Tarrifs

[heysteve]

Some manufacturing will come back to the states for various reasons but it won't bring large employment numbers due to automation.

Also, environmental issues (as mentioned above) often get the blame for high costs but consider the other headwinds like health care. You'd think the heads of major corporations would be advocates of getting health care out of their business model but crickets. I dare say that has way more impact on corporate overhead than any environmental considerations.

 

[KnotYet]

I'm unclear if you mean the tested drugs are made in Canada or only trafficked through. Hard to imagine a test that reveals what country a drug was shipped through in a sealed container.

Again, how do seized drugs show any correlation to the actual quantity of those trafficked over the border?

This is like asking how much fraud and waste is in the federal government. One senator says not one penny and another says a trillion dollars. It seems to me the amount of fentanyl that comes over the border without being seized, is at best a wild guess.

For the record, I like Canadians and don't hold drugs that come across their border, against the citizens of Canada. It's probably fairly tough for both USA and Canada to secure 2,000 miles of border from determined criminals.

Ted

Logic would suggest that illicit drugs get trafficked via the most convenient means.
Canada appears to manufacture little if any illicit fentanyl, so it would first have to
be smuggled into Canada to get to the US from there.
Mexico (and points south) appears to manufacture a large amount of illicit fentanyl
and other opioids, thus the enormous difference in US border seizures from there.

How would the quantity of drugs seized by trained, motivated personnel not
correlate to the actual amount getting through?
The total amount can be determined fairly accurately based on overdose numbers.

Law enforcement is actually pretty good at tracing where drugs are from.
It's science.

 

[Bud]

Well, having spent my career in one design and manufacturing segment, I would respectfully disagree. 100% of what has driven manufacturing off shore over the past 40 years has been the desire for cost reduction, and profit increases. 100%. In the segment where I worked, things like environmental regs, which is what so many people blame, just are not a factor. The production line in Nashua NH and the one in China are identical, with the same equipment, same solvents, same vapor capture and extraction equipment, and same safety protocols. The difference is all in the cost of labor, which links directly to the cost of living and life-style expectations.

I'll also add that I don't see the allure of more manufacturing jobs. I have worked various manufacturing production line jobs in my early days, and I can't think of a more miserable, sole-killing job. Employers are struggling to fill much more desirable jobs, so where will these workers come from? The answer is immigrants, but people don't want immigrants. All this is just tugging on the heart strings of people who haven't thought any of it through. If someone wants a manufacturing job, instead consider getting a job in the Marine Trades. There are lots of openings, the work is surely more interesting, and surely pays at least as well.

That may be the case with that industry, but enviro regs drove paper mills, the logging industry. the lumber industry and the commercial fishing industry from the state of Maine where I raised my family. I watched it happen first hand. The only industry left is tourism and lobstering, as a result Maines population has dropped below New Hampshires and it is three times the size.
I agree, your right about old style manufacturing jobs they suck. Look at a new Tesla plant, that is new style manufacturing with robotics and automation. add some AI on top of that and you basicly need a fleet of software and hardware (robotics) engineers running it. The modern factory is very different than 1970's 1980's 1990's plants you are referring to. Our american worker is much more productive and ambitious than most. The new factory workers are software and hardware problem solvers. These modern factories with automation are cost saving and it will be how they will compete with cheap manuel labor. As a result of these better working enviroments a union to protect workers is not as necessary. IMHOP this the the future of american manufacturing.
Bud

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

ASD has been cruising B.C. Canada for almost 10 years now. Normally on our way up and back from SEAK we only stop in Port McNeill for fuel, groceries and a burger and beer at the local pub. Time permitting, we will explore B.C. and meet up with our Canadian friends for a few weeks.
Wondering how all this tariff stuff will affect us in our travels

 

[Bud]

There is a free trade agreement the orange man himself signed. Softwood lumber has been charged taxes and tariffs by the US for years. An exception to the free trade agreement - the US protects its softwood lumber industry - we protect our dairy. Facts matter.

