I am not directly affected by this as an European but I am still concerned that Japanese companies and others affected by the tariffs might increase prices globally to compensate for the loss in revenue from the North American market and that the Japanese tariffs will then affect all of us.
It's hard to see how anyone can be a winner in the mess that we are in right now.
That's not correct. Before Musk's Trump-supporting episode, Tesla was very popular in Europe. Some European brands manufacture their SUV models in the US (BMW X-series) - even the ones that are sold in the European market (at least ten years ago it was, could be that now some of them are made in China). The issue with selling typical American cars in Europe is the high fuel consumption and large size which are not a good fit to European roads and streets (one F150 could take up four parking spaces) and fuel (and CO2) taxes can be high so a car with high fuel consumption wouldn't be economical to use in Europe. I imagine also in Japan the customers prefer smaller cars with better fuel economy.
None of this has to do with or can justify tariffs on cameras. There is no chance the camera industry would move to the US. The US - EU trade balance (including goods and services) actually favors the US (the EU buys more from the US than US buys from the EU). So the Trump administration's claims of trade deficit at least with regards to the EU are bogus.
The US tariffs are there to give a certain former reality TV star his desired daily exposure in the media and it's a way to tax lower and middle classes and fund tax cuts to billionaires. That's what it's all about: a heist. For now, US customers will just pay higher prices until they revolt in the elections and get new leadership.
wolfloid wrote:
No. Hardly any US made cars in the whole of Europe. Ford & GM (Opel/Vauxhall) have produced European styled cars for decades, all made in Europe.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
That's not correct. Before Musk's Trump-supporting episode, Tesla was very popular in Europe. Some European brands manufacture their SUV models in the US (BMW X-series) - even the ones that are sold in the European market (at least ten years ago it was, could be that now some of them are made in China). The issue with selling typical American cars in Europe is the high fuel consumption and large size which are not a good fit to European roads and streets (one F150 could take up four parking spaces) and fuel (and CO2) taxes can be high so a car with high fuel consumption wouldn't be economical to use in Europe. I imagine also in Japan the customers prefer smaller cars with better fuel economy.
None of this has to do with or can justify tariffs on cameras. There is no chance the camera industry would move to the US. The US - EU trade balance (including goods and services) actually favors the US (the EU buys more from the US than US buys from the EU). So the Trump administration's claims of trade deficit at least with regards to the EU are bogus.
The US tariffs are there to give a certain former reality TV star his desired daily exposure in the media and it's a way to tax lower and middle classes and fund tax cuts to billionaires. That's what it's all about: a heist. For now, US customers will just pay higher prices until they revolt in the elections and get new leadership.
Whether cameras are made or will ever again be made in the US is not the point of tariffs on cameras. This negotiation is not about individual product categories. It is about reoriganizing the World balance of trade system. From that view any point of pain that can be inflicted on the other side of the table is legitimate. It is a process to acheive a goal. It seems to be consistant with how Trump likes to do things. Similar to his "big beautiful bill". He lumped a huge agenda into a single bill in order to not have to get tied up in negotiation over many issues. It worked. Likely many individual things that were not done perfectly and will need to be sorted out in adjusting legislation. But I think in Trump's view he will be in the driver's seat on those issues. He cemented a position of power.
Like it or not, his methods appear to be working for him. I am not a Trump supporter for many reasons. But I find myself amazed by how consequential and effective he has been in prosecuting his agenda. Possibly more so than any President in my lifetime. He seems to have learned a lot from how tied up his agenda got in his first term. He is not tolerating that this time. His opposition seems to be lost in coming up with a way to thwart this unique approach.
The tariff negotiations will conclude sooner rather than later. They will result in a reordering of World Trade. My EU friends are very concerned that the result will not be favorable for Europe. I suspect that at least in the short term this may likely be true. From Trump's perspective that is a good thing. It certainly worked in regards to NATO funding. All other Presidents failed to get that done.
