Tariffs

[Analog Kid]

've installed water shutoff valves before the showerheads of every place I've lived in

Before (hopefully!) this thread gets locked... what is the water shutoff valve you install, and what does it do (or why is it needed)?

Glad you asked.
It's an inline valve, operated by buttons on each side, that stops the water to the showerhead.
Has standard (for us, US) 1/2" threads, threads onto the shower arm on one end and the showerhead on the other.
I've heard these referred to as "soap-up" valves: you use it to turn the water off while you lather yourself. Not only saves water, but keeps the temperature the same so you don't have to fiddle with the hot & cold valves.

Available at any hardware store or home improvement store here.

[PlainName]

Thanks 

[EEVblog]

As far as i understand congress can take back from the president the mandate to decide on tariffs if they want so.

In that case the "democracy" is working just fine and as intended.

[tggzzz]

As far as i understand congress can take back from the president the mandate to decide on tariffs if they want so.

In that case the "democracy" is working just fine and as intended.

It remains to be seen whether the US Constitution is worth the paper it is written on.

AFAIK it has never been tested in circumstances where one party will do anything to circumvent it. One example is a US president being limited to two terms.

[Zero999]

Um, that part of the conversation was about tariffs and bond markets, not covid.

Then why are you talking about it?

If you include the relevant context (cf snipping it to make a strawman argument), it is much clearer.

No, because it's against the forum rules and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

That there are real worries, that currently, decent, hardworking, well paid, electronics engineers (as well as related people, such as software experts/developers).  Could end up deciding to leave the US.  Hence a significant brain drain from America.

Not just electronics/software and engineering. Science is being gutted by many layoffs.

There has been a genuine problem with governments funding junk science. It's good much of it has been cut, but again I don't see how it's relevant to the subject of tariffs.

The tariffs aren't on services, so I don't see how they will affect things such as design. It's true that much of the design work has been offshored already.

I presume that by "junk science" you are (in the life sciences alone) referring to immunisations and vaccination, testing and analyzing samples for drug-resistant gonorrhea, allergies, infectious diseases, cancer research and treatments, various rare diseases, etc. There have been wholesale budget removals and redundancies in all of those.

"To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law".

What makes you think I was talking about the above? And what does it have to do with tariffs?

As far as i understand congress can take back from the president the mandate to decide on tariffs if they want so.

In that case the "democracy" is working just fine and as intended.

It remains to be seen whether the US Constitution is worth the paper it is written on.

AFAIK it has never been tested in circumstances where one party will do anything to circumvent it. One example is a US president being limited to two terms.

What's new? The constitution has already been circumvented by the previous administration,  e.g. the pressuring social media to suppress things they didn't like, which violated the first amendment, but what does it have to do with tariffs? Are you saying they're unconstitutional?

[tom66]

The 145% tariff on China is insane, but truthfully doesn't impact most of us in Europe.

Wouldn't be too sure of that. I read an article the other day when iPhones and the like were still included in that, and the suggestion was that they would be too expensive for Americans but cheap elsewhere. However, it pointed out that a good option (for Apple) would be to suck up the tariff costs and only charge Americans a little but more, and then recoup the rest of the tariff cost by raising the price in the rest of the world.

tl;dr: Could be Europe that pays for the tariff on China too.

Truthfully, that makes no sense - Apple competes with other companies when selling their phones.  If they believed they could charge more in Europe they already would, -regardless- of the tariffs.  But the reality is they compete with other manufacturers and, more widely, against other discretionary consumer goods.

[EEVblog]

AFAIK it has never been tested in circumstances where one party will do anything to circumvent it.

Said of every US adminstration, ever.
In fact name a governmet in any country that hasn't tried to or outright circumvented constitutional and other rights in some way. No such government exists.

[EEVblog]

The 145% tariff on China is insane, but truthfully doesn't impact most of us in Europe.

