A small violin part highlights bigger problems for the global economy(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
A small violin part highlights bigger problems for the global economy
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/02/business/trump-tariffs-canada-us.html
85 comments
This article illustrates how economically destructive these tariffs are for all involved.
Of course those who are politically favored, such as US farmers, will get a handout, everyone else gets to pound sand.
I think a US recession is a given at this point, the only question is if there will also be a global recession.
If Trump persists with the threatened tariffs, there will definitely be a reordering of US and global trade, but not in the way he thinks. The US will likely have lower growth and higher inflation, ie "stagflation" and the rest of the world will move to trading with itself and without the US. There will be less competition and a consequent lowering of quality and innovation in areas such as cars.
It's a recipe for long term US decline.
Of course those who are politically favored, such as US farmers, will get a handout, everyone else gets to pound sand.
I think a US recession is a given at this point, the only question is if there will also be a global recession.
If Trump persists with the threatened tariffs, there will definitely be a reordering of US and global trade, but not in the way he thinks. The US will likely have lower growth and higher inflation, ie "stagflation" and the rest of the world will move to trading with itself and without the US. There will be less competition and a consequent lowering of quality and innovation in areas such as cars.
It's a recipe for long term US decline.
> such as US farmers
The foreign strategy of punishing industries in regions that voted for Trump makes sense. So does subsidizing US farmers because we want to overproduce food to ensure supply stability. A key job of government is to step when when markets would/will fail, and markets don't like over-producing.
The foreign strategy of punishing industries in regions that voted for Trump makes sense. So does subsidizing US farmers because we want to overproduce food to ensure supply stability. A key job of government is to step when when markets would/will fail, and markets don't like over-producing.
> So does subsidizing US farmers because we want to overproduce food to ensure supply stability.
The US already does this, I'm talking about payments for losses due to tariffs.
The US already does this, I'm talking about payments for losses due to tariffs.
.> everyone else gets to pound sand.
Or the factory can build their parts here in one of our 50 great states. Turns out, Canada isn't the only place you can build a violin face rest.
Or the factory can build their parts here in one of our 50 great states. Turns out, Canada isn't the only place you can build a violin face rest.
Extend this thinking out globally, where some of the products need factories (or entire supply chains) that take a decade (or more) to establish, and you might realize that there are some issues (at least short-term) with the "simply build it here" mentality.
I agree. But unless the incentives are changed, the US will continue to deindustrialize. Many here constantly bemoan the financialization of American companies. But that’s all that’s left after gutting the industrial capacity.
Think not for one moment that Apple et al can rest on their laurels “designed in California”. China is coming for the value chain lunch.
Think not for one moment that Apple et al can rest on their laurels “designed in California”. China is coming for the value chain lunch.
> the US will continue to deindustrialize
This is a fiction. The US manufactures more than it ever did, just not the same products and with less staff. The US is second only to China.
This is a normal process of seeking out better markets and ceding less profitable ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...
This is a fiction. The US manufactures more than it ever did, just not the same products and with less staff. The US is second only to China.
This is a normal process of seeking out better markets and ceding less profitable ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...
Semiconductors?
Drones?
Consumer goods?
EVs (soon)?
Let’s not even mention that in belligerence it is the “less profitable” industries that carry the war.
Let’s not even mention that in belligerence it is the “less profitable” industries that carry the war.
Just pick up a manufacturing process and tooling and move it to another country? To sell $35USD violin shoulder rests to a niche market? I just can't think of a polite way to ask how hard you thought about this before posting.
If they're $35 items they weren't that valuable in the first place. Easily can be retooled here. Nice try to turn it into an ad hominem though, I didn't even notice:)
As with "I coded a Twitter clone in a weekend", this tends to be a lot harder than you might imagine.
Hello investors! I have an opportunity here and would like to build a factory in the USA. The market is tiny, the product is bespoke, and the MSRP is also tiny. We'd be looking at employing around 10 people (as per the fine article). Also the economic conditions may disappear tonight, tomorrow or next few years. Any time, really. Oh, not interested in investing? Quelle surprise..
Sure, they can build it here—but protectionism doesn’t deliver long-term success.
In the short term, it drives up prices and makes consumers poorer. In the long run, tariffs shield companies from global competition and limit their ability to scale. Without that pressure or opportunity, businesses grow weaker—not stronger.