I say relax and watch the process. Few of us need new camera stuff immediately. Probably also true of most items except food and health care. Once the dust settles there will be opportunity for us to arbitrage the new rules so that we get what we want on reasonable terms. It has always been so and likely always will be. There is no right or wrong in this. It is just negotiation and business.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
That's not correct. Before Musk's Trump-supporting episode, Tesla was very popular in Europe. Some European brands manufacture their SUV models in the US (BMW X-series) - even the ones that are sold in the European market (at least ten years ago it was, could be that now some of them are made in China). The issue with selling typical American cars in Europe is the high fuel consumption and large size which are not a good fit to European roads and streets (one F150 could take up four parking spaces) and fuel (and CO2) taxes can be high so a car with high fuel consumption wouldn't be economical to use in Europe. I imagine also in Japan the customers prefer smaller cars with better fuel economy.
None of this has to do with or can justify tariffs on cameras. There is no chance the camera industry would move to the US. The US - EU trade balance (including goods and services) actually favors the US (the EU buys more from the US than US buys from the EU). So the Trump administration's claims of trade deficit at least with regards to the EU are bogus.
The US tariffs are there to give a certain former reality TV star his desired daily exposure in the media and it's a way to tax lower and middle classes and fund tax cuts to billionaires. That's what it's all about: a heist. For now, US customers will just pay higher prices until they revolt in the elections and get new leadership.
I think that we can agree that the camera manufacturers are not a focus of any negotiator and unlikely to ever move to the United States. Tariff uncertainty hurts everyone and the August 1st extension seems to be an attempt to pressure countries into a quick resolution. Unfortunately for Japan, they can’t afford to have an automobile tariff anywhere close to 25% and negotiators are shocked given the high numbers of U.S. produced Toyotas and Hondas. Perhaps, behind closed doors the U.S. is pushing for a higher percentage of U.S. content in these cars. All we see are the public proclamations.. I suspect that a year from now we will see some price increases, but not what we now fear.
I’m retired and certainly not rich, but my federal tax savings with the latest bill, will greatly exceed any additional costs that result from these tariffs. So, it isn’t as simple as give money to billionaires and burden everyone else.
bwcolor wrote:
I’m retired and certainly not rich, but my federal tax savings with the latest bill, will greatly exceed any additional costs that result from these tariffs. So, it isn’t as simple as give money to billionaires and burden everyone else.
I applaud your more holistic view to the current processes.
bwcolor wrote:
Interesting.. so it is a resistance to buying foreign made cars. South Korea is much the same with few foreign made cars, but a higher percentage than I saw in Japan. Also, some Chevrolet models are made in South Korea. That being the case, other issues must dominate these decisions, such as the tariffs on rice over 770,000 metric tons, also Trump previously raised import quotas on Japanese cars to 25% and steel at 50%. Regardless, I doubt that we have seen the final numbers since negotiations are still ongoing
Agreed.. Japan has for decades been manufacturing in the United States and it would be a shock to economy should Japan withdraw from the US Treasury Bond market. Ryosei Akazawa, Japan’s chief tariff negotiator, is tough and well respected, so we will see how this ends....Show more →
I went to Seoul 15 years ago for a week. Other than BMW and Mercedes I didn't see any other foreign cars.
5-8 years ago, most of the Japanese were still using Sony.
The Gen Z changed the ecosystem these years.
Most of the Korean and Japanese are loyal to their own brands.
When I go to the US, especially in certain regions, I disproportionately see US brand vehicles. Therefore it would appear most in the US are loyal to their own brands. (This ignores the fact that many import brands manufacture vehicles in the US.)
So what's the difference then? Yet the Japanese, Koreans, Germans, etc. should be punished for being loyal to their domestic brands?
The difference I see in the US is that in more cosmopolitan areas, with a higher percentage of high incomes and higher education levels, the diversity of vehicle types/brands increases. And like people with money everywhere in the world, they like to show it off with luxury brands. What US car brands are considered luxury? Cadillac? Lincoln? Definitely not the same category as the foreign luxury vehicle brands.