Wouldn't be too sure of that. I read an article the other day when iPhones and the like were still included in that, and the suggestion was that they would be too expensive for Americans but cheap elsewhere. However, it pointed out that a good option (for Apple) would be to suck up the tariff costs and only charge Americans a little but more, and then recoup the rest of the tariff cost by raising the price in the rest of the world.

tl;dr: Could be Europe that pays for the tariff on China too.

Truthfully, that makes no sense - Apple competes with other companies when selling their phones.  If they believed they could charge more in Europe they already would, -regardless- of the tariffs.  But the reality is they compete with other manufacturers and, more widely, against other discretionary consumer goods.

I'm thinking that prices of Chinese products might drop in all other countries as their market in the US dries up, as they are desparate to retain busines. Will be interesting to see what happens.
But I believe that the US is only 15% of China's export market. So as a country they might be able to absorb that for a while, but individual Chinese companies will do what they have to do in order to survive.

[tggzzz]

AFAIK it has never been tested in circumstances where one party will do anything to circumvent it.

Said of every US adminstration, ever.
In fact name a governmet in any country that hasn't tried to or outright circumvented constitutional and other rights in some way. No such government exists.

Not to the extent that is attempted in the US by the current administration, e.g.

• the bit you snipped about President Chamberlain planning to have a third term as president https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/04/trump-third-term-republicans/682381/
• circumventing the normal mechanisms for setting tariffs merely because too many Americans want fentanyl too much. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/

There are many other examples, and many sources indicating the above.

"Amusingly", apparently the Chinese are doing a "compare and contrast" exercise between President Chamberlain and Chairman Mao. Obviously there are many differences, but the similarities are significant, and sufficient to rile US right-wingers.
https://chinaheritage.net/journal/godels-loophole-and-americans-cultural-revolution/
with a TL;DR being https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/14/china-donald-trump-mao-zedong

[themadhippy]

However, it pointed out that a good option (for Apple) would be to suck up the tariff costs and only charge Americans a little but more, and then recoup the rest of the tariff cost by raising the price in the rest of the world.

Seems sony is traveling down that route,25% hike on the digital ps5 in selected markets due to "a challenging economic environment"

[PlainName]

The 145% tariff on China is insane, but truthfully doesn't impact most of us in Europe.

Wouldn't be too sure of that. I read an article the other day when iPhones and the like were still included in that, and the suggestion was that they would be too expensive for Americans but cheap elsewhere. However, it pointed out that a good option (for Apple) would be to suck up the tariff costs and only charge Americans a little but more, and then recoup the rest of the tariff cost by raising the price in the rest of the world.

tl;dr: Could be Europe that pays for the tariff on China too.

Truthfully, that makes no sense - Apple competes with other companies when selling their phones.  If they believed they could charge more in Europe they already would, -regardless- of the tariffs.  But the reality is they compete with other manufacturers and, more widely, against other discretionary consumer goods.

[edit: quotes got mixed up]

Apple was the standout example because their expensive phone would be twice as expensive and basically unaffordable. But the thinking would apply to other global sellers that would be have unrealistic pricing due to the tariffs.

I think you mistake the option of having rest-of-world subsidise the US as meaning the prices would go up 124% everywhere, but that wouldn't be the case. It might be that US prices go up 20% (the punters know why the price has gone up and aren't blaming the vendor) but elsewhere they might go up 10%. That 10% from a huge number might cover the missing 100% from the smaller number, see. Outcome is everyone pays a bit more but no-one sees a massive unaffordable price hike.
Truthfully, that makes no sense - Apple competes with other companies when selling their phones.  If they believed they could charge more in Europe they already would, -regardless- of the tariffs.  But the reality is they compete with other manufacturers and, more widely, against other discretionary consumer goods.