The USA and Canada had an agreement for softwood lumber from 2006 to 2015 called the 2006 U.S.–Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement. Trump stopped that agreement in 2015 because Canada was getting around the agreement by subsidizing their softwood lumber industry that exported to the USA. In 2015 Trump imposed tariffs on the softwood lumber industry to try and resurect the USA's softwood lumber Industry. The tariffs now are more of the same, to protect our indutries and bring these industries back to USA. Facts do matter.
Bud

 

[psneeld]

Logic would suggest that illicit drugs get trafficked via the most convenient means.
Canada appears to manufacture little if any illicit fentanyl, so it would first have to
be smuggled into Canada to get to the US from there.
Mexico (and points south) appears to manufacture a large amount of illicit fentanyl
and other opioids, thus the enormous difference in US border seizures from there.

How would the quantity of drugs seized by trained, motivated personnel not
correlate to the actual amount getting through?
The total amount can be determined fairly accurately based on overdose numbers.

Law enforcement is actually pretty good at tracing where drugs are from.
It's science.

Having been a point man in the drug war from back in the 80's .... and relating it throughout history of smuggling....and no reason to think the art of smuggling has changed much since I retired.....

.....the amount of drugs seized has very little relation to the amount of drugs smuggled successfully. True of almost anything smuggled.

It might be one of the data points but alone is no useful figure in my mind.

Other experts may disagree but then again there are many who think they are somebody in that arena that swear their efforts are making a difference. It only behooves them to declare what percentages are what. Unless they are a cartel head, and even they only know so much, I would take most "estimated numbers" with a grain of salt.

Read any history of smuggling. Bootlegging, Confederate blockade runners of the Civil ar, the smuggling after the US revolution and the formation of the Revenue Cutter Service, how arms are brought through enemy territory in about every war throughout history, etc...etc.... The smugglers are usually one step ahead of the enforcement guys.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

The USA and Canada had an agreement for softwood lumber from 2006 to 2015 called the 2006 U.S.–Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement. Trump stopped that agreement in 2015 because Canada was getting around the agreement by subsidizing their softwood lumber industry that exported to the USA. In 2015 Trump imposed tariffs on the softwood lumber industry to try and resurect the USA's softwood lumber Industry. The tariffs now are more of the same, to protect our indutries and bring these industries back to USA. Facts do matter.
Bud

I see Alaska getting fired up. Logging and mining in the SEAK are a few things. Maybe the Ferry System will start back up again.

 

[Greg QS]

2 biggest problems I see.

1 Is with the tariffs multipliers. A 25% tax in raw materials , or goods going to a dealer does not increase the product by 25%. Most company's make 20% on products they sell. So on 10,000 of product, ( raw material or goods ) the tariff raises the price $2,500 plus the markup the from the vendor/importer of 20% of the new 2500 higher price. So now add another 500 on that. So the tariff raised the price to 3000 or 30%. Now sold to the vendor who sells to you making 20% more on the inflated tariff amount of $ 3000 now making it 3600. A 36% increase! No imagine if the tariff product goes from manufacturing, dealer , to retailer. ( 3 markups ) add 720 more. $4320 or 43.2 % Now what if the tariff product goes through a 4 step process importer, manufacturing, dealer, retailer to you , yet another $846 = 5184 or 51.84% Ugg What if the manufacturing operating costs ( fuel, eclectic ) go up at these rates also? Add to the pile. double ugg

I am a contractor. So If my lumber raises 20% to whole sale disturber/importer, then to lumber yard, then through me to the final customer, and lumber is 50% of my job cost, my material cost goes up 43% so in the end a 100k project should go up 21,500 overnight. (43% of 50k ) UNSUSTAINABLE

2. This is being done to bring back Manufacturing?? I' m sorry no offence here. We do not have a work force in America for these jobs. Current unemployment at 4%. I cannot find workers, My auto shop cannot find help. The workers in my field are 90% Spanish speaking. (No I'm not going there either) . American Kids today do NOT want to work in manufacturing, mechanics, construction, farming , or the kitchens of our restaurants. So who will staff these new jobs?

