American Politics 4.0 - Orangeyou Glad He’s Back?

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

So things get really expensive for Canadians and Americans for a while... how long and how much public outcry until both sides realize how they were doing things was just fine after all?

Easy to see where Trump and his parrots are coming from theoretically but if he thinks the way there is as simple as imposing mass Tariffs then he's in for a rude awakening.

Given the recent inflation people have had to adjust to, no one will have the stomach to endure the years of pain that would be required for the US to reach this pie in the sky vision of total self-suficiency. Getting there will cost an arm and a leg, if it's even realistic at all. We're not in the 60s any more and those conditions will probably never be replicated

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, I'll say this again. I'm unconvinced that the Tariffs are even remotely real.

Its typical Trumpy blowhard BS.

"Okay, okay! The Tariffs...the Tariffs were great! Great idea! But it was too much, so we made a better deal, we brought the Tariffs down, the Tariffs were great, but we had to bring them down and scrap some and we arranged a better deal, we got a better deal for America!"

Like...its just a few months of panicking other concerned parties prior to taking office in order to make them more willing to deal down the road.

Its like something a child would do when trying to trade their snacks at lunch. It is so obvious and transparent as to be borderline hilarious.

Trump says he will set up an External Revenue Service to handle all the money rolling in from tariffs on everything from everywhere.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

Trump says he will set up an External Revenue Service to handle all the money rolling in from tariffs on everything from everywhere.

Which sounds like one of the dumbest things I've ever heard and unlikely to actually happen.

This is a Baboon thumping his chest.

I might be wrong. I might be totally wrong, but this just doesnt seem realistic.

[edslunch]

I fully expect him to redefine the definition of tariff to mean other countries must pay it as a fee for access to the US market. I'm guessing that's not allowed by international law but that wouldn't stop him.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I fully expect him to redefine the definition of tariff to mean other countries must pay it as a fee for access to the US market. I'm guessing that's not allowed by international law but that wouldn't stop him.

It’s really irrelevant who pays, the provider of the good isn’t going to just magically take a 25 percent haircut and it’s not possible to spool up domestic production over night. So provider will recoup their costs from the only person possible, the consumer.

[WideReceiver]

Originally Posted by Locke

Which sounds like one of the dumbest things I've ever heard and unlikely to actually happen.

This is a Baboon thumping his chest.

I might be wrong. I might be totally wrong, but this just doesnt seem realistic.

I’m not sure that makes the top 10 list of stupid Trump comments.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

It’s really irrelevant who pays, the provider of the good isn’t going to just magically take a 25 percent haircut and it’s not possible to spool up domestic production over night. So provider will recoup their costs from the only person possible, the consumer.

I think it does make a difference. If I'm selling something for $100 and a 25% tariff gets applied then I'm still getting $100 per unit but losing market share, meanwhile the US customer is paying more but creating internal push back against the tariff.

If on the other hand I'm told I have to pay the 25% then I'm only getting $75 per unit and the US customer feels no pain. If I want to get back to $100 I need to raise my price to $133 in order to absorb the 25% tariff, and the US customer feels more pain than in the other case, so i lose even more business.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I think it does make a difference. If I'm selling something for $100 and a 25% tariff gets applied then I'm still getting $100 per unit but losing market share, meanwhile the US customer is paying more but creating internal push back against the tariff.

If on the other hand I'm told I have to pay the 25% then I'm only getting $75 per unit and the US customer feels no pain. If I want to get back to $100 I need to raise my price to $133 in order to absorb the 25% tariff, and the US customer feels more pain than in the other case, so i lose even more business.

Yes but that’s in an elastic supply situation where somebody can immediately replace the product. If there’s not a replacement then prices will rise to cover the extra input costs, which is now a tariff. There’s probably a middle ground, but no matter what th consumer pays, there’s nobody else who can.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I think it does make a difference. If I'm selling something for $100 and a 25% tariff gets applied then I'm still getting $100 per unit but losing market share, meanwhile the US customer is paying more but creating internal push back against the tariff.

If on the other hand I'm told I have to pay the 25% then I'm only getting $75 per unit and the US customer feels no pain. If I want to get back to $100 I need to raise my price to $133 in order to absorb the 25% tariff, and the US customer feels more pain than in the other case, so i lose even more business.

That’s only because in one case you charged your self a $33 Tarrif and the other a $25 Tarrif.

Stall if you apply the Tarrif to the retail price of the good it will be lower than if you apply it to the whole sale price of the good.

X/.8 = x*1.25

The Tarrif % would be adjusted accordingly

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

He can't own a firearm now.

He has to give a DNA sample for NY to keep on file.

Canada can limit people with felony convictions from entering but I doubt that he'll come here.

Bit late to this comment but he'll be in Alberta this June for the G7 summit. Just down the road in Kananaskis.

So yeah, he gets to break the rules, but obviously Canada isn't going not have the US president in the G7 meeting.

Even though he'll be trying to railroad it for his buddy Putin anyway. Just like he did last time. Remember that photo of him with the other G7 leaders?

My god, we gotta do this all over again. All you can do is laugh, right?

[WideReceiver]

Originally Posted by Daradon

My god, we gotta do this all over again. All you can do is laugh, right?

Or cry.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Carie Underwood lost 1.5M listeners lmao. Hopefully her ####ty career craters.

[Engine09]

I always suspected she was a bit dopey, confirmed.