[tom66]

I think you mistake the option of having rest-of-world subsidise the US as meaning the prices would go up 124% everywhere, but that wouldn't be the case. It might be that US prices go up 20% (the punters know why the price has gone up and aren't blaming the vendor) but elsewhere they might go up 10%. That 10% from a huge number might cover the missing 100% from the smaller number, see. Outcome is everyone pays a bit more but no-one sees a massive unaffordable price hike.

Think the quote got mangled - extracted what I could.

My general point is that, absent other economic actions, Apple can charge only what the market will bear for their products.

In other words, if the average consumer is willing to pay €499 for an iPhone (example, I'm not sure what they cost right now), they will be -less- willing to pay the new 10% higher €549.   They can increase the price, but they will sell fewer phones.

And their competitors may instead choose to keep their prices the same in the EU, and raise them in the new, expensive market.

There is no 'fairness' force here.  The US has made itself more expensive.  Corporations will raise the price to compensate there.  Competition elsewhere will drive prices down.

I expect the logical reaction will be a general increase in costs for US customers and a fall in costs for other customers, as the Chinese smartphones try to find a more receptive market, and needing to keep demand high, manufacturers may instead discount phones or offer incentives to keep quarter to quarter sales up.

[PlainName]

Think the quote got mangled - extracted what I could.

Yes, it's because I'm a beginner Fixed now, thanks.

My general point is that, absent other economic actions, Apple can charge only what the market will bear for their products.

Kind of. I suspect there is some leeway, but everything has just changed. Punters have been primed to expect everything to get very expensive, so when they are just expensive (without the very) it's got to be a bargain. And things increase in price all the time, so it's just a matter of when and how you present it.

And don't ignore that the very same thing might be happening to everything else as well.

In other words, if the average consumer is willing to pay €499 for an iPhone (example, I'm not sure what they cost right now), they will be -less- willing to pay the new 10% higher €549.   They can increase the price, but they will sell fewer phones.

It's a balance, and maybe selling fewer for a higher price works out better. Got to be better than absorbing the 100+% tariff which means that in the US it would cost the normal selling price to shift them - each device would be a loss since the entire profit and manufacturing cost would go as tax, so that market would be dead. In that context, keeping some of it going must surely be preferred.

[MK14]

The following video, seems to explain how these tariffs, are perhaps a bad idea.  It explains why they could end up destroying the very businesses and jobs, that the tariffs, were supposedly trying to protect.

[Analog Kid]

Petter!

[zapta]

It's amusing to see international users here feeling so entitled and bitter. It's important to remember that the US is also a sovereign country and not the sugar daddy of the world.

[rteodor]

It's amusing to see international users here feeling so entitled and bitter. It's important to remember that the US is also a sovereign country and not the sugar daddy of the world.

The main export of USA is/was trust. Without that USA is like Russia, only worse by its position.

[tggzzz]

It's amusing to see international users here feeling so entitled and bitter. It's important to remember that the US is also a sovereign country and not the sugar daddy of the world.

Maintaining a country's dominance of world finance and trade costs money.

When the British Empire coloured 25% or the world red, the UK paid the costs of the largest armed services.

After the US finally entered WW2 the lend-lease programme sucked the UK dry, and the US assumed the mantle of the dominant power, and paid to maintain it.

Now the US has chosen to relinquish dominance and fade, we can expect China to assess step up. Their belt and road initiative shows their intentions.

[Sorama]

It's amusing to see international users here feeling so entitled and bitter. It's important to remember that the US is also a sovereign country and not the sugar daddy of the world.

It is indeed amusing to see how the US is making the life of Americans way more expensive and harsh.
The funny part is that the American people themselves chose for that.
Let’s talk again in six months.

[Monkeh]

It's amusing to see international users here feeling so entitled and bitter. It's important to remember that the US is also a sovereign country and not the sugar daddy of the world.

Whether you like it or not, the US doesn't exist in a vacuum and isn't the moral centre of the universe - but it does have undue influence over other nations. We can and do suffer the consequences of your decisions.