 

[socalrider]

It's not madness. Mexico is now basically a narco-state run by the cartels, and Canada isn't much further behind. Both present major security risks for the United States. As a boater who regularly cruises Canadian waters, this presents some major inconveniences for me, but fixing the overall problem is a higher priority than my personal convenience.

1. I agree with you about Mexico, with the exception that this has been the case for quite a long time. Even in the 1980's the PRI was complicit with the Narcos, there was less violence because the corruption was stable and well-established. I deeply love Mexico but this is just a sad fact.

2. "Canada isn't much further behind". Sorry, what???

3. Granting you #1, what is a 25% tariff going to do to help this situation? "Stop being a narco state or I'll put a 25% tariff on you?" And why would this have anything to do with Canada? It's not a coherent policy, it's just something our prez has wanted to do for a long long time and now people are scrambling to come up with ex-post reasons for why it's a good idea.

 

[darnold]

The USA and Canada had an agreement for softwood lumber from 2006 to 2015 called the 2006 U.S.–Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement. Trump stopped that agreement in 2015 because Canada was getting around the agreement by subsidizing their softwood lumber industry that exported to the USA. In 2015 Trump imposed tariffs on the softwood lumber industry to try and resurect the USA's softwood lumber Industry. The tariffs now are more of the same, to protect our indutries and bring these industries back to USA. Facts do matter.
Bud

but you were the one that said the US did not impose any tariffs on Canada - not even close to true. The US has imposed tariffs on softwood for the same reason we put them on dairy - to protect local industry. As someone said earlier the US has subsidized agriculture, including dairy, forever. The softwood tariffs were there long before 45 got involved and have completely destroyed Canada's softwood lumber industry - again long before 45. We used to mill lumber in vast quantities prior to 2006, now we export raw logs for processing in the US. I worked in those mills in the 70's. Not going to debate the "fairness" of that, just that the US has always used tariffs to protect local industry when it feels justified. Not at all the same thing as a blanket set of tariffs on everything on the completely bogus fentanyl justification.

45 has always been a fan of tariffs, fentanyl was just the "national emergency" he needed to allow him to use executive powers rather than go through congress. The tariffs actually have absolutely nothing to do with fentanyl production or smuggling in Canada and is a complete red herring. It is an issue that needs to be addressed, we have the problem here as well. It won't be solved by imposing tariffs.

 

[BruceK]

Inevitably, the "political" question arises. The issue may be a simple as, is an economic tool being (?mis)used for political purposes? If so, the entire subject is political and so is the discussion.
As to the effect. Bluescope, an Australian steel producer, both domestically and in USA where it employs 4000 people, reported that following 25% US tariffs on steel imports it can increase its US pricing 20%. Sounds inflationary to me. But, Aussie Bluescope stockholders should get increased dividends from increased profits. From a personal point of view it`s a win. For others, maybe not.

 

[lwarden]

There is always profiteering as a result of these sorts of tariffs, just like there was with COVID. The loser is always the consumer.
So, as Gordon Gekko said: "greed is good" (as long as you are an investor).

Blue horseshoe loves Anacott steel. Or, Bluescope in this context.

 

[socalrider]

The weirdest thing about this to me vis-a-vis the political vs economic debate is this:

1. Politically, aside from our current president, there was a bipartisan consensus for the last what, 30 years that tariffs were a bad idea in general, and should be applied very sparingly (best case: protecting national security including industries critical to national security, worst case: protecting politically connected industry). There was effectively no constituency for piling on lots of high, broad tariffs.

2. Economically, it was the same - a broad based consensus. Effectively nobody has advocated for these sorts of tariffs on economic grounds. They've been disproven as an effective tool for improving the state of a nation in the broadest possible terms.

