Preferences

> importers must declare the exact amount of steel, copper, and aluminum in products, with a 100% tariff applied to these materials. This makes little sense—PCBs, for instance, contain copper traces, but the quantity is nearly impossible to estimate.

Wow this administration is f**ing batshit insane. I thought the tariffs would be on raw metals, not anything at all that happens to contain them.


I manufacture steel/aluminum goods for the US and I have direct experience with these tariffs. Let me explain why it must be this way and how it's actually supposed to work. This is not a defense of the tariffs, just an explanation.

First of all, if you want to use tariffs to boost domestic manufacturing, you must also tax the steel/al content of finished (or intermediate) goods. Otherwise, you put your local producers at a disadvantage, making the tariffs worse.

If you only tariff raw materials, then an american manufacturer has to pay either US steel prices or imported steel + tariff to manufacture, but a company overseas can use the cheaper foreign steel.

So if you want to tax raw materials, then you also want to tax those goods where raw materials are an important part of the cost.

The US has a catalog called the "Harmonized Tariff Schedule" (HTS) which is a catalog of basically everything under the sun [0]. When the steel & AL tariffs were announced, they also published a list of all the HTS codes where the steel/al content would also be taxed.

Last week the US published a revised list of HTS codes to which these tariffs apply, and they added about 400 items to them. For example, the aluminum content of cans is now taxed when it wasn't before.

Flexport has a very cool (and useful!) tariff simulator where you can look up any item and it will tell you if the steel/al content will be subject to these tariffs: https://tariffs.flexport.com

[0]: https://hts.usitc.gov/

> Otherwise, you put your local producers at a disadvantage, making the tariffs worse.

Disadvantaging local producers is how tariffs work! Local producers would then turn to local suppliers who don't have any additional taxes applied. Tariffs are a very blunt instrument, and clumsily attempting to assuage 2nd order pain points will only give rise to 3rd (and higher) order effects.

The lesson here is: don't fuck around with multivariate dynamic systems that have achieved stability: there won't be any one knob you can twist to get a result you want on a single parameter. It'll be worse if you pick one knob and turn it all the way to 11.

Yes, but it's not how the US government wants them to work. So they legislate more to close the bugs and make it work the way they want.

It's a known flawless way to evolve code... Never revise, never delete, add enough so the tests pass.

But I don't think your lesson is reasonable. Fucking with multivariate dynamic systems is what governments do. And it's well settled that in the absence of the government doing that, everything goes to hell quite quickly.

Great point - I've edited my initial comment to convey the meaning I intended, "don't fuck around with ...", and this administration is fucking around with tariffs.

I'm with you in expecting government to tweak, adjust and modify policy, but it's usually the experts advising and implementing, but we're in the "My ignorance is as valid as your experience era", and we will witness where that will take us.

Tangential, but it seems this will also accelerate the move to even more flimsy plastics in everything from appliances to construction materials to cars.
Yes, it's a very logical part of a tariff regime, and tariffs penalize domestic manufacturers without it.

But wow, are tariffs (and other micro taxes) disruptive on getting things done efficiently.

I have the problem since weeks. An electric device made for me with billing isnt in the catallog of regular stuff or whatever and now they need to figure out what it could be because my description is not enough -.-
You mean this fixes the first order effect that penalizes domestic manufacturers, assuming correct information. It does not solve it, there's second, third, fourth, ... order effects. And there's no rule those are smaller than first order, in fact, they're almost universally more.

Domestic manufacturers are still disadvantaged by having to pay tariffs for materials used for the product, but not present in the final product. And foreign manufacturers still don't. If used in machines (and used up), used in mining (and used up), used in transport, used in energy production, ...

These costs are very large, especially because specific materials are often not available worldwide, or have large differences in quality due to availability of tiny amounts of additives for alloys or compounds. These things do lead to very large differences in quality, and thus in value. You can't model that as a government, it's just not going to happen.

There's no way to fully analyze an entire economic chain (especially when almost everyone involved has a financial incentive to sabotage you doing that correctly, and that includes foreign governments). You'd think this wouldn't have to be explained to either Americans or especially a supposed "defender of capitalism", but here we are.

>But wow, are tariffs (and other micro taxes) disruptive on getting things done efficiently.

Well, that depends on what you are getting done.

If your objective is solely to get a product done, the most efficient way is probably going to involve terrible salaries plus ample disregard for the environment and human life. Anything else is going to be disruptive to that end.

I mean...they're still punished by tariffs with these changes, but they're also punished without them.
Aluminum in beer cans has been subject to aluminum tariffs since April (was 25% initially and was upped to 50%).[^1]

Because they didn't use the right specificity in the announcement (used an 8 digit HTS vs 10 digit), there was some confusion for a few weeks if Beer in glass bottles was subject to it as well.

There is now an FAQ on CBP's website clarifying it is not [^2]. And they've updated to the right specificity in the new lists.

> Is HTS 2203.00.0030, Beer made from malt, In containers each holding not over 4 liters, In glass containers; subject to Section 232 duties? > No.

But yes, effective 18 August, they broadened the list a whole lot more and added things from condensed milk to deodorant to both steel and aluminum lists. An absolute nightmare for FMCG supply chain to have to figure this out.

You can agree or disagree with the current administration's trade policy but hopefully, even the staunchest proponents will admit that the execution has been sub-par. With u-turns (sometimes leaving partner countries fuming because the final published tariffs were not what were negotiated[^3]), lack of clarity and changes that land on Friday night after work hours and go into effect on Monday midnight.

[^1]: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-05884.pdf

[^2]: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/entry-summ...

[^3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/business/japan-tariffs-us...

I have to say it’s quite entertaining watching this from not the US.
It really isn't. It's destructive and short sighted behavior based on incoherent dogmatism over any motivations for thoughtful and more restrained policy decision making. His motivations for any action is based on flattery and ego that stretch the boundaries of multiple universes. It's so crazy how much blatantly unconstitutional stuff he's gotten away with.
Is there a reason they can’t offer a flat fee? So, customs could say that since CPUs typically contain X% steel, they’ll charge that much plus Y extra; if you don’t want to pay Y you can still give the exact amount instead.
I don't think Olimex understands tariffs. Maybe they shouldn't have to. But you don't have to specify the breakdown of your PCB by mineral content. That's what the harmonized tariffs schedules are all about, to account for this very issue.
But then why are CBP (via the shippers) demanding a certificate of analysis rather than just referring people to the HTS? I know a lot of people in the synthesizer industry, and where previously they would just refer to the HTS classification for musical instruments there's a lot confusion about the recently announced 100% tariff on foreign made semiconductors. Since virtually every synth uses semiconductors and a great deal of the trade is in boutique products with relatively low manufacturing volumes, the uncertainty is creating major headaches on top of the headaches caused by the shipping puases.
Sorry bud, but I don’t think you’re aware of section 232. It became effective on August 1.

https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/entry-summ...

Thanks for the correction. I was mistakenly thinking that Section 232 only applied to steel and aluminum. But copper is also affected as well:

https://www.dominioncustomsconsultants.com/cbp-updated-guida...

> Otherwise, you put your local producers at a disadvantage, making the tariffs worse.

Don't some tariffs motivate people to do processing offshore?

If I import 1kg of copper and machine/etch/whatever it down into products, with some wastage, maybe I should just do everything offshore and only import the final articles with 500g of copper in it.