Those at the lower income range look for bang for the buck and brand loyalty is not a high priority. This is what gave many of the imports a foot in the door decades ago and exploited it to the detriment of the uncompetitive domestic brands. That would seem to be a real example of capitalism in action.
bwcolor wrote:
I’m retired and certainly not rich, but my federal tax savings with the latest bill, will greatly exceed any additional costs that result from these tariffs. So, it isn’t as simple as give money to billionaires and burden everyone else.
1bwana1 wrote:
I applaud your more holistic view to the current processes.
Sure, because the recent legislation specifically carved out additional tax relief for those who are lower income and 65+, I'm guessing pretty much as a vote-buying measure (this tax relief expires in 2028 unless extended). That's not to say low income seniors shouldn't get some relief due to fixed incomes in a period of higher inflation...
It's also easy to take a holistic view when in a high income bracket, which the tax cuts are disproportionately skewed to benefit, I guess as a reward for the hard work achieving such success.
Those in lower incomes will likely see their token tax savings wiped out by cost increases in other areas. I get the feeling the message for the majority at the lower end is: work harder than ever before and try to dig yourself out of your unfortunate position in society, because it really is on you with fewer safety net resources. I mean, fundamentally, that isn't a bad thing. It's just that not everyone will be successful. So perhaps it's an admission that poverty is a necessary evil in a meritocracy.
rscheffler wrote:
When I go to the US, especially in certain regions, I disproportionately see US brand vehicles. Therefore it would appear most in the US are loyal to their own brands. (This ignores the fact that many import brands manufacture vehicles in the US.)
So what's the difference then? Yet the Japanese, Koreans, Germans, etc. should be punished for being loyal to their domestic brands?
The difference I see in the US is that in more cosmopolitan areas, with a higher percentage of high incomes and higher education levels, the diversity of vehicle types/brands increases. And like people with money everywhere in the world, they like to show it off with luxury brands. What US car brands are considered luxury? Cadillac? Lincoln? Definitely not the same category as the foreign luxury vehicle brands.
Those at the lower income range look for bang for the buck and brand loyalty is not a high priority. This is what gave many of the imports a foot in the door decades ago and exploited it to the detriment of the uncompetitive domestic brands. That would seem to be a real example of capitalism in action.
Sure, because the recent legislation specifically carved out additional tax relief for those who are lower income and 65+, I'm guessing pretty much as a vote-buying measure (this tax relief expires in 2028 unless extended). That's not to say low income seniors shouldn't get some relief due to fixed incomes in a period of higher inflation...
It's also easy to take a holistic view when in a high income bracket, which the tax cuts are disproportionately skewed to benefit, I guess as a reward for the hard work achieving such success.
Those in lower incomes will likely see their token tax savings wiped out by cost increases in other areas. I get the feeling the message for the majority at the lower end is: work harder than ever before and try to dig yourself out of your unfortunate position in society, because it really is on you with fewer safety net resources. I mean, fundamentally, that isn't a bad thing. It's just that not everyone will be successful. So perhaps it's an admission that poverty is a necessary evil in a meritocracy.
It seems likely that with the recent changes of the last six months that upward wage pressures and increased availability of jobs for the very people you consider most adversely affected will make for a most positive result. Should I be wrong, the midterm elections will be a complete disaster for Republicans. This is increasing possible with Musk’s new party and lots of money tossed into the mid-cycle elections which are typically less costly. Musk can strongly push his observation that the present administration is just another group of politicians that spend far too much money. An observation that is difficult to dispute.
Your last sentence is quite insightful. As a not so subtle addition. Poverty in the United States, is unlike poverty in under-developed countries.
rscheffler wrote:
It's also easy to take a holistic view when in a high income bracket, which the tax cuts are disproportionately skewed to benefit, I guess as a reward for the hard work achieving such success.
Especially when it's not your medicaid or veteran's benefits being further cut.
The US is the only developed country without universal healthcare. So one has the privilege of going bankrupt from medical costs. But of course we have the free market of GoFundMes to solve this pesky matter.
rscheffler wrote:
It's also easy to take a holistic view when in a high income bracket, which the tax cuts are disproportionately skewed to benefit, I guess as a reward for the hard work achieving such success.
