• 1 Post
  • 23 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 16th, 2024

help-circle
  • Go Grey Socks!

    Seriously though, this probably won’t affect billionaires because companies like Nike can move most of their operations overseas and avoid paying tariffs during their manufacturing process, and then just pass the cost of to US consumers when they sell to that market.

    Even worse, when Trump put tariffs on washing machines (which Biden kept in place) one effect was that US made washing machines (not paying tariffs) jacked up their prices for US consumers simply because there was less competition.

    It truly is a sucky world for non-billinaires.



  • In case anyones looking at this and asking question like “Why has Cambodia been dunked with 49% when they’re clearly not a competitor to the US” or “Why is Trump claiming that the European Union has a 40% tariff on the US when the actual mean tariff on US goods into the EU is less than 5%”, here’s your answer to how these figures have been calculated.

    • Take the US trade deficit with a given country (eg. China is $292bn)
    • Take the total good imported by US (for China that’s $439bn)
    • Divide the first figure by the second! Why? Who knows! It’s a number! Less talk more first grade arithmetic (if you’re still following that gives us 67%)
    • That gives us a random number which we’ll pretend is that country’s tariff of US goods even though it’s completely unrelated in every way. We’ll divide it by two to get the new tariff rate for imports from that country. Why? Honestly if you’re still expecting there to be an answer to that question I’m wondering if you’ve been following. (that gives us 34%, well actually it gives us 33.5% but I’m not sure the Trump administration understands the idea of fractions so we’ll just round it up from there)

    The “reason” behind this is that Trump seems to think trade deficits are really bad, which is bad news for the US because it’s had a trade deficit for the last 50 years. We’ll ignore the fact that based on GDP it’s been the wealthiest country in the world for that time though.

    Anyway, just to give everyone an idea of how completely, utterly unrelated to anything meaningful that figure is, let’s take Cambodia. The country is very poor compared to the US so can’t afford to buy anything that the US manufacters (Cambodians aren’t driving round in Teslas or IMessaging each other). Some US companies use it for clothing manufacture because labour is cheap in Cambodia (see the previous bit about Cambodia being much poorer than the US). This means that Cambodia imports close to nothing from the US compared to what it exports, giving it a close to 100% trade deficit, so we wind up with a 49% tariff on Cambodia.

    I genuinely don’t understand the mindset that looks at the US’s explotation of cheap labour in Cambodia and interprets the US as the victim in that relationship, but hey-ho maybe I’m just not biggly-smart enough to understand the 4d chess moves at play here. . .

    Reference (because unfortunately none of what I said was made up and that geniunely is the calculation): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/03/trumps-idiotic-and-flawed-tariff-calculations-stun-economists

    Edit: After making fun of Trump for not understanding the enconomy, I went and conflated per capita GDP with GDP. Doh! Now corrected.






  • Key thing to bear in mind is that we think of “chicken” as a single animal, but industrial farming has selectively bred chickens into very different camps.

    Meat chickens grow very big very quickly, and are killed for meat long before adulthood. You’d need to pause production a long enough time for them to grow into adulthood, then they would eventually lay eggs, but at a much slower rate than egg chickens, and requiring a lot more food (because of how big they are)