At some point, higher tariffs on input materials will overtake the higher value of finished goods and you might as well just manufacture the whole thing offshore anyway.

That's one of the primary problems with tarrifs especially broad untargeted ones: the first thing they encourage is offshoring everything because it becomes cheaper to only be hit once on import, rather then multiple times by your suppliers and compliance costs, who in turn are also getting tarrifed on their supplies and tools.
Short term yes. But (this isn’t a defense of tariffs), the concept is that this will spur on domestic production in raw materials. So with this example, if there is a domestic source of copper it wouldn’t be subject to tariffs at all. In theory only, well balanced tariffs would make it cheaper to import US sourced raw materials for use in US bound products. In practice, I don’t think anyone knows what’s involved in doing that.
Yes, I am seriously looking at either splitting my production between internal and external uses to avoid passing tariff costs on to the majority of my customers who are foreign. I've worked at using US companies for many components but that is becoming less attractive. I wish it weren't this way but that is how it goes.

The capricious implementation of the tariffs is another issue. Biden raised tariffs but the implementation involved a months long comment period, then a notice months in advance, and finally implementation. It wasn't ideal in my mind (the specific tariffs) but there was a way to work through the consequences and plan accordingly. This administration does not believe in that. Maybe congress would if they took back responsibility for tariff policy but I don't see that happening right now.

This all makes a lot of sense and is also a great reason why sudden tariffs like these are absolutely bat shit insane. It's exactly what an incompetent PHB would do.
Create a bullshit system, deserve bullshit results. Everyone should be making random guesses at the content percentages and wait and see if they even spend time opening a single package let alone melting it down into constituent parts or doing spectral analysis vs a $100 item

In fact this should be a sales tactic for fedex or whomever "we bullshit the numbers for ya!"

Here is how the EU expects PCB imports...

>For PCBs shipped to the EU, a Certificate of Analysis is not typically required for determining tariffs, as tariffs are based on the HS code (e.g., 8534.00 for bare PCBs), country of origin, and customs value. However, a CoA or similar documentation (e.g., material composition report) may be needed for: Regulatory compliance with REACH or RoHS, especially if the PCBs contain restricted substances like lead or cadmium. Customs verification if the product’s classification or materials are questioned.

That is exactly the same for the U.S., with the same Harmonized code, 8534.00.

https://hts.usitc.gov/search?query=8534

...and has been that way for a long time. Only thing that might be different now is that the de-minimus import exemption is going away for (certain?) countries? (and of course the tariff rate changing).

It’s not anymore. Section 232 came into effect on August 1 and totally changes things. I linked to some info on 232 in a previous reply to you.
The difference now is the US wants mail carriers to collect tarrifs themselves and pay the US government.

They have no way to do this, because it's normally not done - tarrifs are paid by the importer, and responsibility for correct labeling is by the importer.

>They have no way to do this, because it's normally not done

UPS can collect tariffs. Source: I've written checks recently to UPS to cover tariffs.

That's on the importer side for delivery to you.

As I understand it, US customs wants foreign carriers to collect tarriffs when packages are shipped, and pay them to the US.

There is no system to do this, nor a system to actually receive payments and associate them with a package. Nor any clarity on what the rules actually are and thus what the import duties will be when things arrive.

The normal course of things is that things get shipped, hit customs and get assessed for duties, and then the importer pays for release. If you've ever experienced differently it's because someone is handling it for you - e.g. Amazon provide this service and absorb the complexity and risk.

I understand where they are coming from. Otherwise you will definitely have people who take a metric ton of copper and slap a sticker on the side and declare that they are shipping stickers around to avoid the tariff. Of course a sane policy would be to have a "trace amounts" option in the tariff if your product contains less than a kg or less than 1% by mass of the stuff to avoid the paperwork, but the people who set this up are the kind of people who worry more about what criminals do than what productive people do. It's just plain badly designed regulation.
I worked in German automotive for a good decade and there this was not an unusual requirement. Measuring steel, copper and aluminum to the gram is not that hard. Where it gets tricky and where the German automotive companies were super strict even 15 years ago is rare earth metals.
The fact that tariffs exist, is sufficient marker of insanity in this day and age. Why carve out a validation relating to the degree of transformation of raw material.
Almost every country has had massive tariffs on a wide variety of goods for a very long time. It’s why ‘free trade agreements’ were such a big deal.

This is more a reversion to the mean/making them more equal. Which is a big deal.

The importer is supposed to "make a deal" with the administration, ie, bribe them to obtain an exemption.
Exactly, it’s mafia style business.
Now's the time to invest in gold plaque futures.
Careful where you get that gold from. The administration recently announced a 40% tariff on refined gold imported from Switzerland.
We're going to just seize the foreign gold stored in the US. Finders keepers.
You expected this to make sense. The goal is to destroy the US economy. Full stop. There aren’t many lenses that make sense anymore but this one? This one has made sense for quite some time now. Reexamining the behavior of the people in power using this lens should assist you in understanding the world we find ourselves in.
Just picture them as a mafia mob and everything falls into place.
Can you justify this kind of response after other explanations have already been given?
I don’t need to justify it. The other explanations are only partly correct if they ignore this giant red flag. The number of people who willfully ignore this is massive. Its a shock to process — no one wants to be even WILLING to believe it.

We’ve been had and the number of people covering for this grows daily, and will continue to do so until one day we all wake the fuck up.

They claimed a trade deficit with islands that are inhabited by penguins and imposed a tariff on said penguins.

You are being governed by someone with dementia who has surrounded himself with people who appear unable to say 'no'.

I don't think it's at odds with other explanations. If you wanted a working tariff regime you'd make the tariffs graduated and reasonable - big enough to sway customer choices and ithus investment decisions, but not arbitrary seeming. More importantly, you'd work hard to ensure it rolled out smoothly and minimized commercial disruption so as to allow your price signals to function clearly.
If you wanted a working tariff regime, you'd also couple tariffs with investments and tax incentives for domestic businesses. Just hoping that the market will (somehow!) sort it out is a recipe for failure, quite possibly of disastrous levels.
I think that’s a little extreme, but here is a balance sheet based explanation where it works.

The US just sort of randomly decided to tariff everything from people they don’t like anymore. Because of the randomness of these tariffs, they impact not only consumer goods but production equipment.

The justification for these tariffs is something along the lines of “let’s bring production back to the United States.” That’s likely a good idea (says the Canadian), but when they use that justification while simultaneously tariffing production equipment the same as consumer goods you have to wonder what’s actually going on.

With production equipment, you amortize the cost of that tool over the years of usage. These tariffs are not amortized, meaning they must be paid at import. That takes cash off the balance sheet, puts it into equipment and hits liquidity.

If I was wickedly powerful and really hated Americans, going after SMB liquidity would be the most convenient (and profitable) way to cause generational harm.

The purpose of a system is what it does.
It very evidently is not, I don't know how this saying ever became popular, it's so reductionist and silly.

Is the purpose of the democratic system to get people like Trump in power? Apparently that's what it does, no?

The purpose of this political system is to put people like Trump in power. We can infer this because it keeps putting people like Trump in power and yet nobody has changed it yet.

Look up the history of the phrase "the purpose of a system is what it does". It was adopted as a principle because it made more sense than every other possible alternative. It makes no sense to claim that the purpose of a system is to do something that it never has done and consistently fails to do, because the system would have been replaced in that case.