One should be careful that they understand what is being said when they say the tax cuts disproportionately favor the rich. The high income people pay a higher percent of their income in taxes. This hasn't changed. But in total they by far pay the majority of taxes in the U.S.. So if everyone gets a 10% reduction in taxes, the high income people save more actual dollars, but still pay a higher percent. 10% of $1,000 is $100, 10% of 1,000,000 is $100,000. It is a twisted and biased look at the numbers to say it disproportionately favors the high income. Be aware that in the "Big Bill" high income earners get no relief on Social Security taxes. The get no relief on SALT taxes. The only relief they get is the exact same reduction in marginal rates that everyone else gets. It just adds up to more net dollars because they pay more net dollars.
The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of Federal Taxes. So any tax rate reduction can be said to disproportionately favor them. Once again different truths depending on your point of view.
weatherproof wrote:
Especially when it's not your medicaid or veteran's benefits being further cut.
The US is the only developed country without universal healthcare. So one has the privilege of going bankrupt from medical costs. But of course we have the free market of GoFundMes to solve this pesky matter.
weatherproof wrote:
The US is the only developed country without universal healthcare. So one has the privilege of going bankrupt from medical costs. But of course we have the free market of GoFundMes to solve this pesky matter.
I currently have Healthcare in both Italy and the U.S.. I am able to get pretty much identical coverage and service in both places. In both instances I have coverage with base insurance which is enhanced with additional coverage packages so that I end up with full coverage, close to zero deductibles, zero co-pays, choice of providers, and instant access to care on demand. No waiting for Government approval with private upscale hospitals, and concierge Doctors. In the U.S. it is primarily paid for with premiums. In Italy it is covered primarily by taxes, with a premium based private enhancement. Basically equal out come for me. But my free National healthcare in Italy costs me way more than my private healthcare in the U.S.. Way, Way more...
Free National Healthcare is also a different form of truth...
weatherproof wrote:
Especially when it's not your medicaid or veteran's benefits being further cut.
The US is the only developed country without universal healthcare. So one has the privilege of going bankrupt from medical costs. But of course we have the free market of GoFundMes to solve this pesky matter.
The recent bill requires able bodied Medicaid recipients with no dependents to work 20 hours per week, or volunteer 20 hours per week at a non-profit. So, what you say is true, everyone benefits as long as jobs/volunteer positions are available. Currently, wages are going up and the job market remains strong. Unfortunately, societal pressure pushes everyone to go to the University, but we need more trade schools and training to make sure that workers have skills that will keep them in the job market.. Perhaps this is needed even more now that AI promises to replace workers.
I don’t know the specifics regarding veterans. Perhaps you could provide the specifics.
RoamingScott wrote:
So the US has socialized medicine after all
The way it was before was really socialized medicine. The folks with insurance paid for all those that didn't have it. A redistribution of wealth. Those that weren't insured would go to emergency departments to get treatment. And they would have to be treated. Driving up the costs that cause insurance rates to increase to cover those costs that those with insurance wind up paying.
1bwana1 wrote:
But my free National healthcare in Italy costs me way more than my private healthcare in the U.S.. Way, Way more...
Free National Healthcare is also a different form of truth...
I understand healthcare programs abroad aren't free, but medical costs can be astronomical for the uninsured, or if your insurance doesn't happen to cover a procedure. It's also a byzantine process to find out if something is covered.
I don't think Trump's agenda with tariffs is explicitly to shift the tax burden onto lower socioeconomic classes, though that's a side benefit. I suspect he mostly likes tariffs because he essentially has unilateral control over them, which make them a great vehicle for punishing his and his base's "enemies" as well as creating opportunities for his own personal gain. The rest of us are just pawns in his game.
itai195 wrote:
I don't think Trump's agenda with tariffs is explicitly to shift the tax burden onto lower socioeconomic classes, though that's a side benefit. I suspect he mostly likes tariffs because he essentially has unilateral control over them, which make them a great vehicle for punishing his and his base's "enemies" as well as creating opportunities for his own personal gain. The rest of us are just pawns in his game.
Yep…and the really sad part is many sheeple just lap up his dribble.
