Trump approves tariffs on Chinese goods including $1 billion in bike products

[oldpotatoe]

Rnhood writes

And I seriously doubt our administration is going to allow it to get out of hand. Doesn't look like Wall Street is too concerned either.

As has been mentioned, this about ego, ‘winning’ and the midterms. I’d say tariffs on nearly 1/2 of all goods imported from one country(with another $267Billion to come?), plus tariffs on all of our other major trading partners, its already out out hand. Tariffs are supposed to be somewhat surgical, not a hammer wielded by one guy...ego?

And Wall Street isn’t Main Street. I doubt that soy, pig, almond, etc farmer has a bunch of $ in the stock market. No 401k either.

Just in, so much for negotiation.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/4...-trump-tariffs

[Spaghetti Legs]

I scanned the last few pages and didn’t see this. Apologies if duplicate post.

Trek will likely have to bump prices.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/money...rs/1381287002/

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by Grant McLean

I'm mystified what point you're trying to parse.

You implied that it was their whole production that was affected. It's only straight gage spokes. Read what you initially wrote.

You also said they couldn't find a US supplier. That's wrong because they are currently looking, according to the article.

[Big Dan]

Originally Posted by MikeD

You implied that it was their whole production that was affected. It's only straight gage spokes. Read what you initially wrote.

You also said they couldn't find a US supplier. That's wrong because they are currently looking, according to the article.

So?
are prices going up?
Who's paying for that?

[OtayBW]

Originally Posted by rnhood

Success depends on how its defined. Tariffs are often implemented to prop up and/or protect local industry, and thus this being the objective, then the measuring stick will be the performance and health of the specific industry. In other words, we need to know the objective, and success will be defined on how well the objective was met.

Unfortunately, 'better performance' of e.g., the steel industry as a meaure of success following the implementation of tariffs does not account for collateral damage to other, related industries, particularly when retaliatory tariffs are imposed. The consequences are much more far-reaching as we continue to see...

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by Big Dan

So?

are prices going up?

Who's paying for that?

What's more important, you having a good paying job (or any job) or paying a little more for stuff, because that's where this is headed with respect to China, if we allow them to continue their unfair trade practices unfettered.

[flydhest]

Originally Posted by MikeD

What's more important, you having a good paying job (or any job) or paying a little more for stuff, because that's where this is headed with respect to China, if we allow them to continue their unfair trade practices unfettered.

Mike,
The unemployment rate fell from 9.8 percent to the current 3.8 percent with millions of jobs created. I don’t see you think this is about there being any jobs or not. The Chinese trade practices fall into several categories. The “forced” transfer of IP is just a contract issue. If you have to give up IP to do business there, that is a cost-benefit question. The outright theft of IP is different, is clearly a problem, and results in less profit for US firms. The industrial policy accelerated the supplanting of US heavy (and dirty) industry, bu that sort of evolution was going to happen. It hurt here because it happened quickly and when the job market was soft.

One would be naive to think there weren’t problems to be resolved, but surely you don’t believe that somehow there won’t be any jobs left in the US because of Chinese trade practices.

[Big Dan]

Originally Posted by MikeD

What's more important, you having a good paying job (or any job) or paying a little more for stuff, because that's where this is headed with respect to China, if we allow them to continue their unfair trade practices unfettered.

You didn't answer my question.

[Grant McLean]

Originally Posted by MikeD

What's more important, you having a good paying job (or any job) or paying a little more for stuff, because that's where this is headed with respect to China, if we allow them to continue their unfair trade practices unfettered.

I think it depends whose job you're talking about.

My point with the spoke example is that implementing tariffs is picking winners
and losers, with a blunt instrument with many unintended consequnces that
affects jobs just as much as unfair trade practices.

I agree with you fair is fair, and paying more may be a good thing to consider,
but the bicycle supply chain is being caught up in an unfair way, with what I
believe is hurting some American bicycle companies, benefiting others, and
not addressing in any meaningful way the unfair trade practices.

Take WTB for example. California based, they have a domestic business in
the USA, supplying both OEM bike brands, and selling their parts to retail
stores through USA distributors. Their tires and rims are all made in China.

The effect of this tariff is potentially devastating. Bicycle brands that have spec'd their
products will switch to a competing brand that makes tires and rims somewhere else.
So Kenda, Schwalbe, Alex will likely get sales and WTB could lose a lot market share,
and have an effect on the American company. Is this a good trade policy?

WTB will be forced to relocate tire molds to other countries to retain their
business with the bike brands, the tire business isn't coming to the US, so all
this downside with no benefit to the American economy.

