My limited understanding was that at the moment, other countries are selling steel in the US that is produced abroad for less than US companies are selling it for. So the tariff is supposed to increase prices to the level US companies are selling it in the US...or higher. So US companies wouldn't be able to really charge that much more than they already are, no?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
My limited understanding was that at the moment, other countries are selling steel in the US that is produced abroad for less than US companies are selling it for. So the tariff is supposed to increase prices to the level US companies are selling it in the US...or higher. So US companies wouldn't be able to really charge that much more than they already are, no?
ℬête Noire
Active Member
If they were pricing it higher than imported steel and still selling it at that price, whatever the reason they were able to convince buyers to pay the higher price is a reason they'd have room to increase the price further [for those those places in the market].
If they were pricing it higher but not selling it because people weren't buying it, then it was just a hypothetical price anyway. Now they'll sell it at the new, higher actual price.
EDIT:
The whole point of a tariff is to raise consumer's prices for everything. The price increase on imports is tax revenue, the price increase on domestically created product is either actual (creating extra income for domestic producers) or hypothetical increase because they weren't selling the product before because they couldn't sell anything at the price they needed to sell at to stay in business.
Theoretically domestic producers that had been selling lots could keep the same prices to get very aggressive on marketshare. But usually businesses that get tariff protection do because they were in financial trouble so don't normally have the reserves to do that sort of thing....and in the end the prices will rise anyway, because it's questionable business practice not to bump prices to meet demand if you can't readily produce enough to fill that demand.
Last edited:
Gotcha. Not that this is correct, but I thought it was more like (assuming it's priced at $1/pound not selling as well because imported costs less):
Pre-tariff (totally made-up numbers)
US steel: $1/pound
Imported steel: $0.90/pound
With 25% Tariff (also totally made-up numbers)
US steel: $1/pound
Imported steel: $1.13/pound
Last edited:
ℬête Noire
Active Member
Unless they can effortlessly ramp their production immediately to meet the entire demand of the market, reducing the imported steel's marketshare to nigh zero, they are the world's worst business people because:
1) they'll be leaving money on the table
2) lack a prioritization of who to sell to first
3) leaving their competition strong and ready to kick them in the junk, for when people get tired of spending more and put someone in charge to remove the tariff
4) probably didn't need the tariff in the first place, so WTF is it happening?
I doubt that OP's concerns will ever see the light of day. Why, you ask?
You will be hard pressed to find any reputable economist, free-trade advocate, or staunch Republican who backs this 'plan.' I'll let them tell you why it's an idea that is difficult to champion and why it's formal proposal (let alone implementation) just won't happen. Remember this was proposed by the same brilliant mind that gave us the proposal for the DACA 'bill of love' (then took a hard line on it and every associated issue), only to be followed by a public pledge for 'very strong background checks' until last night's 'good (great) meeting in the Oval Office' and the previous commitments to #MAGA and reviving the coal industry (why are we buying an electric car?!).
Rest easy!
You will be hard pressed to find any reputable economist, free-trade advocate, or staunch Republican who backs this 'plan.' I'll let them tell you why it's an idea that is difficult to champion and why it's formal proposal (let alone implementation) just won't happen. Remember this was proposed by the same brilliant mind that gave us the proposal for the DACA 'bill of love' (then took a hard line on it and every associated issue), only to be followed by a public pledge for 'very strong background checks' until last night's 'good (great) meeting in the Oval Office' and the previous commitments to #MAGA and reviving the coal industry (why are we buying an electric car?!).
Rest easy!
Brando
Active Member
Since Tesla bought more expensive US steel for GigaFactory, I suspect they already favor building long term relationships with local suppliers vs just going for the lowest bid. Concentrate on continuous improvement/quality vs maximizing short term profits with lowest cost bidder, seems to be Elon/Tesla method of operations.
I'm less worried about the impact of this tariff on the price of a Tesla than I am about it starting a trade war.
Tam
Well-Known Member
I guess you didn't read the tweet from the President:
"trade wars are good, and easy to win...don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!"
That sounds like we don't trade and we don't need to import Donald J. Trump Collection, ties, suits, dress shirts, eyeglasses and other accessories from outside of the US any more.