I'm just baffled by the whole thing. I can understand sticking more tariffs on China to some extent. But again... Canada? What?

 

[mvweebles]

Inevitably, the "political" question arises. The issue may be a simple as, is an economic tool being (?mis)used for political purposes? If so, the entire subject is political and so is the discussion.
As to the effect. Bluescope, an Australian steel producer, both domestically and in USA where it employs 4000 people, reported that following 25% US tariffs on steel imports it can increase its US pricing 20%. Sounds inflationary to me. But, Aussie Bluescope stockholders should get increased dividends from increased profits. From a personal point of view it`s a win. For others, maybe not.

The Wall Street Journal podcast I linked up-thread mentioned this very phenomenon as one of the reasons tariffs don't work. They use the wine industry - I guess the US placed tariffs on French wine at some point which allowed the California wine producers to raise their prices to increase profits but remain competitive.

There are now over 100 posts on this thread. Many have expressed support of tariffs yet not a single one has cited a reliable source for their position. I've posted a few URLs from credible sources citing they historically do not work. Outside of kitchen table logic, there simply is not a historical justification for tariffs.

Peter

 

[mvweebles]

The weirdest thing about this to me vis-a-vis the political vs economic debate is this:

1. Politically, aside from our current president, there was a bipartisan consensus for the last what, 30 years that tariffs were a bad idea in general, and should be applied very sparingly (best case: protecting national security including industries critical to national security, worst case: protecting politically connected industry). There was effectively no constituency for piling on lots of high, broad tariffs.

2. Economically, it was the same - a broad based consensus. Effectively nobody has advocated for these sorts of tariffs on economic grounds. They've been disproven as an effective tool for improving the state of a nation in the broadest possible terms.

I'm just baffled by the whole thing. I can understand sticking more tariffs on China to some extent. But again... Canada? What?

I agree - I can see strategic use of tariffs. Defense. Critical components. And a few others in sure.

The greatest US example of Tariffs was in the early 1930s. We'd already proven tariffs didn't work via the McKinley example (Trump's inspiration - Trump must not have read the second half of the book). Economists pleaded with Congress not to pass the Smoot Hawley bill creating large scale tariffs. They did it anyway with disasterous effects.

"He who doesn't study history is destined to repeat it. ". I guess Trump sorta got the memo as he exempted auto from the tariffs this afternoon.

Peter

 

[Fletcher500]

Canada is our long time neighbor and a good friend to the US. The 51st state thing, Tariffs based on false pretense, and other slights are an embarrassment to half of the US population. We are playing Checkers, not Chess which is inherent to any Populist movement.

 

[slowgoesit]

So what you're saying is that without substantial tax credits, it's financially irresponsible.

Ted

No, I didn't say that Ted. What I stated was that, for us, trying to make a wise financial decision, today, with the very real "potential" that the rules may change tomorrow, it did not make wise financial sense.
Given a scenario where I had faith that the laws/policies that are in place today, will still be in place in March of next year, I may well have pulled the trigger. Does it make the best economic sense? Probably not.
Can I double my investment $$ in 8 years . . . well, that really depends. Today it's not looking that guaranteed.
I may just use those liquid funds on the small loan we had to incur to purchase our new to us house. That is a pretty guaranteed return of 6%.

 

[slowgoesit]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This thread had gone WAY beyond what it was when it was started. It began as a discussion as to how tariffs would affect Trawler Forum's members from a cruising, and foreign boat purchase standpoint. It has gotten WAY out of control.

We moderators talked among ourselves, and the consensus was that although the thread had the serious potential of going too political, there was inherent benefit to the discussion if members would stick to the topic under discussion.

Unfortunately, the discussion DIDN'T stay with the original emphasis on tariffs as they related to boating.

Therefore it is the consensus of the Moderators is for the thread to be closed for violation of Trawler Forum Rules on political discussion. We hope you understand that, as a boating forum, this is not the correct forum for political discussion.

Trawler Forum Site Team