No, I don't think the lens of them trying to destroy the economy of the country they live in and rule over makes any sense at all. One small example is Trump rolling back or easing tariffs when the market reacts. There's no secret intent behind it - they state their intent and reasoning quite clearly. They want a strong and insular US that prioritizes white citizens with minimal reliance on foreign imports or allies. They view the US as a superpower that can strongarm everyone else to get what they want.
They also have very publicly stated they wish to “punish the liberals”, a big part of which is… “destroying the economy”.

So which is it?

No, the explanation is that Trump is a impulsive moron and the GOP majority Congress lets him do anything he wants.
Tarriffs on raw materials in order to boost local manufactring is also insane. That's what needs to be cheap. Corrupt, stupid, evil policies.
I don't disagree with the general premise, but it's not so clear-cut with regards to raw materials.

For example, the US has some of the largest lithium deposits in the world, but it's not being exploited because extraction is dirty and polluting, generally the compliance for opening a new mine is very complex (takes 7-10 years), and catching-up on refinery capacity will take an enormous investment (China does almost all Li refining now).

Similarly, developing the techniques to boost oil extraction (fracking, EOR...) took significant and sustained government support of different kinds until it became competitive, it's unclear if market pressure alone would have done it. This made the US again into the largest exporter rather than the largest importer of oil.

There are many such cases.

Note: I'm not from the US, and I'm not particularly pro-US, I'm not saying that tariffs are a good mechanism to support these industries, and I'm not necessarily in favour of such anti-environmental policies. But those are the facts as I understand them.

There's something I've never understood about resource extraction and globalization, maybe you could help.

If the US has a ton of Lithium but finds it too expensive to extract, why not buy it now while it's cheap, wait for it to become rarer in other countries so more expensive, and only extract it once it's worth it (or close to worth it)?

Meanwhile all the other countries are becoming lithium extraction experts, and the US isn't developing any of that. Who is going to do the extraction in the US a few decades from now? How are you going to avoid being forced to partner with foreign companies for their expertise?

It's the same reason why all the manufacturing outsourcing was so short-sighted. Sure, you're saving a few bucks on labor, but you are literally giving away all your knowledge about the manufacturing process! Those local factory workers you are firing? They won't be around to train new workers when you want to restart the local factory a decade or three later. Meanwhile, the factories overseas haven't been sitting idle either and have kept developing their manufacturing processes. They will not give you their trade secrets so you're going to have to reinvent the wheel yourself - without experts.

Congratulations, you have created your own competitor, and they are now better than you.

Well that is what happens when you let the market guide industrial strategy, and very often it is the right call.

But these things take time and significant capital to develop, you often need to be non-competitive for years, doing things in a more expensive way, until you can catch-up. But then you can overtake everyone else, if nothing else due to the momentum of growth and the higher efficiency you had to maintain to catch-up. Just like it happened with oil in the US, or with Germany, Japan, Korea or China recovering from catastrophe.

If you don't do this, you can get cornered, where in principle you can produce a resource much more efficiently in your country, but you can't quite climb over the hill because you are addicted to depending on others as an economy and you don't anymore have the capital, know-how or culture for such things.

Congratulations you discovered the US oil plan.
Not really, the US didn't wait for oil to become more expensive to extract in other countries. It financed the R&D for more efficient extraction for decades, mostly for geopolitical reasons, against short-term market pressures, until it eventually became cheaper to extract in the US despite the harder conditions.
> For example, the US has some of the largest lithium deposits in the world, but it's not being exploited because extraction is dirty and polluting,

It's important to get news from politically unbiased sources, because the reality is that US lithium sources are being stood up! Especially in that politically incorrect state of California which is supposedly a hellhole that would never approve something of the sort.

As for tariffs being a good way to support these industries citation needed! It's exactly the opposite type of policy for driving the investment that's needed. It's actually drastically collapsing all of the massive investment that was happening under Biden, in a complete disaster for the US. So I totally agree that you are not pro-US, but let's be honest about the disaster of tariffs.

The workers yearn to go back in the fiery sweaty steel mills where every 3rd year one of their coworkers has their arms turned into a molten blob.
The children yearn for the mines
The deregulation will continue until child mortality improves.
Do you think that there shouldn't be any steel mills in the US?
I don't know. If we have a comparative advantage at it, sure. If we have a comparative advantage in designing the stuff that gets made in a steel mill in China I can't imagine workers rationally wanting to reverse that via tariffs.
That's one of those industries you probably want to keep a domestic presence in, for strategic reasons. Chip fab might be another. But I'd do it via subsidy, not tariff, otherwise you're adding friction to everything downstream of it.
I always thought that was why so much money went into the military. Requiring a domestic source for military equipment provides a neat way for local suppliers to sell their goods above fair market value. The government gets to give a subsidy without actually doing all the paperwork involved in giving subsidies, and very few people are going to argue with an "it's for national security" argument.
When you hear the words "comparative advantage" in the context of international trade, most of the time it means "dirt cheap labor because of few / poorly enforced labor protections".

There's really no reason why we shouldn't have steel mills aside from that.

What if China sanctions the US? What would the US do with their designs?
The Romans externalized all their critical production. It didn't work out well for them.
Food, iron and salt where all from inside their empire. What critical production are you actually referring to?

Closest I can think of is the Romans required a constant influx of cheap labour from outside their empire for their economy. When the flow stopped (diminished conquering meant diminished number of slaves coming in) that was a major factor in economic decline.

So it's cool that foreign steel mill workers are instead maimed.
People generally sign up to be in a steel mill because it's the best option they have to provide for their family. Another words, their alternatives are even worse.

If you want tariff that option away from a bunch of China-men, have them do the next even shittier dangerous job that they bypassed on the way to the steel mill, and then save them while you instead work next to molten iron, that's the proposition you're moving towards.

Of course if you want a little taste of being that hero, there are domestic steel mills currently hiring, you can take that job so the next guy in line won't get maimed. But somehow I think you won't, so you must be "all cool" they are "instead maimed."

So don't bother to improve safety either. I've worked in manufacturing for most of my life, worked manual lathes and mills in a machine shop and been in drop forging facilities. I'm well aware of industrial hazards so don't even try to patronize me.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, but you come off as morally bankrupt. Worker safety can certainly be improved but people like you happily shrug it off and are fine with hazardous cost cutting which allows people to continue to be maimed as long as you're steel or whatever is super cheap.

That's not what I was saying with my comment. There was no implication I want to go back to 1890s pre-labor rights. How did "raw materials should be cheap if you want to encourage manufacturing" get to "get rid of labor laws!!!". Your reading comprehension needs to be higher. Stating a basic economic principle does not imply the erosion of labor protections.
I think in 1890s is was probably closer to one blob arm every 3rd month. My apologies if it was read as changing labor protections, rather than in regards to moving industry back towards now imported inherently dangerous production of elementary inputs.
Across EU and Asia packet shipments into the US are being shout down until the things are resolved. This is bullshit that hurts everybody, but Americans the most.
> This is bullshit that hurts everybody, but Americans the most.

Price I pay is not getting my $20 fairy lights that made my backyard look cute. The price foreign factory workers pay is that they’re out of a job. I don’t think Americans pay the most, but they do pay.

Edit: Clearly people are missing the point Im trying to make here. I’m trying to address the viewpoint that Americans will somehow lose the most, which i don’t think is the case. This isn’t a pro tariff argument. American consumer is the biggest market there is on the planet. Pretending we can just find other buyers is ludicrous. Yes, there will be some jobs affected domestically, but that number will be much higher elsewhere.