Brando
Active Member
Imperial Presidency - many fought for it - Nixon, Kissinger, McNamara(?) Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Obama (bail out the banks and f the mortgage holders).
Sadly, congress has not voted to get into any wars since WWII. All done by Presidents. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Lebanon (~250 Marines killed then Reagan brought them home), Balkans (Yugoslavia) Panama, Grenada (my poor histroy training I'm not sure about Cuba (yeah, that is how our Navy Base Gitmo got built) and the Philippines (and don't forget Hawaii).
Almost no Americans know any amount of History. (Stalin beat Hitler - not Churchill nor Ike)
suggest HBO Untold History of US - or the book. pretty good overview of last century.
Sadly, congress has not voted to get into any wars since WWII. All done by Presidents. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Lebanon (~250 Marines killed then Reagan brought them home), Balkans (Yugoslavia) Panama, Grenada (my poor histroy training I'm not sure about Cuba (yeah, that is how our Navy Base Gitmo got built) and the Philippines (and don't forget Hawaii).
Almost no Americans know any amount of History. (Stalin beat Hitler - not Churchill nor Ike)
suggest HBO Untold History of US - or the book. pretty good overview of last century.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
I doubt that OP's concerns will ever see the light of day. Why, you ask?
You will be hard pressed to find any reputable economist, free-trade advocate, or staunch Republican who backs this 'plan.' I'll let them tell you why it's an idea that is difficult to champion and why it's formal proposal (let alone implementation) just won't happen. Remember this was proposed by the same brilliant mind that gave us the proposal for the DACA 'bill of love' (then took a hard line on it and every associated issue), only to be followed by a public pledge for 'very strong background checks' until last night's 'good (great) meeting in the Oval Office' and the previous commitments to #MAGA and reviving the coal industry (why are we buying an electric car?!).
Rest easy!
Sure he's prone to firing stuff out of nowhere that he'll entirely flip on, and causally claim he never said, then say again and then who knows what.
But this tariffs stuff wasn't a Bad Idea on a whim. He's been talking this sort of stuff up for 2 years. He's been tossing official trade bombs for a year. The NAFTA negotiation stuff doesn't get as much press time in the US compared to in Canadian media but that's been churning for coming on a year, and it's getting ugly. Last month it was solar cells and panels tariffs, that predictably triggered retaliation on unrelated US products.
Only the naive are "resting easy".
Not a history major but might want to check more on this. Established as a naval base in 1903. Served as a detention camp since 2002. But off the topic of price of a model 3 if tariffs go through.
Tam
Well-Known Member
But Solar Tariffs didn't have such a big reaction from the general public, investors and world stock markets.
With this round, people are even talking about beers!
Brando
Active Member
OFF TOPIC
Spanish American War 1898
took both Cuba and Philippines from the Spanish
Batista in Cuba was our man (Mafia had casinos), then he got big headed (like Noriega in Panama) and the CIA backed Castro, but Castro double crossed CIA (but left lease deal for Gitmo in place). (many more details for readers of history)
ℬête Noire
Active Member
That's been no guarantee before, either. I guess we'll see. *shrug* Your examples are very different than this. Throwing due process and other *cough*finer points*cough* of the Constitution under the bus, that is definitely in his wheelhouse, but venting his authoritarian ire on firearm owners was very much a zag. Remember his egging on 2A hardliners to "do something about" Clinton.
As one does to keep abreast of the most pressing issues facing the nation's future!
We. Are. So. Boned.
Last edited:
Cheburashka
Active Member
No evidence to suggest it will affect sale price of cars. Stop spreading FUD, this is a Tesla forum not a politics discussion .
Tam
Well-Known Member
When people start to worry about their beers, I wouldn't call that FUD when looking at the stock market reaction:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
2002 United States steel tariff - Wikipedia
The Bush 2002 steel tariff was a political issue in the United States regarding a tariff that President George W. Bush placed on imported steel on March 5, 2002 (took effect March 20). The tariffs were lifted by Bush on December 4, 2003. Research shows that the tariffs adversely affected US GDP and employment.[1]
Damn now Tesla gonna have to price the Model 3 $35,037.
Speaking of Tarrff's and Solor, What happen to Real Goods Solar, Inc? March 2014 they were trading $56K. Now tdown to $1.10!
