nearly all products, just like the US sales taxes.
> have no idea why someone from System76 would think it's relevant to have an EU distribution center, but it wouldn't change the VAT.
It seems to be the customers asking for one, not System76. They were planning to open one, though.
> VAT is not made to advantage one product over another.
Like sales tax, there are different (and often zero) rates depending on product (same link as before)
It seems to be the customers asking for one, not System76. They were planning to open one, though.
> VAT is not made to advantage one product over another.
Like sales tax, there are different (and often zero) rates depending on product (same link as before)
>> VAT is not made to advantage one product over another.
> Like sales tax, there are different (and often zero) rates depending on product (same link as before)
But those different rates depend on the product category, not the product manufacturer or place of origin. The whole point of tariffs is to base rates on place of origin.
> Like sales tax, there are different (and often zero) rates depending on product (same link as before)
But those different rates depend on the product category, not the product manufacturer or place of origin. The whole point of tariffs is to base rates on place of origin.
> But those different rates depend on the product category, not the product manufacturer or place of origin.
They do, though:
https://stripe.com/en-ch/resources/more/import-tax-germany
They do, though:
https://stripe.com/en-ch/resources/more/import-tax-germany
No, they don't. You have at least two VAT rates, and my country has four:
- Staple food (rice, basically? Probably flour too) as well as healthcare: 0%.
Food and common, staple products (soap, condoms, probably other), some cultural products (books, theater tickets, probably other), electricity, water: reduced rate (5.5%)
'vacation' rate: camping bookings, alternative healthcare, zoo, movies, restaurants (10%).
Everything else is 20%, whatever the brand or the producer. I know because I actually checked my transaction tickets for a long time (and my first journey b was writing an OCR to automatically analyze those tickets to ask for VAT reimbursement)
- Staple food (rice, basically? Probably flour too) as well as healthcare: 0%.
Food and common, staple products (soap, condoms, probably other), some cultural products (books, theater tickets, probably other), electricity, water: reduced rate (5.5%)
'vacation' rate: camping bookings, alternative healthcare, zoo, movies, restaurants (10%).
Everything else is 20%, whatever the brand or the producer. I know because I actually checked my transaction tickets for a long time (and my first journey b was writing an OCR to automatically analyze those tickets to ask for VAT reimbursement)
No, they don't. As noted in the link you provided the VAT rate on an import sale is the same as the VAT rate for a non-import sale.
"Clouds are simply a negotiating tactic"
> None of these arguments were presented in a reasonable way, with numbers, ahead of a policy decision that made a considered attempt to find an optimal balance.
TFA is the transcript of an historical overview lecture, not a formal economic thesis on the topic, much less, a journal article.
Your point, while valid, might be enhanced by some counter-linking.
TFA is the transcript of an historical overview lecture, not a formal economic thesis on the topic, much less, a journal article.
Your point, while valid, might be enhanced by some counter-linking.
With all respect: to pretend that a "historical overview lecture" delivered on 6 May 2025 by a well-known conservative business pundit[1], before the Heritage Foundation, on the subject of "Tariffs in American History" ...
... is somehow completely objective and obviously unrelated to the giant shitstorm of contemporary US tariff policy is just laughable, sorry.
We both know what this is.
[1] The presentation might have fooled you, but John Steel Gordon is absolutely not an "economist" or "historian" in any professional sense.
... is somehow completely objective and obviously unrelated to the giant shitstorm of contemporary US tariff policy is just laughable, sorry.
We both know what this is.
[1] The presentation might have fooled you, but John Steel Gordon is absolutely not an "economist" or "historian" in any professional sense.
> We both know what this is.
It's an historical overview. Was there a substantive rebuttal on offer, or just what sounds like innuendo?
It's an historical overview. Was there a substantive rebuttal on offer, or just what sounds like innuendo?
TIL "noting the author and forum of a lecture with clear political relevance" == "innuendo".
The point isn't that he's wrong (though multiple people here are indeed pointing out things that are). It's that (1) his not being wrong doesn't remotely justify current policy and (2) who he is and where he spoke was very clearly intended to justify current policy. I mean, duh, as it were.
I mean, please. Link me another dry historical lecture hosted by Heritage. I dare you. Everything they do is political.