Try not being so bitter at your own mistakes. Industry wasn't taken from the US - you let it go. Now you blame others for making things you decided not to, and for not buying products they don't want from you.

[tggzzz]

It's amusing to see international users here feeling so entitled and bitter. It's important to remember that the US is also a sovereign country and not the sugar daddy of the world.

The main export of USA is/was trust. Without that USA is like Russia, only worse by its position.

Or China. Some Chinese are comparing President Chamberlain with Chairman Mao (qv). There are too many parallels for comfort.

[NE666]

It's amusing to see international users here feeling so entitled and bitter. It's important to remember that the US is also a sovereign country and not the sugar daddy of the world.

Personally, I feel neither entitled nor bitter.

However, I did feel more than mild distain for the US president today, on hearing him name Zelenskyy as being on his 'blame list' for the war in Ukraine, essentially because he didn't just roll over and capitulate when his country was invaded. Does "sovereign country" only have meaning when it is yours, and not that of the little guy who's pockets you're trying turn out whilst he's down for the count?

[tom66]

The US is under no specific obligation to continue to be world police.  They have signed treaties, but at the end of the day, those are gentleman's agreements... you cannot enforce international law except ultimately by force.

But Americans had better appreciate that holding such a role has come with immense security and economic benefits.  The ability to dictate trade policy, strike allegiances with countries that favour them, and project military power globally has propelled the US to being the richest nation on Earth.

I personally am not that keen about China taking up that role so if the US does step back, I hope that Europe decides to take the stage.  But we will see.

How long did the Roman empire take to fall?  I think it was something like 30-40 years once the cracks started to show.  Not overnight, but pretty rapid in political terms.

[bson]

What is, in principle, problematic about having a trade imbalance?  It is highly unlikely that any country will have truly balanced trade, so if some imbalance is acceptable, how much should a country aim for? 

It's a drag on the economy.  With a trade deficit around 3% of GDP this means 3% comes off economic growth.  The reason is deficit money used to buy imports never returns to produce demand for goods or services, or for investment in production of goods or services, so is effectively removed from the the economy - which creates a drag.  Basically, in the end, it's lopped off the economic growth.  So while the U.S. might register about a 4% annual economic growth, without the deficit this would be 7%.  This can lead to the problem that a country with a small economic growth gets pushed into depression from a trade deficit.  It's dangerous to be dependent on imports to this degree as it can lead to serious problems.

This has no correlation to the federal budget deficit - that's purely a fiscal problem. A trade deficit is a systematic economic problem.

Fortunately, right now is a good time to start getting ahead of the problem - growth is good, interest rates are high, and the dollar is at historic levels.  Tariffs, and their counter-tariffs, will cool the economy which can be met with lowered interest rates and a weakened dollar.  More money stays in our economy, and the reduced interest rates makes it more available to meet increased domestic demand spurred by the tariffs.

As for the federal deficit, the first step is IMO to return to statutory neutrality, meaning the United States doesn't take sides or partake in military alliances.  This eliminates the need to always be prepared for two simultaneous wars against a peer-level enemy, and hence the need for a permanent presence or the continued occupation of Europe and the ridiculous number of bases there and elsewhere.  By restructuring our military to meet the simple needs of defending our territory against attack from over the seas would probably let us cut 80% of our defense budget.  But this is more complicated and would require, among other things, pulling back our nuclear umbrella - which would lead to significant proliferation.  On the flip side, why should we risk a nuclear war in place of someone else?  That really makes no sense.

[tggzzz]

<snipped points I agree with>
How long did the Roman empire take to fall?  I think it was something like 30-40 years once the cracks started to show.  Not overnight, but pretty rapid in political terms.

How long did the British Empire take to fall? It took 15 years from Indian Independence in 1947 to Dean Acheson's famous observation in 1962, that ‘Great Britain had lost an Empire but not yet found a role’

What will the equivalent "Chinese Secretary of State" be saying about the USA in 15 years?