The foreign factory workers will still have jobs making the same products, except those products won't be exported to the US. Luckily for them, 95% of humans live outside the US.
Listening to friends that are connected with the manufacturing industries in China, it sounds like most factories didn't struggle that hard to find alternative markets. In some cases, the Chinese government has been stepping up to help factory owners find alternative markets.

In this case, though, I would imagine that lightly waterproofed decorative outdoor lighting would sell about equally well to any first or second world market.

If the alternative markets were easy to find they should have been selling into them before.

I’m wondering if some of them are wide but shallow, and that they have a much smaller total consumption quotient available.

3.5 Billion people in the world make less than $7/day. People may live outside the US, but they don’t have the same consumer appetite.
They have the appetite. They mostly don't live in economies that enables them to earn money.

The US was a unique money-making machine... Although the gears seem to be getting looser and the machine is being broken. Personally I think the US economy is flexible enough to mitigate much of the damage, however I worry about the future impact of political changes.

I'm in New Zealand which is quite wealthy although the demographic timebomb will go off in next decades: and our economy is also fucked because our voters hate businesses and business people.

One strong signal of how fucked a country is economically, is how well small businesses can survive.

If the US starts screwing its businesses more, that is the time to worry.

Can we try to not fall victim to this sort of "us or them" rhetoric. It's obviously exactly what this is being framed as officially, but it's way worse than that.

Yes, the the cost of (at least) some foreign workers is that the jobs they had creating good exported to America will go away. That's true. The trade-off though isn't just that the Americans don't get their stuff. The real trade off is that the good those factory workers buy (whether they be physical or immaterial, cultural or financial services) will not get bought. Americans making those good will therefore ALSO be out of a job.

In the end, nobody gets what they want and everybody loses employment. It's a lose/lose for everybody involved.

> Can we try to not fall victim to this sort of "us or them" rhetoric. It's obviously exactly what this is being framed as officially, but it's way worse than that.

I read it more as decentering the United States, which frankly I'm completely, 100% for. America's (lack of) culture has been our biggest export. We've sanitized vast swathes of the globe into our hollow consumerist self image at great cost to interesting and beautiful places. All products are designed with Americans in mind, because Americans were the center of global trade. If you wanted to make money, you had to sell your thing to Americans.

And, worse, Americans have grown accustomed to this deference and preferential treatment. It's time we got a reality check: that the world doesn't need us anymore. That we've become as old, dumb and worthless as the shitty president that so perfectly embodies our culture of consumption, waste, and useless greed.

But it really is an 'us or them' situation.

The US is treating everyone else like shit and isolating themselves from the world.

The world is slowly esponding accordingly and reconfiguring to the new reality where the US is unreliable and unfriendly.

While it's a lose/lose this will ultimately hurt the US more than everyone else.

The world isn't going to come to the aid of the US and prop them back up to their place of hegemony when this all goes to shit. The rest of the world is going to pick at the carcass of what was once an inspirational empire.

Well.. Way more than 5% of consumption happens in the US. The majority of those 95% is also very poor and can’t afford a lot of of goods (let alone expensive ones).

Meaning that for a lot of businesses, especially those that manufacture goods US is often a very important and hard to replace market.

e.g. What do you think will happen to the profit margins of EU drug companies if Trump actually imposed his tariffs on pharmaceuticals? Besides the size of the US market they also generally charge much higher prices there.

It's also the price you pay for being unable to purchase specialized equipment.

That tiny German company making lab equipment which happens to be absolutely essential for your company? Their shipments aren't getting through customs anymore, and dealing with the additional paperwork is way more than the two-and-a-half people in charge of shipping can handle on top of their regular duties. The US is only 5% of their market, so rather than drown in an attempt to serve the US they'll just suspend shipping until the US fixes itself, and serve the other 95% of the world instead.

Can't do your job without a replacement MacGuffin? Oh well, sucks to be you! Not our problem that your company is going to lose millions, take it up with your government.

There are some Swiss manufacturers of high precision machinery that said they don't really care about the 39% tariff as there are no alternatives that exist. The buying party will just have to pay for it.

I highly doubt these kinds of companies will reduce their prices once the tariff is gone resulting in a permanent higher cost of products made with these machines in the US.

> Price I pay is not getting my $20 fairy lights that made my backyard look cute.

That is all of your imports that are impacted by tariffs? Whatever it is that you are smoking is some good stuff.

US size in international trade does not match the size of its consumer economy. When the US cuts it's own dick off, trade between everyone else compensates.

The EU is the top trading partner for 80 countries. By comparison, the US is the top trading partner for a little over 20 countries. The EU is the world’s largest trader of manufactured goods and services.

You’re comparing 27 countries with 27 governments and a combined population of 450m with 1 country, population 340m.
One economic area against another economic area.

The EU is a single market.

Longer term all trade will just be rerouted to exclude the US.

The EU is making moves right now to position itself as the preeminent center of world trade.

Losing that position will hurt Americans more than anyone else.

> The EU is making moves

The EU being what it is considering to start planning to make a plan to take moves to plan these moves.

Then it will have to align those plans with all its members etc.

What you are perceiving as slowness can also be perceived as institutional stability - the very thing the US is lacking and that is leading to all of this in the first place.
Yes, negotiating take time. Consensus takes time. That’s fine. It’s one thing to move fast and break things with a website, it’s another to do it with the economy. The EU is not universally loved, far from it, but it is a predictable and reliable partner.

It generally punches below its geopolitical weight, but that’s because it was happy to follow the US when American policies were decent (not great, but good for trade and mostly good for stability). But that’s not a law of nature, things do change, even if it is slow compared to the modern news cycle.

> Wow this administration is f*ing batshit insane

It's reasons why this that I refuse to associate with Republicans in my daily life anymore. They are undeserving of respect or decency for how they continue to make our lives worse.

I think it depends on what kind of Republican someone is. I was raised in a conservative Christian community and later came out as a transgender woman. I've been surprised at how many people have been supportive of me since they got over the initial shock. I think knowing someone who's personally affected by this administration has an effect on people's opinions. There are plenty of people who are reactionary assholes that aren't worth talking to but there are people who still have an open heart. It's tiring, and I couldn't do it if I didn't have a supportive community to retreat to, but I have been able to sway some people. I don't judge anyone that doesn't want to put in the effort though.
I guess that is my core problem: no empathy default. Opinion can be changed only by anecdotal example person (“you are one of the good ones”).
Yeah, I've made friends with a bunch of (mostly ex- at this point) Republicans because we can agree (1) that other people matter and (2) structural inequalities exist and should not.

If we have that in common, then I find the difference in politics is mostly implementation and method. I'm happy to debate civic policy on the merits all day at that point.

The people who are drawn to the performatively cruel side are not rational actors and can't be reasoned with. I've tried.

You have my admiration for trying, especially in this political climate. I've had younger folk straight up not believe me when I say this is exactly the same playbook they ran against gay men in the 90s.

I live in Switzerland and Swiss post, which is the state owned postal service, does not ship to the US anymore.

Here is the official link:

https://www.post.ch/en/about-us/media/press-releases/2025/us...

Pretty crazy if you ask me

> I live in Switzerland and Swiss post, which is the state owned postal service, does not ship to the US anymore.