The point isn't that he's wrong (though multiple people here are indeed pointing out things that are). It's that (1) his not being wrong doesn't remotely justify current policy and (2) who he is and where he spoke was very clearly intended to justify current policy. I mean, duh, as it were.
I mean, please. Link me another dry historical lecture hosted by Heritage. I dare you. Everything they do is political.
I specifically quoted the component of your reply that seemed to qualify as innuendo...and you attempt to shift the focus...
> President Trump wants to level this playing field.
No. It is an attempt to sanewash conservatives, because that is the whole reason for being for this university.
The part about Germany and cars is also crap.
No. It is an attempt to sanewash conservatives, because that is the whole reason for being for this university.
The part about Germany and cars is also crap.
> The part about Germany and cars is also crap.
So, could you suggest a link to a solid refutation?
So, could you suggest a link to a solid refutation?
> In addition, Germany’s value-added tax is remitted on exports but charged on imports.
VAT is paid regardless of who manufactured the car. It is something the final customer has to pay regardless of whether the product was made in EU or abroad. If you are buying BMW, you have to pay VAT. If you are buying Toyota, you have to pay VAT. If you are buying an American car, you have to pay exactly the same VAT. It is sales tax, basically, just managed differently to make tax fraud harder.
Also, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have great reputation and fit into European roads. Ford and General Motors do not have comparatively great reputation. Germans were buying Teslas tho, before those became associated with support to far right.
Article author is lying, plain and simple.
VAT is paid regardless of who manufactured the car. It is something the final customer has to pay regardless of whether the product was made in EU or abroad. If you are buying BMW, you have to pay VAT. If you are buying Toyota, you have to pay VAT. If you are buying an American car, you have to pay exactly the same VAT. It is sales tax, basically, just managed differently to make tax fraud harder.
Also, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have great reputation and fit into European roads. Ford and General Motors do not have comparatively great reputation. Germans were buying Teslas tho, before those became associated with support to far right.
Article author is lying, plain and simple.
The article is a recounting of historical facts. Do you feel that relevant facts were omitted, and if so, what?
Merely asserting "lying" is unhelpful.
Merely asserting "lying" is unhelpful.
VAT is not an import tariff. That is a rather major lie. It is a tax applied equally to domestic and foreign produce. Not a mistake, because it is quite known to anyone who ever googled it.
Given they lie about something so straightforward, I am not inclined to trust whatever they write about history. History is super easy to cherry pick and present in manipulative way.
Given they lie about something so straightforward, I am not inclined to trust whatever they write about history. History is super easy to cherry pick and present in manipulative way.
Anybody who understands what VAT is and how it works cannot take this part of the article seriously. I hate VAT, I think it should cease to exist (it is still marginally better than sale taxes) but I made the effort to actually try to understand how it works before writing bullshit about it on basically a blog post.
The article is lying. At this point, it is not reasonable to assume this is just not understanding things.
People who work in these institutions lie, they are paid for lying and they do it to project their ideological agenda.
People who work in these institutions lie, they are paid for lying and they do it to project their ideological agenda.
I think you greatly overestimate the understanding of people working in those institutions.
They have a framework and try to make everything they read/hear about go through that framework, even if it doesn't really fit. They don't really understand, but have strong opinions and held them at least as strongly, maybe more.
They aren't idiots in any case, but clearly, in this particular case, the author doesn't know what he is talking about.
They have a framework and try to make everything they read/hear about go through that framework, even if it doesn't really fit. They don't really understand, but have strong opinions and held them at least as strongly, maybe more.
They aren't idiots in any case, but clearly, in this particular case, the author doesn't know what he is talking about.
> The article is lying.
A legless assertion. Could you be more specific with the objection, please?
A legless assertion. Could you be more specific with the objection, please?
That’s a really good read but I can’t believe they covered all of that history of tariffs, referenced the firing on Fort Sumter and never pointed out that Fort Sumter existed almost entirely for…tariff collection.
It’s an island right in the middle of the entrance to Charleston Harbor.
It’s an island right in the middle of the entrance to Charleston Harbor.
A great place to visit by ferry. As is Fort Moultrie. Super nice rangers when we've gone in the last few years.