Patrick from WTB recently wrote:
"if we don’t move, we will lose market share to competitors, many of them non-U. S. companies who make
tires in Taiwan, Indonesia and other countries other than China. So then we have the U.S. Trade
Representative picking winners, and they are picking foreign companies, not U.S. companies.
If this happens, we will lose customers, lose margin and not make a profit. If we lose money,
we have less to invest in the company and less money to employ more people here."

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...s#.W6aAVNhKhE4

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/inte...d#.W6aAKthKhE4

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by Grant McLean

I think it depends whose job you're talking about.

My point with the spoke example is that implementing tariffs is picking winners
and losers, with a blunt instrument with many unintended consequnces that
affects jobs just as much as unfair trade practices.

I agree with you fair is fair, and paying more may be a good thing to consider,
but the bicycle supply chain is being caught up in an unfair way, with what I
believe is hurting some American bicycle companies, benefiting others, and
not addressing in any meaningful way the unfair trade practices.

Take WTB for example. California based, they have a domestic business in
the USA, supplying both OEM bike brands, and selling their parts to retail
stores through USA distributors. Their tires and rims are all made in China.

The effect of this tariff is potentially devastating. Bicycle brands that have spec'd their
products will switch to a competing brand that makes tires and rims somewhere else.
So Kenda, Schwalbe, Alex will likely get sales and WTB could lose a lot market share,
and have an effect on the American company. Is this a good trade policy?

WTB will be forced to relocate tire molds to other countries to retain their
business with the bike brands, the tire business isn't coming to the US, so all
this downside with no benefit to the American economy.

Patrick from WTB recently wrote:
"if we don’t move, we will lose market share to competitors, many of them non-U. S. companies who make
tires in Taiwan, Indonesia and other countries other than China. So then we have the U.S. Trade
Representative picking winners, and they are picking foreign companies, not U.S. companies.
If this happens, we will lose customers, lose margin and not make a profit. If we lose money,
we have less to invest in the company and less money to employ more people here."

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...s#.W6aAVNhKhE4

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/inte...d#.W6aAKthKhE4

I agree this sucks. Wonder why they aren't going for an exemption?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by MikeD

I agree this sucks. Wonder why they aren't going for an exemption?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

They may have applied for an exemption. They may have been denied. They may have missed some filing deadlines as these were very quick and if you are not a large company with a team of lawyers or lobbyists looking for this stuff, you may have missed it. Now that the item is on the list, the process of appealing and trying to get it removed will not have rendered a decision. In addition, the queue for exemptions may already being overwhelming the ability of USTR staff to process the applications. You are now pushing on a string which disappears into a blackhole.

There is a mismatch of process here. The enacting of the tariffs being driven by Trump is very fast with arbitary deadlines and may or may not be haphazard. The application for an exemption will be driven by a well defined process with no defined deadline for ruling which is a hard decision to reverse current US policy.

[pbarry]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

They may have applied for an exemption. They may have been denied. They may have missed some filing deadlines as these were very quick and if you are not a large company with a team of lawyers or lobbyists looking for this stuff, you may have missed it. Now that the item is on the list, the process of appealing and trying to get it removed will not have rendered a decision. In addition, the queue for exemptions may already being overwhelming the ability of USTR staff to process the applications. You are now pushing on a string which disappears into a blackhole.

There is a mismatch of process here. The enacting of the tariffs being driven by Trump is very fast with arbitary deadlines and may or may not be haphazard. The application for an exemption will be driven by a well defined process with no defined deadline for ruling which is a hard decision to reverse current US policy.

Alcoa is still waiting for an exemption from the 10% tariff on Canadian Al , after applying for one on August 6. The co estimates it's costing them $14 million a month. Slab Al is not as sexy as the iPhone, but why does one get an exemption and not the other?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1KR277

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by pbarry

Alcoa is still waiting for an exemption from the 10% tariff on Canadian Al , after applying for one on August 6. The co estimates it's costing them $14 million a month. Slab Al is not as sexy as the iPhone, but why does one get an exemption and not the other?



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1KR277

A lot of aluminum plants were shuttered because of high power costs and aluminum production uses a lot of power. Canada has access to cheap hydro power. The 10% tariff apparently isn't high enough for Alcoa to make it economically feasible to reopen mothballed plants. The Trump administration wants more production of steel and aluminum in the US. Maybe a NAFTA deal with Canada will cause the tariffs to be dropped.

[OtayBW]

On the news this morning: proposed 25% tariff on Japanese auto imports forthcoming. That should be very interesting....

[rnhood]

Japan will buckle as they can't afford the hit on their export market. I believe they have already offered to reduce the 39% tariff they currently have on agricultural products. It'll get worked out.