That is not what the link says. It says that goods consignments are not accepted -- which is not at all the same thing as "does not ship to the US anymore". The link explicitly says that they're continuing to ship letters, will continue to ship goods via another service, and (I can only presume) will continue to accept personal packages, since those aren't affected at all by these tariff changes.

The discussion on this topic on HN is far more heat than light.

Wait, ARE “personal packages” exempt? Doesn’t say that in the press release.

If I buy a Swiss watch (<$800) I’ll have to use DHL or UPS (though AFAIK, they also use national post in places) so I’m SOL.

But if my Swiss friend mails me a watch they can use Swiss Post still? Unclear.

Nothing has changed wrt the personal exemption. Imports under $800 are exempt (i.e. you always had to pay tariffs on an expensive watch). I don't know how many commenters here actually realize it, but the de minimis exemption changes only apply to commercial import, which is how Temu and others could send a $10 piece of crap from China to your doorstep.

I don't know if the Swiss post office has realized this, but it's true.

Edit: one bit of nuance (see my comment downthread with some of the actual laws and the EO) is that if you buy a watch from Chrono24 or something then it's more like the Temu use-case, and I think the personal exemption probably doesn't apply? But if you go to Switzerland and pick up a $799 watch and post it back or carry it on a plane, then there's no problem.

Postal services (including the one I'm in) are going with the $100 gift limit, not the previous $800 de minimus.
There's a tariff code and ways of labeling for US customs that should get you through customs with that. Customs is more about regulating commerce and secondarily about preventing contraband from getting through. Sending someone a gift Swiss Watch is probably still possible as long as you don't just YOLO it straight into the mail like it's going to a domestic address.
Same here in Belgium, and many other European countries.
Same in the Netherlands too.
Same in Australia now, I believe.
The vast majority of republicans caused this. You still need to talk to them and live with them. There will need to be a reckoning and they will need to own their mistakes, but you will need to move on. That’s the point of democracy.
I do not need to and democracy does not require me to. The price of their mistakes is permanent shunning. I'm not going to go around conducting inquisitions, but I find I've been inspired by the tenacity of old folks carrying grudges against communism from the Cold War, and I'm confident I can carry this grudge until I'm an old folk myself.
> The price of their mistakes is permanent shunning.

This won’t work. Just look at any country that dealt with a fascist regime. The ideology gets shunned, but you don’t just cancel even 30% of a country’s population, otherwise you just create a permanent state of tension. You need a combination of very harsh punishments for the leaders and the most harmful people, but you also need a way to reintegrate most of them into the democratic process.

They can reintegrate by ceasing to support the Republican party and its leadership.
Sure! Like I said, I have no interest in launching an inquisition, I'm not going to demand a detailed political history from everyone I meet in 2030 or 2040. They can reintegrate by treating their support for the Trump regime as the shameful, dark secret it is, or by strategically "forgetting" that they ever supported it at all.

I suspect that quite a lot of Trump supporters will not be interested in doing this, and will instead maintain a permanent state of tension by declaring their continued support of a regime that hated me. That's not great, I agree, but if there's one thing the 2024 election taught me it's that pretending it's OK doesn't defuse the tension. The Republican party had a clear opportunity to let the past go and win with a candidate who doesn't hate me - a candidate I would have voted for! - but they decided they prefer not to.

They will never own their mistakes. That's the point of lack of democracy.
Well, no. This is no longer really an option. 47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he was unequivocally proven to be a vicious pedophile: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-survey-found-...

These people have lost all sense. The only remaining option is to make their party electorally impotent. Dominate through any available dirty trick. Redistricting. Impeachment. Ignoring judges. Endless executive orders. Shock and awe. Whatever they've done, return straight back to them. (Except the really grotesque parts like sending innocent people to a foreign torture prison.)

It seems that many people still haven't gotten the memo that we're not really living in a democracy anymore.

I'll associate but sorta make fun of them in conversation.

It's not the most productive but for all the pain their "opinions" create, the least I can do is make them feel the group believes their opinions to be ridiculous as the group all laughs.

I don't think they should get civility outside of the voters booth if they're uncivil within the booth.

> I refuse to associate with Republicans i

I understand

I urge you to reconsider

The purpose of the policies are to create division that can then be exploited.

So fight them by building bridges and maintaining relationships

It is hard work, but it is the most effective way to fight these people who would sacrifice general peace and prosperity for the sake of their personal greed

"When they go low, we go high" hasn't worked for a long time. They always find new ways to go lower and drag everyone with them.
It worked for Obama - domestically
Did it though? He was constantly stymied, most of his policy goals were thwarted by republicans (specifically McConnell) saying that their only goal was to kill anything Obama wants. Romneycare was completely gimped. They went low, and it worked.
'Fight them by collaborating as best you can' is an absolute losing strategy. The GOP isn't a normal political party any more, where you can appeal to long term interests, the back and forth of the political pendulum, national values and so on.
Conflating the people in charge with Republicans as a whole, and writing them collectively off, is a disservice to society and by extension, yourself.

The tl;dr of the current conundrum is that we have two corrupt political parties, and a system that's so rigged that it's nearly impossible to elect someone outside of them. Modern society's problems are complex to reason about and nearly intractable to solve. The people in power are not capable of even trying to reason about, let alone solve them.

I grew up in Nevada. Most of the people I grew up with are lowercase-L libertatian: they believe the government exists to arbitrate between the conflicting rights of individuals; that it should be as small as possible and let them do what they like unless they're harming someone else. Because of the aforementioned duopoly, these people tend to count as Republicans (in the style of Reagan). (This is true generally - the more geographically isolated a place is, the more it skews libertarian. The more urban, the more it skews liberal.)

The national Republican party was weak after Bush and got taken over by the Trump personality cult. The people I grew up with don't believe in instituting tariffs and arresting immigrants; yet if you force them to choose an R or D label, most of them are still going to count as R.

The world is a nuanced place. If you ignore that nuance and force everyone you're willing to converse with to pass your litmus test, you end up with two tribes ostriching themselves into bubbles of partisan-approved groupthink. That begets more yelling, less mutual understanding, and makes it even harder to solve problems. All of this empowers the extremists who control the major parties to continue making the world a worse place in service of their own power.

Yes, everything about politics sucks, and the people in charge are unfathomably awful. But if you refuse to share ideas with people you might disagree with, you're contributing to making that even more true.

Trying to call the democrats corrupt on the same level of the trump administration is fucking rich.

It's like saying that both antarctica and oregon are 'cold'. Fucking stop already.

> Conflating the people in charge with Republicans as a whole, and writing them collectively off

Maybe not "as a whole" but the majority of Republicans voted for this so at least those need to be written off. The rest have an opportunity to claim that they oppose the takeover by the personality cult. A great way to do it is to change their voter registration to anything else.

At this point, ever Republican has absolutely opted in to the current leader and platform.

The problem is that, while I agree with more or less everything you say here - "writing off" approximately half the population is not going to work. You can't do that in a democracy, if only because that approximately-half actually have rather a lot of collective power. If they didn't, it wouldn't be much of a democracy.

My argument here isn't moral. It's that this class of strategy simply cannot be effective. I'm not claiming a better one, only that it's on all of us to look.

> voted for this so at least those need to be written off.

Are you willing to write off so many people? That is what the "fascists" want. Division is a core technique of erasing liberty

> Are you willing to write off so many people? That is what the "fascists" want. Division is a core technique of erasing liberty

He told them what he wanted to do, over and over and over again. Now that he's doing what he told them he was going to do (again over and over and over again) they want some respect for their objections? They voted for him knowing what he was going to do. Exactly what is there about these fucking morons that I shouldn't write off?