Then again they might not work there anymore.
Then again they might not work there anymore.
Why are the mods manually unflagging propaganda?
i feel like they should maybe detail more about how these tariffs influenced the outbreak of the civil war
Tariffs and other ideas associated with economic nationalism place politics ahead of the economic freedom of citizens. They declare that economic activity is something that must be stewarded and managed by politicians, and that citizens are too foolish to be allowed to have economic freedom, and that all should sacrifice for the benefit of those chosen by political leaders to benefit from heavy economic restrictions.
For comparison, China applies the minimal amount of economic protectionism it deems necessary to achieve its industrial policy goals. The crucial fact about China's approach is that China's leaders do not make silly claims to sell the idea to a naive public, they cite specific, highly targeted industrial policy goals and interfere in the economy as little as possible. They acknowledge the sacrifice that tariffs require and assert that the industrial policy goals are worth it, they do not make false claims about who pays for tariffs.
On the contrary, protectionism in the US is a blunt and emotionally wielded instrument that is deployed haphazardly and then suddenly repealed, then deployed again amid rhetoric that the US is a victim and has been taken advantage of, and the emotionally reassuring and politically priceless falsehood that foreign companies pay the cost of tariffs.
The costs of recent tariff antics in the US is clear as the economy must now price in the risk of unpredictable and haphazard tariffs along with other systemic risks. Absent from the discussion of tariffs in the US is any coherent idea of industrial policy, any forward-looking or coherent perspective on what should be done to prepare for the future, etc.
US tariffs are a purely emotional ploy meant to build up nostalgia for bygone days of US heavy manufacturing. The "us against them" rhetoric and the victimhood rhetoric is just a bonus that (sadly) sells well politically in the US these days.
It is not only counter-productive and directly harmful to the US economy, it is also deeply embarrassing that the world has to witness the US self-immolating in this way, hitting our own knee-caps with a hammer, destroying wealth and trust that many people worked so hard to create.
Economists don't favor tariffs for one simple reason: Economics is a science and there is overwhelming evidence telling us what will happen. Better policy ideas exist such as targeted industrial policy (such as that done by China) but the US ignores them in favor of the most emotional and reactive posturing imaginable.
It should already be clear what happened. Trump made a lot of claims about "deal making" and tariffs. Many of the claims were contradictory from the beginning, meaning if one was true the other could not be true. Supporters are not bothered by that because the appeal is emotional rather than logical. Now we've seen many tariffs get deployed, we've seen markets tank, companies cancel orders, reverse course, hold back on investment decisions. Then we've seen the tariffs get walked back amid bluster and rhetoric. Some economic numbers improve in response to this but not all. It's like the last spasms of a dying creature -- is it an attack or a retreat? Neither or both?
All this stems from a deep misunderstanding of American power and American greatness. Misunderstandings like this are easy in a society so heavily influenced by just-so stories and propaganda, societies like ours in which the state religion, American Exceptionalism, is irresistable to so many.
For comparison, China applies the minimal amount of economic protectionism it deems necessary to achieve its industrial policy goals. The crucial fact about China's approach is that China's leaders do not make silly claims to sell the idea to a naive public, they cite specific, highly targeted industrial policy goals and interfere in the economy as little as possible. They acknowledge the sacrifice that tariffs require and assert that the industrial policy goals are worth it, they do not make false claims about who pays for tariffs.
On the contrary, protectionism in the US is a blunt and emotionally wielded instrument that is deployed haphazardly and then suddenly repealed, then deployed again amid rhetoric that the US is a victim and has been taken advantage of, and the emotionally reassuring and politically priceless falsehood that foreign companies pay the cost of tariffs.
The costs of recent tariff antics in the US is clear as the economy must now price in the risk of unpredictable and haphazard tariffs along with other systemic risks. Absent from the discussion of tariffs in the US is any coherent idea of industrial policy, any forward-looking or coherent perspective on what should be done to prepare for the future, etc.
US tariffs are a purely emotional ploy meant to build up nostalgia for bygone days of US heavy manufacturing. The "us against them" rhetoric and the victimhood rhetoric is just a bonus that (sadly) sells well politically in the US these days.