Exposing the imbeciles among us, one thing McDonald Trump is good for.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

This is why Progressives continue to lose to him. He's not a superior opponent, but a clever one. You need to start to respect your opponent no matter how you detest him.

Flying off the handle maybe cathartic, but it fuels him. He wants that as it lowers the field to his level, and he'll never lose at that level. This has been shown countless times.

Not so sure about that...given the political climate what republican from the primaries wouldn't have beaten Harris?

Trump being terrible is what made it close, this was a layup election for the right. Similar to Canada right now...I could probably run and beat the liberals. People are convinced the government is responsible for their ####ty lives and want change.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I think it does make a difference. If I'm selling something for $100 and a 25% tariff gets applied then I'm still getting $100 per unit but losing market share, meanwhile the US customer is paying more but creating internal push back against the tariff.

If on the other hand I'm told I have to pay the 25% then I'm only getting $75 per unit and the US customer feels no pain. If I want to get back to $100 I need to raise my price to $133 in order to absorb the 25% tariff, and the US customer feels more pain than in the other case, so i lose even more business.

Your not going to lose market share if the infrastructure transporting your goods goes to a small region and they can’t replace your volumes. Their pipeline systems aren’t all infinitely connected. Refineries that source canadian oil will be servicing local regions. I’m betting some won’t have a choice.

Someone in the US is going to pay for the tariff. I doubt it can last a long time. Consumers will start squawking

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Your not going to lose market share if the infrastructure transporting your goods goes to a small region and they can’t replace your volumes. Their pipeline systems aren’t all infinitely connected. Refineries that source canadian oil will be servicing local regions. I’m betting some won’t have a choice.

Someone in the US is going to pay for the tariff. I doubt it can last a long time. Consumers will start squawking

If tariffs or price increases won’t affect sales then why is Smith squawking so much about a possible export tax? And why does WCS sell at a discount if it’s so irreplaceable?

Anyway, my original point was that in a hypothetical situation where Trump forces the producer to pay the tariff (using his twisted external revenue agency logic) it’s worse for the producer than if the consumer pays. They would have to increase their price 33% in order to absorb a 25% tariff and still break even.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

That’s only because in one case you charged your self a $33 Tarrif and the other a $25 Tarrif.

Stall if you apply the Tarrif to the retail price of the good it will be lower than if you apply it to the whole sale price of the good.

X/.8 = x*1.25

The Tarrif % would be adjusted accordingly

In the hypothetical case where the producer is being charged a 25% tariff they would need to increase their price by 33% to break even.

$100 * 1.33 = $133 x (1 -.25) =$100

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by edslunch

In the hypothetical case where the producer is being charged a 25% tariff they would need to increase their price by 33% to break even.

$100 * 1.33 = $133 x (1 -.25) =$100

Still don't understand your math logic.

At the end of the day, a 25% increase on $100 retail price is still $25. If you jack up your retail price by $25 (and it still costs the same to produce it), why do you need to jack it up an additional $13 artificially?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I fully expect him to redefine the definition of tariff to mean other countries must pay it as a fee for access to the US market. I'm guessing that's not allowed by international law but that wouldn't stop him.

It wouldn't matter. What matters are the INCO terms the two parties have agreed to. Often written right into Purchase Orders, or contract agreements.

If the agreed upon term is DDP for instance (delivered duty paid) then the exporter is on the hook for all fees and taxes. In this instance, the exporter (Canadian company) would be tagged with the 25% tariff by their customs brokerage company, who would then pay the US federal government.

The exporter can choose to absorb the tariff or a portion of it, or they can pass it along to their customer in the US via unit price increase, surcharge or fee, etc.

Most Canadian exporters will almost certainly pass the cost along, which will prompt US companies to seek local supply. Often times, the reason they are buying from Canada is there is no supply of said product locally, i.e.: Canadian crude or Toyota RAV4s. Our economies have been growing more and more intertwined since 1945 so many US companies will have no choice but to pay the tariff their Canadian suppliers pass along to them.

Make no mistake though, many Canadian business will lose market share to American companies, and our economy will suffer. But in the States, prices for every good and commodity will increase, whether it's imported or not because domestic companies will have the freedom to match the pricing of their now tarriffed Canadian and offshore competitors.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

It wouldn't matter. What matters are the INCO terms the two parties have agreed to. Often written right into Purchase Orders, or contract agreements.

If the agreed upon term is DDP for instance (delivered duty paid) then the exporter is on the hook for all fees and taxes. In this instance, the exporter (Canadian company) would be tagged with the 25% tariff by their customs brokerage company, who would then pay the US federal government.

The exporter can choose to absorb the tariff or a portion of it, or they can pass it along to their customer in the US via unit price increase, surcharge or fee, etc.

Most Canadian exporters will almost certainly pass the cost along, which will prompt US companies to seek local supply. Often times, the reason they are buying from Canada is there is no supply of said product locally, i.e.: Canadian crude or Toyota RAV4s. Our economies have been growing more and more intertwined since 1945 so many US companies will have no choice but to pay the tariff their Canadian suppliers pass along to them.

Make no mistake though, many Canadian business will lose market share to American companies, and our economy will suffer. But in the States, prices for every good and commodity will increase, whether it's imported or not because domestic companies will have the freedom to match the pricing of their now tarriffed Canadian and offshore competitors.

The other problem for the States, as they try to increase domestic production, is that they plan to deport their cheap labour force, so companies will have to raise wages a lot, which means more inflation. That's more a "them" problem, but if this goes long term, will help balance prices for Canadian products even with a tariff.