I'm not sure what to tell you, I can't envision myself having a productive conversation with someone who, with sound mind, supports the person responsible for the Mar a Lago documents, January 6, and the Epstein cover up.

> Division is a core technique of erasing liberty

Seems like embracing a self-coup is also a core technique of erasing liberty? Maybe both of these statements are so broad that they are meaningless.

> yet if you force them to choose an R or D label, most of them are still going to count as R.

this is to say they have a glowing endorsement of the trump agenda of authoritarian intervention in both social and economic issues. they could have stayed home, or voted for democrats who were pushing a more traditional conservative policy.

they also could have voted for local politicians who are against trump policies, but the local republicans are lockstep with trump too.

you need to reevaluate what the people in your community believe in. they mught say theyre libertarians, but their actions say theyre very favourable to criminal dictators. if they werent, they would have acted dofferently in elections, and the votes speak louder than words

There's a way to show you don't agree with your head of state, it's called protesting.
The Republican leaders could have removed Trump from office after Jan 6.

All those traditional conservatives and "lowercase-L libertatians" could speak up now, and do something about the ongoing fascist takeover, but they are not. American democracy is probably doomed, we will find out in 2026 whether we can have fair mid-term elections.

The whole party is corrupt. Lindsey Graham was loudly anti-Trump until Trump won, and now he's just as loudly a Trump sycophant. The establishment cares about its own power more than it cares about doing what's right. (That indictment is true of both parties, but I'm specifically talking about Republicans here.)

I'm not defending people who voted for Trump. I'm saying if your response is "then I'm going to pretend you don't exist," this is only going to get worse.

Normal people need to be able to work together to find common ground for us to have anything resembling a healthy society.

It makes me sad that Hacker News, the place that emphasizes thoughtful curiosity in its post/comment guidelines, has lately often devolved into an echochamber indistinguishable from Reddit when anything remotely political comes up. Anything more nuanced then "Trump is evil and Republicans are stupid" gets downvoted, which is a microcosm of the whole problem that put them in power.

Why waste your time on unserious people? If Graham and Vance are going to flip from never Trump to sycophants, why listen to their press conferences? If the normal guy at the bar was talking about how great it'll be when Trump releases the client list and suddenly decides Epstein was a nothingburger, do you think you are going to change his reality? Hint: he never cared about "the pedos", it was just motivated reasoning.

It is time 60% of the country decided to stop wasting effort on people who do not participate honestly.

And please stop with the "oh no, Reddit" garbage.

"If there’s a Nazi at the table and ten other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with eleven Nazis"
And polarization and alienating voters has worked out so well as a strategy for the Democrats for the past 12 years, has it?

Obama pointed straight at call-out culture as a losing strategy 5 years ago; NYT article: https://archive.is/Di4uG . The Democrats need to start divorcing themselves from "allies" like the parent poster immediately and loudly if they want to build a voter coalition strong enough to win the midterms.

And how well has pandering to the Republican-light voter base been going the last few elections?

Zohran Mamdani is doing so well for a reason: a decent part of the voter base is getting increasingly fed up by the center-right politics the Democrats have been selling. Young left-wing voters really don't like the fossils currently leading the Democratic party. If the Democrats don't start selling something better than "we aren't the Republicans", they are at risk of losing yet another generation to the next right-wing populist who claims he's going to "drain the swamp".

So no, call-out culture isn't the problem: the complete lack of left-wing values is.

> pandering to the Republican-light voter base

Its not that you have to appeal to them. Feel free to have policy positions and to stand on those. You might even get some people on the other side to agree with you on policy.

Instead, the losing strategy is doing what the OP is apparently doing, which is preemptively dismissing half the population, wholesale. Defining yourself as nothing, exempt as a hating half of the country is neither a real policy position, nor does it gain much.

> Zohran Mamdani is doing so well

He is doing well because he is standing on values. Not because he spends his time saying that he hates half of America. I'm sure he would be happy to get republican voters who move over to his side and agree with his policy positions.

have policy positions and to stand on those

As if activist conservatives won't simply lie about them. Yes, in an ideal world everything would be evaluated on the basis of policy by rational actors using objective criteria. In the world we live in bad faith abounds, and voters aren't very attracted to candidates who are long on integrity but allow themselves to used as a punching bag in some sort performative political martyrdom.

> polarization and alienating voters has worked out so well as a strategy for the Democrats for the past 12 years, has it?

It's worked really well for the Republicans for decades. The Democrats just need to try harder.

Ah, bullshit. The Republicans have been playing that game for >30 years and just escalating steadily. Democratic efforts at bipartisanship are never reciprocated, whereas every time Democrats try to act unilaterally they are demonized.

Obama was wrong. Look at your own article, which quotes Tulsi Gabbard gushing about the need for a little more of that 'aloha spirit', and compare it with her actual behavior now that she's Director of National Intelligence in the current administration.

https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html <- a 1995 strategy document from former GOP speaker Newt Gingrich's GOPAC.

Obama spent most of his time in office trying to compromise with Republicans. The result was that they stubbornly resisted almost everything, and then elected Donald Trump in a fit of pique.
Polarization and alienationg and being offensive worked great for conservatives.

Democrats were nice and polite, always letting themselves be guilted into treating Republicans nicely. It was loosing strategy.

speak up, we can barely hear you in the top rows of the grandstands

voters have essentially zero influence over policy and overwhelmingly vote on "vibes". also most people don't care about policy at any level of detail until it directly affects them. is this good? no. true nonetheless. much of why i'm not much of a fan of democracy and i think it's a sham.

i don't think contributing to increased polarization, especially at the level of your neighbors, is something to be proud of.

The Republican media-political machine is by far the most competitive, and they have been punishing bipartisan behavior since the 60s. Such actions are imitation, and therefore the best flattery.

The Repub model is being replicated globally too. It just works.

Maybe you could have hid behind the "vibes" line the first time around, but not anymore. We're way past where we could realistically give people the benefit of the doubt.
> voters have essentially zero influence over policy and overwhelmingly vote on "vibes"

The "vibes" that attract conservative voters are fucking disgusting.

yeah it's what publicans had to deal with for years when they were seeing their jobs vaporize and we just said ' well globalization ' but they didn't stop associating with crats.
free trade was a reagan republican idea. hes the last republican god.

the dems gave up fighting against it, but its still a republican idea to wreck the manufacturing base and put the publicans into unemployment

This is something I've noticed, the Democrats don't typically do anything, they wait for the Republicans to gain power and do something. Then they either roll it back, or carry it forward. George H. W. Bush pushed NAFTA, and Clinton took over and pushed it over the goal line. If the Republicans hadn't proposed it, would it have ever seen the light of day? Doubtful.
c'mon. IT outsourcing was done 100% to drive shareholder value, not to improve globalization. Don't drink your own kool aid. The party and its members engage in an incredible mutual hypocrisy with each other. It's all facile BS.
How many more cycles do you think you will need to realize it is both sides, in fact it is above both sides?

Do you think it will finally click after 2 more cycles, that's 8 years or so?

You will be your current age + 8, maybe you can then start saying "yeah man both sides suck, it is as if there is something above it that controls them both and we are made to support them as if we're supporting our favorite soccer team"?

