Re: Tariffs and bikes

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 09:01:03 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 4/5/2025 7:26 AM, John B. wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 06:57:17 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
 

On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 16:58:36 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 05:43:25 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 15:45:48 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 04:03:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 08:52:01 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 13:18:19 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 12:00:21 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 4/4/2025 11:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

Trust, but verify.On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 09:16:05 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>

The whole idea of increasing taxes on the masses, while decreasing them
on the wealthy, is so Republican, and so Reaganesque with the fraud of
"Trickle-Down Economics."
>
These new high taxes on discretionary items will be disastrous since a
new bike, a new phone, or even a new car, is not generally a required
purchase, and consumers will be unwilling to pay much more. So companies
like Trek will likely absorb some of the tariffs by accepting lower margins.
>
OTOH, some businesses, like car repair shops will see more business as
consumers spend more to keep their existing vehicle working.
>
For items that are not discretionary, like food, we'll just have to pay
more for the same items or switch to lower-cost items.
>
>

>
Much of the food we USAians eat is produced in the USA, so it won't be
affected by tariffs.  The current high grocery prices are a product of
the inflation that happened over the last four years.
>
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger

>
>
The tariffs imposed during Mr Trump's first term, which also
elicited dramatic tales of future horrors, were not
rescinded by the Obama-Biden team over four long years, even
though that is well within Presidential powers. Not one.

>
We USAians are a huge block of consumers and that's a powerful force.
It's a shame not to use that power for our benefit, and tariffs do
that.

>
>
Vegetable Imported From Total Market Value (USD)
Bell Peppers Mexico $1.4 billion
Cucumbers Mexico $607 million
Cauliflower,
Broccoli Mexico $301 million
Asparagus Mexico                $386 million
>
Now add 30 or so % import duty :-(

>
>
It seems to me that we can grow that stuff here in the USA, and an
import tariff might be the way to do it.

>
Sure you can grow stuff in the U.S. just as you can build bicycles in
the U.S., or, autos, or computers or any of the other things that are
imported. So why don't they?

>
Well, obviously, because the foreign stuff is cheaper. Perhaps the
tariffs will change that.

>
>
Well, if the U.S. can manufacture cheaply it will work.

>
Presumably, it only needs to be cheaper than the cost of the foreign
stuff after tariffs are applied...

 
The usual practice is first one side applies a tariff and then the
other side applies a tariff.and at the same time the side with the
most to lose is looking for other sources.
 
In the U.S. China soybean battle the end result was that China found
another source and the U.S lost 1/4 of their sales to some country in
S.America.
.
 
 

But how long

will you have to go without before U.S. production can replace the
foreign suppliers.  In that respect some years ago there was a program
to repair or rebuild some of the bays bridges in California. I read
the article and they were excusing the use of steel from China as
"steel of this specification and size is not manufactured in the U.S."

>
I suspect the goal is to get the tariffs applied by the other
countries removed or decreased.
>
As for the U S steel industry, it was mostly destroyed years ago by
unfair tactics by dishonest foriegn entities. The US government stood
by and watched it happen.

 
What unfair tactics?

>
>
" The usual practice is first one side applies a tariff and
then the other side applies a tariff.and at the same time
the side with the most to lose is looking for other sources."
>
Yes, that's right about usual patterns.
>
In this instance, Israel reduced duty on US goods to zero
within hours. Vietnam followed with deep rate cuts as have
others. And it's only been a few days so far.
>
I get the principles and history and reasoning overall, but
some of this looks just batshit crazy* to me.  But I'm an
outside observer with limited information.  I'll reserve
final judgement as the pieces on this board are all in
motion yet.
>
>
>
*Targeted protection for favored players (auto assembly)
will turn out just like Mao's backyard scrap steel kilns in
1958. Really ugly.

The power of the consumers in the USA is massive, and it's been
weaponized. Time will tell.

--
C'est bon
Soloman