It is not only counter-productive and directly harmful to the US economy, it is also deeply embarrassing that the world has to witness the US self-immolating in this way, hitting our own knee-caps with a hammer, destroying wealth and trust that many people worked so hard to create.
Economists don't favor tariffs for one simple reason: Economics is a science and there is overwhelming evidence telling us what will happen. Better policy ideas exist such as targeted industrial policy (such as that done by China) but the US ignores them in favor of the most emotional and reactive posturing imaginable.
It should already be clear what happened. Trump made a lot of claims about "deal making" and tariffs. Many of the claims were contradictory from the beginning, meaning if one was true the other could not be true. Supporters are not bothered by that because the appeal is emotional rather than logical. Now we've seen many tariffs get deployed, we've seen markets tank, companies cancel orders, reverse course, hold back on investment decisions. Then we've seen the tariffs get walked back amid bluster and rhetoric. Some economic numbers improve in response to this but not all. It's like the last spasms of a dying creature -- is it an attack or a retreat? Neither or both?
All this stems from a deep misunderstanding of American power and American greatness. Misunderstandings like this are easy in a society so heavily influenced by just-so stories and propaganda, societies like ours in which the state religion, American Exceptionalism, is irresistable to so many.
>For comparison, China applies the minimal amount of economic protectionism it deems necessary to achieve its industrial policy goals
This isn't remotely true. Currency manipulation, state run enterprises, local ownership requirements, tariffs. They do it all across the entire economy.
This isn't remotely true. Currency manipulation, state run enterprises, local ownership requirements, tariffs. They do it all across the entire economy.
And not a reference, footnote or bibliography in sight. Just another business journalist with an agenda. No thank you.
Hillsdale College is the type of institution that propagates the big lie: https://dc.hillsdale.edu/News-and-Events/News/Mollie-Hemingw...
Garbage in, garbage out.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Somehow I got on Hillsdale’s mailing list in college. In the spirit of open-mindedness, I try to read their newsletter from time to time without vomiting. I found it nearly impossible. There are much better places to find intellectually honest arguments in favor of libertarianism and so on.
I cannot take seriously an economics article about tariffs without charts in it. For quick skimming of course.
I am very much an anti Trumper and went into the article with some trepidation but I thought it even-handed, if shallow, overview until the very end.
The article correctly points out the disaster of Smoot Hawley and the effectiveness of GATT. It attributes much of the world-wide reduction of poverty on free trade.
I think it's written from the view of traditional free-market conservatives unwilling to criticize trump directly.
The article correctly points out the disaster of Smoot Hawley and the effectiveness of GATT. It attributes much of the world-wide reduction of poverty on free trade.
I think it's written from the view of traditional free-market conservatives unwilling to criticize trump directly.
They equate VAT with import tax. That is straight up lie. So, I would triple check any other claim they have. Someone lying that blatantly about something so easy to verify is going to lie a lot about stuff that is less known, potentially nuanced and harder to verify - like history.
The first 42 paragraphs read like something that could have been written by any libertarian free-market thinker at any point during the last 80 years. The final 3 paragraphs read like something written in the last few months to appease the current administration.
> I am very much an anti Trumper
This used to just be called a patriotic American.
This used to just be called a patriotic American.
This is pro-Trump propaganda for what is arguably the dumbest trade war in history by perhaps the most incompetent people ever to helm a global superpower. Let's start with this:
> In 1950, according to the World Bank, 62.12 percent of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty. In 2017, the percentage had fallen to 9.18 percent.
How did that happen, exactly? Let's do some math. In 1950 the world population was ~2.5B [1]. In 2017 it as ~7.6B. 62% of 2.5B is 1.5B. 9.18% of 7.6B is 700M. What happened in that time? Oh that's right, China lifted 800M people out of extreme poverty [2]. The author's numbers may be off because I've seen other studies that show the number of people in extreme poverty went up if you remove China from the equation entirely.
Best case for the author is that China is solely responsible for the decrease in global extreme poverty. But there's no mention of that because the success of a pluralistic yet authoritarian regime with a command economy is not something neoliberals ever want to acknowledge let alone talk about.
Oh, as an aside, the author is a climate change denialist [3].
Another choice quote:
> The U.S., for instance, has a 2.5 percent tariff on cars imported from Germany, while Germany has a ten percent tariff on American cars. In addition, Germany’s value-added tax is remitted on exports but charged on imports. As a result, while the logos of Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volkswagen are seen all over American roads, those of Ford and General Motors are a rare sight in Germany. And China, as already noted, is far worse, a world outlier, in terms of its nefarious trade policies.
For an economist who cannot possibly not know better, this is just dishonest. Germany charges VAT on all cars sold in Germany, whether they're domestic or foreign, just like US states charge sales tax in exactly the same way.
Also, where are those cars produced? A lot of foreign brands are produced in the US eg BMW's plant in South Carolina [4].
Lastly, this whole "they don't buy our cars" talking point comes straight from the administration when a lot of American cars are simply not suitable for use in Europe. A Ford F150 requires a commercial driving license in much of Europe. Also, try and imagine such a beast navigating the narrow, winding strets of a French village.
There's also no mention of how the US outright bans Japanese auto imports where the Japanese produce some of the most reliably and commercially successful trucks on the planet eg the Toyota Hilux.
[1]: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat...
[2]: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l...
[3]: https://www.commentary.org/john-steele-gordon/climate-global...
[4]: https://www.bmwgroup-werke.com/spartanburg/en.html
> In 1950, according to the World Bank, 62.12 percent of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty. In 2017, the percentage had fallen to 9.18 percent.
How did that happen, exactly? Let's do some math. In 1950 the world population was ~2.5B [1]. In 2017 it as ~7.6B. 62% of 2.5B is 1.5B. 9.18% of 7.6B is 700M. What happened in that time? Oh that's right, China lifted 800M people out of extreme poverty [2]. The author's numbers may be off because I've seen other studies that show the number of people in extreme poverty went up if you remove China from the equation entirely.
Best case for the author is that China is solely responsible for the decrease in global extreme poverty. But there's no mention of that because the success of a pluralistic yet authoritarian regime with a command economy is not something neoliberals ever want to acknowledge let alone talk about.
Oh, as an aside, the author is a climate change denialist [3].
Another choice quote:
> The U.S., for instance, has a 2.5 percent tariff on cars imported from Germany, while Germany has a ten percent tariff on American cars. In addition, Germany’s value-added tax is remitted on exports but charged on imports. As a result, while the logos of Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volkswagen are seen all over American roads, those of Ford and General Motors are a rare sight in Germany. And China, as already noted, is far worse, a world outlier, in terms of its nefarious trade policies.
For an economist who cannot possibly not know better, this is just dishonest. Germany charges VAT on all cars sold in Germany, whether they're domestic or foreign, just like US states charge sales tax in exactly the same way.
Also, where are those cars produced? A lot of foreign brands are produced in the US eg BMW's plant in South Carolina [4].
Lastly, this whole "they don't buy our cars" talking point comes straight from the administration when a lot of American cars are simply not suitable for use in Europe. A Ford F150 requires a commercial driving license in much of Europe. Also, try and imagine such a beast navigating the narrow, winding strets of a French village.
There's also no mention of how the US outright bans Japanese auto imports where the Japanese produce some of the most reliably and commercially successful trucks on the planet eg the Toyota Hilux.
[1]: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat...
[2]: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l...
[3]: https://www.commentary.org/john-steele-gordon/climate-global...
[4]: https://www.bmwgroup-werke.com/spartanburg/en.html
This thread was originally submitted 2 days ago, and quickly flagged from what I could tell. Now the moderation team has deemed it necessary to give it a second chance and get it up again? That is a choice that to me is as baffling as it is blatantly partisan.
Tariffs can work, but only if they are targeted towards certain industries/sectors. They can't just be slapped across the board and be expected to work properly. Furthermore, they must be attached to certain KPIs such as exports (i.e., the ability to effectively compete on the international market). Joe Studwell's "How Asia Works" argues that Japan, Korea, and Taiwan all used tariffs and subsidies to promote their own "national champions". In turn, they forced those companies export their products rather than just sell domestically in order to compete. If they didn't meet those export targets, those companies were cut off from state support. Ha Joon Chang, a Korean developmental economist, likens this to raising a child: you spend their initial formative years supporting them until they are able to support themselves without your help.