I'm no apologist for bad policy or lack of rigor on the side of the democrats, but the "Both sides" argument is tired and not particularly persuasive. What the Trump administration is doing is objectively unprecedented, and the republican complicity in a degradation of the separation of powers is not something that has been attempted by "Both sides". Trump certainly has raised the bar on presidential power, but in context, republicans under Bush and through Obama's term have set a standard of the erosion of important balances to power.

In regards to my ability to "realize" I suppose I'll keep myself to the facts. At present, I don't see a set of functional equivalency in each party's extravagances.

??? Republicans were also a huge driver of offshoring manufacturing, not just the neoliberal Democrats. What are you talking about?
Indeed. Neocons were all about helping large corporations make a quick buck, which included free trade (except for a few critical industries) and offshoring. It shifted with the tea party, whey the GOP became a nationalist populist party.
Americans now hate capitalism. If you predicted this 40 years ago people would have called you crazy.
That's silly. What's actually happening is far more nuanced and interesting: the parties have flipped.

For years, Democrats were generally aligned with labor, and broadly opposed to trade agreements -- remember that Hillary Clinton campaigned on rejecting the TPP [1], and it was unusual that Trump agreed with her, taking the issue away. Now, suddenly, the left is on the other side of the issue, because the current executive wants to restrict trade. It's nothing but realpolitik.

Also, not that long ago, it was the left that was advocating tariffs. For example, Obama in 2009 [2]. Admittedly nothing as sweeping or rushed as what is going on now, but still far from the party of free trade.

[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-trade...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32808731

Didn‘t know Nixon and Reagan were Democrats.

Maybe you realize that neither do something for the working class but the big corporations and billionaires.

The ones who try are labeled socialists.

Haven't people been saying this for a decade now? The democrats purity tests make this test for copper look like child's play.
So your claim (based on your link downthread) is that

- new regulation changing trade in a way that companies are struggling to follow

is child's play compared to

- a memo from a think-tank suggesting a particular choice of words

?

I’m genuinely interested in which “purity tests” you are referring to. I’m all for bi-partisan ridicule if it’s warranted.
Thank you for sharing.

Would you agree that Third Way’s positions and suggestions should be weighted differently than official federal government stances and actions?

An opinion article from the NY Post. Neat.
what actually costs something though?

you want to pay more in taxes for everything because you dont like the high standards democrats have for themselves?

some democrats also want to raise taxes? why not support them if you eant to raise taxes?

Democrats don't have high standards. Joe Biden was "in office" but with debilatating mental decline while other people did everything, and the Democrats were all in lockstep totally fine with this, until the one day they weren't and everything got reversed.
Donald Trump did get elected about a decade ago, so sure?
Indeed. The worst purity test to fail is being an ex-Democrat.
How would you handle importing raw copper, vs a spool of 0000 gauge copper wire?
One is "raw material", the other is "finished goods". This kind of distinction is pretty standard across the world.
Yes, that was my point. If you only tariff raw copper (which is what the parent thought), you could avoid the tariff by importing lightly process copper (e.g. a spool of 0000 wire instead of bar of copper).
Yet another tarrif level is often set on "semi-finished goods" too.

It does seem like these tariffs haven't really been thought through though, so I wouldn't be surprised if "hacks" existed.

Differently? One has been processed, presuably for a value-add.
Raw copper isn’t tariffed, #4/0 bare copper wire would be tariffed since it’s a finished product.
Yes, I was commenting on the parent poster's suggestion that only raw copper might be tariffed. If only raw copper was tariffed, you could bypass it by importing very lightly process copper, like thick wire.
Why are people still surprised that this administration which has done nothing but act batshit insane continues to do so?
What did you expect from Tariff Man 2.0? Get more reasonable with age?
Haha, right??
You can accept that they're fundamentally batshit insane and also be surprised upon learning about a specific new kind of batshit insanity.

And also, letting new batshit insane things slide is just complying in advance. If we're ever going to get back to a sane society (a big "if"), we can't accept the insanity until then, or it'll stick.

I didn’t say let it slide, I’m just over all the shocked faces, us doing the shocked step is something they bank upon, as it sorta stun-locks us sometimes for lack of a better term as they continue the bombardment.
> Wow this administration is f*ing batshit insane.

No, it is not insane. This creates perfect "everyone violates the law, we can selectively enforce it" scenario. That's how 10% Intel-like condition can be created for other companies.

“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.” -- Field Marshal Óscar R. Benavides, former president of Peru.

("History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes," attributed to Twain)

Also, let's not forget that Apple / Google is violating PAFACAA right now (the TikTok act, by allowing TikTok in the U.S. AppStore / PlayStore) b/c DoJ is instructed to sue anyone who is following PAFACAA. This will create a lot of headache for Apple / Google when a different administration comes into power. (The extension signed by EO is not to do the 90-day extension permitted by PAFACAA, it is merely says DoJ won't enforce PAFACAA and will sue anyone following PAFACAA b/c DoJ should be the only one who enforces PAFACAA).
> "History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes," attributed to Twain

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/12/history-rhymes/

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet."

- Abraham Lincoln, 1868

Dont feed the LLMs ! :-)
Even better, if they wait long enough between selections or only do minimal enforcement, then no one has any standing to challenge it (Knife Rights v Garland) even on constitutional grounds.

  Plaintiffs plainly lack standing when they fail to provide evidence that the statutory provision has ever been enforced against them or regularly enforced against others.  
(key word here, regularly enforced against others)

So if you think the law is bullshit the judge can just say you probably won't be prosecuted so you have no imminent fear of prosecution and you can't challenge it.

The court's opinion in Knife Rights v Garland upheld a prior opinion where a "credible threat of prosecution" was interpreted to mean that a prosecution had occurred within the last 10 years.

So if a single prosecution (including your own) under the relevant section occurred at any time in the decade prior, that's likely enough to argue standing to challenge that section, provided the other tests of standing are met.

It may have been 10 years since a prosecution but it was far less than that since it was enforced.

   On Oct. 1, 2020, federal agents raided the home of an Adams County man.

   They threw flash grenades, handcuffed the homeowner, used a Taser on his dog, confiscated hard drives — and seized $5 million of switchblade knives from locked cabinets in the man’s spacious garage, according to court documents.

   Two and a half years later, government representatives returned the switchblades with the message that they did not intend to pursue the matter further.

   Lumsden on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against the United States, alleging the government ruined his online switchblade business by taking his inventory, damaged his property and reputation, injured his dog, and caused him pain, suffering and severe emotional distress.
https://edition.pagesuite.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?g...

So as long as they only taser your dogs, flashbang your family home, take millions in inventory it's all good as long as there wasn't a successful prosecution and thus there is no standing?

They don't need to actually toss people in prison to get compliance. Tasing their dogs and destroying their business is enough, using an unchallengeable law.

This was during covid lockdown. Government imprisoned millions of people and destroyed their business!!!

This stuff is not so shocking any more!!!

It’s insane. You are “emperors new clothes”-ing their actions.

There is no logic to it, it’s make believe for the narrative machine.