That weakens U.S. industry, not strengthens it.
In the short term, it drives up prices and makes consumers poorer. In the long run, tariffs shield companies from global competition and limit their ability to scale. Without that pressure or opportunity, businesses grow weaker—not stronger.
That weakens U.S. industry, not strengthens it.
> deliver long-term success.
Is that Wharton business buzz-speak? Did the millons of jobs lost when manufacturing was moved overseas "deliver long-term success" ?
Driving up prices is ok sometimes. It makes sense when the value of the dollar is diluted thanks to inflation. People cannot afford to live anywhere, and judging by the replies, everyone here is fine with that.
Is that Wharton business buzz-speak? Did the millons of jobs lost when manufacturing was moved overseas "deliver long-term success" ?
Driving up prices is ok sometimes. It makes sense when the value of the dollar is diluted thanks to inflation. People cannot afford to live anywhere, and judging by the replies, everyone here is fine with that.
How would they get US visas for all of their staff? How much will it cost to move their factory? How will this new factory in the US avoid retaliatory tariffs from the other countries they want to sell into?
Yes, and those new factories can employ some of the people unemployed from more valuable industries as a result of the retaliatory tariffs, but the net result of broad tariffs is to constrict both the global and domestic production possibilities curve and the aggregate value created, both globally and locally.
> Or the factory can build their parts here in one of our 50 great states.
Then the ⅔ they sell outside the USA would be subject to the retaliatory tariffs likely to come in response to Trump's tariffs. They'd also lose at least some of their existing 10 employees who wouldn't want to move, so they'd need to train more — quality would suffer.
It's more likely they'll find ways to avoid the USA — the European nylon supplier mentioned in the article might reduce their minimum order size, or maybe they could find another business to split the minimum order. The Canadian packaging producer is probably trying to find a Canadian paper supplier.
Then the ⅔ they sell outside the USA would be subject to the retaliatory tariffs likely to come in response to Trump's tariffs. They'd also lose at least some of their existing 10 employees who wouldn't want to move, so they'd need to train more — quality would suffer.
It's more likely they'll find ways to avoid the USA — the European nylon supplier mentioned in the article might reduce their minimum order size, or maybe they could find another business to split the minimum order. The Canadian packaging producer is probably trying to find a Canadian paper supplier.
Besides the time and cost to do that, which may make it uneconomic, there is also the fact that their inputs would be subject to tariffs in the US and exports to other countries from the US would be subject to retaliatory tariffs.
Your point is basically Trump propaganda at this point. Tariffs have historically had unintended consequences. For instance the tariffs on LCD screens basically killed the laptop industry in the US.
Maybe, just maybe, after 20 years of tariffs it might come true, for a limited selection of products, but consumers would be paying higher prices in the meantime, which may destroy the market.
Your point is basically Trump propaganda at this point. Tariffs have historically had unintended consequences. For instance the tariffs on LCD screens basically killed the laptop industry in the US.
Maybe, just maybe, after 20 years of tariffs it might come true, for a limited selection of products, but consumers would be paying higher prices in the meantime, which may destroy the market.
A lot of that will takes years to get going. Trump will nearly be out of office before manufacturing can ramp up.
Add on that trump is quite literally tariffing the materials needed to expand US industry/manufacturing.
The US also has a major labor shortage that trump is only making worse. How are ya gonna build a violin face when you can't hire anyone to do it?
Like usual, conservatives/Republicans grossly oversimplify how the world works in order to get sound bites and convince fools that 1+1=3.
Add on that trump is quite literally tariffing the materials needed to expand US industry/manufacturing.
The US also has a major labor shortage that trump is only making worse. How are ya gonna build a violin face when you can't hire anyone to do it?
Like usual, conservatives/Republicans grossly oversimplify how the world works in order to get sound bites and convince fools that 1+1=3.
> How are ya gonna build a violin face when you can't hire anyone to do it?
We're going to use children.
The US labor force is shrinking for at least the next 20 years. We're losing 500-900k workers a year until at least 2034, and longer if people have fewer children because of, well... And it's not projected to increase until 2045.
All the squealing you hear from business owners? Labor today is likely about as inexpensive as it's going to be for the next 20 years.
We're going to use children.
The US labor force is shrinking for at least the next 20 years. We're losing 500-900k workers a year until at least 2034, and longer if people have fewer children because of, well... And it's not projected to increase until 2045.
All the squealing you hear from business owners? Labor today is likely about as inexpensive as it's going to be for the next 20 years.
[deleted]
I think he's banking on not being out of office in 4 years.
Also I don't think he's making the labour market worse, haven't deportations been roughly at the same level as past administrations when we actually drill down into the numbers?
What he is doing differently is targeting protestors of U.S. foreign (and probably soon domestic) policy with his deportations, which is simply abhorrent, not to mention possibly illegal.
But it remains to be seen if these measures will actually harm the economy, or (by suppressing criticism) actually strengthen his administration. It's a move out of the fascist playbook, and fascist economics aren't necessarily bad for the economy (except when they're overthrown or defeated).
I highly doubt we'll see the U.S. defeated in conventional warfare any time soon, so if he manages to extend his seat as fuhrer, I think his deposal will only be possible internally.
Also I don't think he's making the labour market worse, haven't deportations been roughly at the same level as past administrations when we actually drill down into the numbers?
What he is doing differently is targeting protestors of U.S. foreign (and probably soon domestic) policy with his deportations, which is simply abhorrent, not to mention possibly illegal.
But it remains to be seen if these measures will actually harm the economy, or (by suppressing criticism) actually strengthen his administration. It's a move out of the fascist playbook, and fascist economics aren't necessarily bad for the economy (except when they're overthrown or defeated).
I highly doubt we'll see the U.S. defeated in conventional warfare any time soon, so if he manages to extend his seat as fuhrer, I think his deposal will only be possible internally.
Have there been any studies or economists predicting macro-level benefits to the US economy with the tariffs? I'm not aware of any (much the opposite), but I'm interested if they exist.
I too am interested in learning more about the other side of the debate.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion" --John Stuart Mill
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion" --John Stuart Mill
I think an interesting angle to this discussion is the fact that before the "temporary" income taxes (in 1913), tariffs were the primary source of tax revenue in the United States. There are lots of modern economists in favor of consumption taxes over income taxes. And in a climate where people are up in arms about billionaires skirting income taxes, you'd think it might be a popular idea to tax all the money they spend.
Consumption taxes are wildly regressive. US tax policy since 1913 (and arguably even before) is (perhaps suprisingly) very progressive (*). Not a good fit.
(*) progressive in the sense of following the principle that the impact of taxes should be roughly the same for all, not in the general political sense.
(*) progressive in the sense of following the principle that the impact of taxes should be roughly the same for all, not in the general political sense.
There's at least one plan [1] that specifically addresses this problem called FairTax:
> The proposal also specifies a monthly payment made to all households based on household size. Called a "prebate," the monthly payment offsets the regressive nature of a sales tax up to the poverty level.
Of course nobody agrees [2] on how effective this would actually be:
> Sales taxes are normally considered regressive though the FairTax provides a rebate that supporters argue would create a progressive effective rate on consumption. However, the Fairtax would also eliminate the EITC and CTC, dramatically reducing this benefit.[58] Additionally the FairTax would be applied to goods that are currently not subject to sales tax. These include all food, all prescription drugs and other health care products and services (such as doctor’s visits and laboratory tests), purchases of new homes, and utility bills. These goods make up a substantial share of low income families expenses
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicted_effects_of_the_FairT...
> The proposal also specifies a monthly payment made to all households based on household size. Called a "prebate," the monthly payment offsets the regressive nature of a sales tax up to the poverty level.
Of course nobody agrees [2] on how effective this would actually be:
> Sales taxes are normally considered regressive though the FairTax provides a rebate that supporters argue would create a progressive effective rate on consumption. However, the Fairtax would also eliminate the EITC and CTC, dramatically reducing this benefit.[58] Additionally the FairTax would be applied to goods that are currently not subject to sales tax. These include all food, all prescription drugs and other health care products and services (such as doctor’s visits and laboratory tests), purchases of new homes, and utility bills. These goods make up a substantial share of low income families expenses
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicted_effects_of_the_FairT...
FairTax only addresses regressivity up to the poverty level. Its proponents specifically cite the way it would affect investment and savings, which are the domain of the wealth(y|ier). People earning median household income would face a much greater tax impact than people earning 10x that level, which is precisely what the progressivity of income tax with marginal rates is intended to avoid.
Why can't you just make a progressive consumption tax?
Because almost nobody who is very wealthy spends all of their income on consumption.
"No more billionaires. None. After you reach $999 million, every red cent goes to schools and healthcare. You get a trophy that says, “I won capitalism,” and we name a dog park after you." — Mikel Jollett
Can you contextualize this quote in response to my comment?
It's an alternate technique for raising taxes.
It incidentally also reduces the social impact of a small number of extremely wealthy people, thus helping democracy.
It's probably not legal without a Constitutional amendment, but one can dream.
It incidentally also reduces the social impact of a small number of extremely wealthy people, thus helping democracy.
It's probably not legal without a Constitutional amendment, but one can dream.
Yanis Varoufakis has been writing about this with a mostly neutral, inquisitive tone. Recently:
https://unherd.com/2025/02/why-trumps-tariffs-are-a-masterpl...
https://unherd.com/2025/04/will-liberation-day-transform-the...
https://unherd.com/2025/02/why-trumps-tariffs-are-a-masterpl...
https://unherd.com/2025/04/will-liberation-day-transform-the...
Good links, though I would not call that a "mostly neutral, inquisitive tone". Varoufakis knows that the outcome of Trump's imagined/proposed tariffs cannot be known at this point, and so he explores a couple of the possible results.
I don't know about any credible economist currently making positive predictions (marginal revolution might be a good place to keep your finger on the pulse), but I did see a paper a few years ago that showed protectionist tariffs in britain several hundred years ago had a strong correlation to current day prevalance/strength of current industries. Which is to say, that industries with higher tariffs had a stronger pressence today.
All things being equal, I might expect that strategic tariffs on important sectors to be vital in maintaining them. But, given how global the economy is, and how many more non-obvious substitutions there are today, I'm not sure these protections provide as much value going forward as they did 200 years ago. Worse, is blanket tariffs are not likely to do anything in the short term but drive up local prices to match foreign import goods costs, and is likely going to be a major wealth redistribution event towards physical capital holders.
All things being equal, I might expect that strategic tariffs on important sectors to be vital in maintaining them. But, given how global the economy is, and how many more non-obvious substitutions there are today, I'm not sure these protections provide as much value going forward as they did 200 years ago. Worse, is blanket tariffs are not likely to do anything in the short term but drive up local prices to match foreign import goods costs, and is likely going to be a major wealth redistribution event towards physical capital holders.
The idea is to encourage "at home" investment because the consumer-facing cost of production inside the tariff border will be less, and thus the products will sell better and thus ... capitalism.
This is such a childish, simplistic, naive view of both capitalism and material production in 2025 that it barely deserves a mention.
This is such a childish, simplistic, naive view of both capitalism and material production in 2025 that it barely deserves a mention.
AFAICT a lot of studies and economists predict macro-level benefits to the US economy for tariffs, but they also predict that the costs will outweigh the benefits.
For example, this analysis of the term 1 tariffs show 1,000 jobs gained and up to 75,000 jobs lost.
https://econofact.org/steel-tariffs-and-u-s-jobs-revisited
For example, this analysis of the term 1 tariffs show 1,000 jobs gained and up to 75,000 jobs lost.
https://econofact.org/steel-tariffs-and-u-s-jobs-revisited
[deleted]
[deleted]
Peter Navarro says it's going to be good.
>“The message is that tariffs are tax cuts, tariffs are jobs, tariffs are national security,” Navarro told Fox News Sunday. “Tariffs are great for America. They will make America great again.” https://inews.co.uk/news/world/peter-navarro-behind-trump-ta...
>“The message is that tariffs are tax cuts, tariffs are jobs, tariffs are national security,” Navarro told Fox News Sunday. “Tariffs are great for America. They will make America great again.” https://inews.co.uk/news/world/peter-navarro-behind-trump-ta...
I too have found the discourse around tariffs lacking. This is a common and blatant logical fallacy I see:
- Tariffs are bad. They hurt the country enacting overall it in the long run.
- It's correct to respond to the US tariffs with tariffs in response.
Additionally, people seem to not understand that a country that exports more to the US than it imports stands to lose more when the US/that country have the same level of tariffs.
At a large scale, if global trade breaks down the United States will be comparatively (not absolutely) better off because they can support themselves (consumption, food, raw materials).
None of this is an endorsement of tariffs. I think the US is in a pretty good spot and things could get a lot worse. Tariffs absolutely will make expensive things more expensive, and it will hurt. But the discussion I've seen online has reduced itself to some sort of weird orthodoxy that doesnt even make sense.
- Tariffs are bad. They hurt the country enacting overall it in the long run.
- It's correct to respond to the US tariffs with tariffs in response.
Additionally, people seem to not understand that a country that exports more to the US than it imports stands to lose more when the US/that country have the same level of tariffs.
At a large scale, if global trade breaks down the United States will be comparatively (not absolutely) better off because they can support themselves (consumption, food, raw materials).
None of this is an endorsement of tariffs. I think the US is in a pretty good spot and things could get a lot worse. Tariffs absolutely will make expensive things more expensive, and it will hurt. But the discussion I've seen online has reduced itself to some sort of weird orthodoxy that doesnt even make sense.
I think this is only the case if there aren't replacements available from other countries.
I feel like China is going to be the biggest winner of this tariff war.
Just as an example (from Canada), we had long had a 50% tariff on Chinese EVs which helped U.S. EV manufacturers stay competitive. Now I think we're going to relax that (which IIUC was only implemented to appease our relationship with the U.S. in the first place) and cheaper Chinese EVs should start appearing on the market.
Good for Canadians, good for China. Not as good for the U.S.
I feel like China is going to be the biggest winner of this tariff war.
Just as an example (from Canada), we had long had a 50% tariff on Chinese EVs which helped U.S. EV manufacturers stay competitive. Now I think we're going to relax that (which IIUC was only implemented to appease our relationship with the U.S. in the first place) and cheaper Chinese EVs should start appearing on the market.
Good for Canadians, good for China. Not as good for the U.S.
What’s good for China is not good for Canada in the long run. There are many reasons you can think of.
A small and often overlooked one is that a Chinese hegemony would decrease the língua franca status of English.
A small and often overlooked one is that a Chinese hegemony would decrease the língua franca status of English.
Sure, but I don't see much of a difference from importing from China vs. the U.S. in terms of real impact.
I don't really care so much for the "lingua franca status of English" (even though it's the only language I speak fluently). While yes, this is one of Canada's main languages (not that we don't have a lot of Cantonese/Mandarin speakers too), China itself would be a good example that one can succeed without speaking the language which has the "lingua franca status"
Perhaps it's worth noting that the number of fluent Mandarin/Cantonese speakers in Canada is probably not much lower (as a percentage - ~4% in 2016 and I can imagine it's only increased since then) than the number of fluent English speakers in China (5%)
edit: 4% is actually the number of Canadians who spoke Mandarin or Cantonese as a first language in 2016 (which again, is likely higher now). The number of fluent combined Chinese language speakers is almost certainly higher then, even if just a little bit.
I don't really care so much for the "lingua franca status of English" (even though it's the only language I speak fluently). While yes, this is one of Canada's main languages (not that we don't have a lot of Cantonese/Mandarin speakers too), China itself would be a good example that one can succeed without speaking the language which has the "lingua franca status"
Perhaps it's worth noting that the number of fluent Mandarin/Cantonese speakers in Canada is probably not much lower (as a percentage - ~4% in 2016 and I can imagine it's only increased since then) than the number of fluent English speakers in China (5%)
edit: 4% is actually the number of Canadians who spoke Mandarin or Cantonese as a first language in 2016 (which again, is likely higher now). The number of fluent combined Chinese language speakers is almost certainly higher then, even if just a little bit.
Millions of Chinese learn English in school from a very early age to have access to the global labor market.
You have a huge unrecognized privilege in being a native English speaker.
You have a huge unrecognized privilege in being a native English speaker.
Not sure why you're making this personal. I do of course realize the privilege in speaking English as a first language, being born in a developed nation, as a white cis-man, and so on.
To cling to the idea that English need continue to be the most important global economic language though, is a type of linguistic and economic supremacy I don't care to partake in.
To cling to the idea that English need continue to be the most important global economic language though, is a type of linguistic and economic supremacy I don't care to partake in.
If you were playing a strategy game you would definitely value your country’s language remaining the língua franca.
The same logic applies in the real world. It’s not personal. It’s the most impersonal thing possible.
The same logic applies in the real world. It’s not personal. It’s the most impersonal thing possible.
But keeping with the US is not better both in the short and the long term, for lack of possible trust after what just happened over the course of three months.
It's also good for Canada because the local industry will be forced to compete with China with the consumer benefiting.
China is quite reliant on food and energy imports (two critical preconditions for everything) and their consumption rates arent great which is not good for an export based economy.
They could be a beneficiary if global trade doesnt go nuclear. And it probably wont. If it does they are in big trouble.
They could be a beneficiary if global trade doesnt go nuclear. And it probably wont. If it does they are in big trouble.
Just about any undergraduate textbook will discuss tariffs and why they are nearly universal regarded as poor policy. See Samuelson for instance. The online discourse is poor because the vast majority of people, even those who are educated, have never cracked open a 1st year Econ textbook.
I think most people are not thinking on purpose, and just accepting the dogma of one side or the other.
>Just about any undergraduate textbook will discuss tariffs and why they are nearly universal regarded as poor policy.
I think its poor because people see tariffs not immediately derided and they swoop in to denigrate them. Please re-read my entire comment.
I think its poor because people see tariffs not immediately derided and they swoop in to denigrate them. Please re-read my entire comment.
Its not a fallacy but game theory playing out - known as beggar thy neighbour policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour
That is very relevant overall and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. But what I'm talking about are people who declare tariffs as an absolute bad and then go on to say enacting them is rational and good. In the beggar thy neighbor policy, the behavior is not considered an absolutely bad thing. This happens with tariffs as well, but people can be even more dogmatic about it.
Think of it like an invasion - shooting people is probably as close to an absolute bad thing as you can get, but if you're getting shot at its pretty much time to start shooting back
Oh I get that.
We have these claims:
- Shooting someone is absolutely bad in all scenarios
- Its correct to shoot someone if they are trying to shoot you
I agree with the second point completely. The problem is if you say that, you should go back and revise the first point, because clearly its not absolutely bad.
In the case of tariffs, once you acknowledge that reciprocal tariffs are good, you run into a problem because the US generally has lower tariffs on other countries than other countries have on it.
We have these claims:
- Shooting someone is absolutely bad in all scenarios
- Its correct to shoot someone if they are trying to shoot you
I agree with the second point completely. The problem is if you say that, you should go back and revise the first point, because clearly its not absolutely bad.
In the case of tariffs, once you acknowledge that reciprocal tariffs are good, you run into a problem because the US generally has lower tariffs on other countries than other countries have on it.
War is bad. It is correct to respond to aggression initiating war with defensive war.
Trade wars are like regular wars, in that respect.
Trade wars are like regular wars, in that respect.
OK. So you support the US enacting reciprocal tariffs.
edit: lots of evasion from this point below
edit: lots of evasion from this point below
The US is not proposing reciprocal tariffs, it is proposing broad tariffs premised on xenophobic fantasies placing blame for US fentanyl consumption and other US failures on foreign governments.
nonethewiser(1)
My understanding is that in principle you could use this to cause onshoring, but you want to target the tariffs narrowly and you need everybody to believe that they're long term.
Trump's plan doesn't do the former and no US President could achieve the second.
Trump's plan doesn't do the former and no US President could achieve the second.
The article talks about violin shoulder rests manufactured in Canada. Maybe I’m not understanding the details but I think that this particular product is a bad example to showcase the damage of tariffs:
(1) This sounds like a product that can’t be easily interchanged with competitors’ offerings since Chinese competitors offer “crude imitations”, at least for now
(2) From a Google search I see that the price of this product is in the range $25-250. It’s hard to see violins students who plunk down hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for their instrument try to save tens of $s for a subpar shoulder rest. Unless perhaps it breaks weekly or something.
(1) This sounds like a product that can’t be easily interchanged with competitors’ offerings since Chinese competitors offer “crude imitations”, at least for now
(2) From a Google search I see that the price of this product is in the range $25-250. It’s hard to see violins students who plunk down hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for their instrument try to save tens of $s for a subpar shoulder rest. Unless perhaps it breaks weekly or something.
I believe this story is supposed to bring a more human/relatable element to the impacts of the tariffs and trade war, using a unique family-owned business that happens to make a violin widget.
Focusing on cheaper Chinese competitors and how student violinists might approach a cost/benefit analysis for the widget seems to miss the spirit of the article (at least, as I understood it).
Focusing on cheaper Chinese competitors and how student violinists might approach a cost/benefit analysis for the widget seems to miss the spirit of the article (at least, as I understood it).
Anecdotally every beginner violin student (and most players) I know use specifically Kun made shoulder rests. Instrument rental companies (where I'm from students rent instruments either through their school or a company, often run by a private teacher) generally include these with the cost of the instrument. The exceptions are generally not people using another brand but musicians not using the rest at all, many professionals will use just a cloth. Kun rests also rarely break, if ever, there aren't really any forces that would stress them.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had started to be supplanted by cheap Chinese or other import brands, but I haven't seen it.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had started to be supplanted by cheap Chinese or other import brands, but I haven't seen it.
> It’s hard to see violins students who plunk down hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for their instrument try to save tens of $s for a subpar shoulder rest.
Grade school violin students almost never purchase an instrument; they rent, at surprisingly low annual cost.
Grade school violin students almost never purchase an instrument; they rent, at surprisingly low annual cost.
Our third grader just started viola this school year and I was amazed at how cheap the rental was! I was expecting to get raked over the coals monthly, but it was just a little over $100 for the entire year. The chin rest was one thing we didn’t have to pay for, the schools have the younger kids use a big foam sponge attached with a rubber band.
It is surprisingly profitable, given that those violins are cheap and many people forget to return it in a timely fashion.
I'm not allowed to say "you're missing the point" because it's against HN rules, but maybe don't focus on this particular item so much?
It illustrates the dynamics of strictures on global trade with a simple item that has several inputs and that China is the most likely to win out in these sorts of situations because of their low cost advantage.
Cars or something are probably a better example but there are so many complicating factors that would make it less illustrative.
It illustrates the dynamics of strictures on global trade with a simple item that has several inputs and that China is the most likely to win out in these sorts of situations because of their low cost advantage.
Cars or something are probably a better example but there are so many complicating factors that would make it less illustrative.
Before these new tariffs, Canadian tariffs on US goods were more than double US tariffs on Canadian goods, as a percentage. If we want to eliminate tariffs, the proper outcome would be for Canada to lower its preexisting tariffs. I don't think anyone in the Canadian government has proposed that solution.
"Canadian tariffs" doesn't mean anything please specify on which goods you are referring to. (e.g. lumber, dairy etc...)
The American government is proposing across the board on every import (>=$800 or something) tariffs which has never been implemented by the Canadian government on American goods.
Canada is highly protective of certain industries which are typically small and are engaged in by a large voting population but small portion of the economy (GDP). As a percentage of total goods that American companies might actually want to export to Canada import tariffs are typically quite low.
The American government is proposing across the board on every import (>=$800 or something) tariffs which has never been implemented by the Canadian government on American goods.
Canada is highly protective of certain industries which are typically small and are engaged in by a large voting population but small portion of the economy (GDP). As a percentage of total goods that American companies might actually want to export to Canada import tariffs are typically quite low.
Citation?
It sounds like this debunked claim: https://www.factcheck.org/2025/04/trumps-misleading-claim-on...
It sounds like this debunked claim: https://www.factcheck.org/2025/04/trumps-misleading-claim-on...
Your linked source is a completely different issue, which is that there are other tariffs designed to artificially limit trade. These are de facto quotas on trade.
If it isn't in reference to what ceejayoz linked to... what tariffs are you talking about?
A link would be great, but you can just name the products if that's easier, and I'll look up the data.
A link would be great, but you can just name the products if that's easier, and I'll look up the data.
If you don't like my source - which appears to be very close to your claim - I would encourage you to provide your own.
I didn't downvote your comment above. But I think you might be interested to watch this one (of course, the video is made by a Canadian YouTuber, but I think he can back up his claims in the video from what I observe): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZvDhayPHxs&t=471s
>“For decades our country has been looted, pillaged and raped,” Trump told an audience that included cabinet members and car workers. “It’s not going to happen any more.”
as a justification for a trade war. I guess people voted for this?