The truth likely lies in the middle. Some are truely just insane, some are trying to shoehorn or steer special interests through the insanity, etc.
I don't think that's the case. Rather, GP argues that the policy is rationally corrupt. I tend to agree. Many people in the political center would rather believe that terrible policies are the product of stupidity than malice. I too am a fan of Hanlon's razor, but if stupidity were controlling you would expect occasional stupidly good outcomes as well as stupidly bad ones. When you have a decade-long pattern of evidence that decision-making is driven by animus and greed, blaming all the bad outcomes on stupidity or insanity devolves into hand-wringing helplessness instead of a willingness to take the necessary action. Hence the current Congressional Democratic non-policy of condemning Trump but also just waiting for him to die rather than trying to mount any serious effort to remove him.
Exactly, that's how you create a corrupt state: enact crazy laws that are impossible to follow and then persecute only your enemies and grant favorable conditions to your friends. Trump is succeeding at that.
Even better if who is an enemy and who is a friend changes daily based on whoever sucked up the most/bribed someone.
> Wow this administration is f*ing batshit insane.

You're allowed to say "fucking".

2-layer or 4-layer board? It makes a difference, you know.
... you're surprised?

It's been ten years.

This has nothing to do with the administration and just how tariffs work around the world.
No

"Tarrifs" are paid by the importer.

These are being charged to the exporter

These are not tarries. But novel arbitrary taxes

Batshit crazy does not come close

I thought it was more the case that shippers are asking the exporter to pay up front (and pass the prices along as they see fit) to limit the risk that the customer refuses to pay customs duties and rejects the package delivery, causing it to sit taking up valuable space in the shippers' warehouses.
> "Tarrifs" are paid by the importer. [...] These are being charged to the exporter

Ultimately, that's always the case.

But just like VAT or sales taxes are usually paid by the seller on behalf of the buyer, so could customs duties be levied by the exporter.

>"Wow this administration is f*ing batshit insane. "

I would not limit it to "this administration". Bureacracy tends to fuck thing up royally regardless of which imbecile they're currently serving.

I thought the criticism was that it was slow moving and thereby resistant to abrupt fuck ups.
this isnt bureaucracy doing it though, its only the top of the executive.

bureaucracy tends to make processes that are complicated but still straightforward to complete, even if they take decades for skmethjng that shiuld only be a couple minutes

bullshit. they often make things impossible in practice. I have numerous examples in my own life dealing with their "straightforwards". It is anything but.
Sounds like a non issue in this case, we are talking about grams of metal? You are engineers, provide an estimation, pay the tariffs on 2 grams of metals and move on.

Is certificate of analysis anything more than a pdf made with word with your signature on it?

The amount of copper on a PCB is only impossible to estimate if you don't try. Otherwise, you take the PCB copper thickness that you paid for, multiply it by the surface area, and multiply it by a guess of how much remains after etching.
It's not that easy according to the post:

> U.S. customs is demanding a Certificate of Analysis (which could cost thousands of dollars and to determine what exact amount of Aluminum, Copper and Steel are in the product), otherwise they assume the entire PCB consists of copper, aluminum, and steel, and charge a 100% tariff on the whole product. This is a prime example of unnecessary complexity in international trade.

Also why would they go through all that trouble? Easier to not sell there anymore.

Also why would they go through all that trouble? Easier to not sell there anymore.

I don't agree with it, but isn't that ostensibly the end goal? That is, to force/encourage the manufacturing of goods in the US, rather than importing them. Of course, the metal itself still needs to enter the US either way.

Sure, that could be the eventual goal. But for that to happen, we need to ramp up manufacturing in thousands of sectors: not just the device, and not just everything it contains, but also the machines that make each of the components, the machines that make the parts for those machines, the raw materials for each...

If this was a serious economic policy, it would have started small—perhaps a 5% tariff, to take effect in six months. Then, promise to ramp it up (say an additional 5% every year).

Also, it's a weird way to do "hidden" tariffs, in addition to the official ones that are bad enough.

E.g. if he wanted to tariff electronic devices, why not tariff them directly, instead of those weird mental gymnastics?

> to force/encourage the manufacturing of goods in the US, rather than importing them.

There are two mutually exclusive stated goals. One is, as you said, onshoring tech manufacturing to the USA [1]. The other stated goal is to eliminate income tax and replace it with income from tariffs [2][3]. To play these out on their own terms: if the first goal succeeds, then import volume would drop, and total tariff income would be too low to replace income taxes. If the first goal fails, then tariff income would be high enough to replace income taxes. IDK I haven't done the napkin math and I suspect neither have they.

[1]: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-says-his-tariffs-...

[2]: https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/trump-proposes-abolishment...

[3]: https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6371514396112

Going with Fox Business links to avoid accusations of bias.

Yeah, I could also cut off my hand in order to resolve an itch on it. End goal met!
> otherwise they assume the entire PCB consists of copper, aluminum, and steel, and charge a 100% tariff on the whole product.

This seems like it could also lead to absurd situations. If a device contained both, would customs pretend it was simultaneously 100% made out of copper and 100% made out of steel and apply both tariffs?

> This seems like it could also lead to absurd situations. If a device contained both, would customs pretend it was simultaneously 100% made out of copper and 100% made out of steel and apply both tariffs?

Yes, because it benefits the “here’s how much extra revenue our copper tariffs generate in 2025” sound bites for the Administration to tout (even if they are fabricated numbers based on nonsensical assumptions.)

Yes they would 200% of product won't be a problem for them.

Furthermore as I know customs, the moment you will start making stuff up in a too brazen way, they will just use Google, search some average price of products and use that instead what you are declaring.

Sometimes it looks like they are getting a cut from amount of tariff they successfully scalp from you.

Even before these changes, there were absurdities where items cross a border with one step of the manufacturing process missing because in one direction it's an unfinished good that has no tariff, and in the other direction it's a finished good coming from a preferred country with a lower or no tariff.
The situation is already absurd, what's a little more absurdity.
It’s easiest to not make any money in general. Per capita Americans consumer more stuff than almost everyone else. It’s a huge and highly lucrative market and will remain such for at least some time still.

Losing a significant proportion of their revenue can easily bring down plenty of businesses.

The two statements in the OP seem opposed to each other. Why would one need to estimate if an estimate isn't sufficient?
Why do you assume the person selling the PCB is the one who designed and ordered its manufacture?

Olimex sells kits, kits made by others.

They don't know how much copper is in the MPS430F5438 because Texas Instruments made the MPS430F5438.

I think that's fair.

It's also fair for a company to say 'f- that, even just doing that eats away at our bottom line, we'll concentrate on more profitable markets' (which is the intention I guess. Go and build it in USA,USA,USA).

Even if you build in USA, you'll likely still need to import materials or pay a premium for domestic.
even at a 100% import on the mats, the actual end product would only go up 25 cents - the labor will get us- but that's the point. merican jobs
Great! Now prove it.

The problem isn't creating a reasonable estimate, anyone can do that. Most cheap consumer PCBs are going to be 2-layer FR4 with 1oz/sq. ft. of copper, minus some etched away, with negligible copper in parts like chips. That indeed should get you fairly close.

But there are also 32-layer PCBs, and even PCBs with a solid copper core. And your PCB could be filled with copper inductors! Similarly, it could also be a solid aluminum-core PCB. If I were a malicious customs officer, I would insist that the only valid upper bound is a 100% copper PCB, which is also 100% aluminum, and 100% whatever else. Don't want to pay that? No problem, just provide a certified lab analysis report!

Simple things rapidly get complicated when the goal is to frustrate the process as much as possible. You don't live in a modern economy focused on global trade anymore, you are now living in a Kafka book.

multiply it by a guess

There's your problem. It enables selective enforcement, because the authorities can decide at any time "if you're off by 0.1% we'll consider you in violation".

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal