Will the (new) import tariff have any pricing impact on your 2019 purchase?

[Chipster]

I was wondering if this new import tariff will have an effect on the MSRP pricing on the 2019 Edges? Given that this vehicle is built in Canada I figured its price might be affected, but I also wondered if that added expense would be ID’ed as such by dealers?

[enigma-2]

Absolutely. NBC news reported today about the costs of new cars do to the tariff. Prices ran around $2000 more for domestic to $6000 for imports.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-s-auto-tariffs-will-cost-83-billion-insiders-tell-n893061

[MaX83_ZA]

At least it seems you have now neutralized the US security threat posed by Canada through these tariffs....

[IWRBB]

Make all the smarmie remarks you'd like. We are done being screwed by everyone and being the world's piggybank.

 

The EU didn't put up much of a fight at all, despite a bunch of rhetoric thrown about for the last few months.

 

The USA is the 800 lb gorilla in the economic room. Canada is a fly on our ass.

[enigma-2]

Uh huh. Well after all the flag-waving and rethoric, we are still left with cold, hard facts. "The National Automobile Dealers Association said auto tariffs could raise the average price of a car by $4,400 and eliminate more than 700,000 jobs."

[TheWizard]

Don't try to confuse him with facts.

[dolsen]

I dont have a dog in the fight, Im just waiting to see how all these tariffs play out and affect the real world.

 

With that said, a statement by NADA, is not fact either. It is their prediction. Im not disputing the likelihood of their prediction coming true either... but again, you cant claim that prediction (opinion) as fact.

[TheWizard]

Sure, the predictions are not absolute fact and the numbers may be off by perhaps a significant amount. But it is a fact that the tariffs will result in additional costs and layoffs for Americans even if the exact number isn't yet known. It's a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. And it's being done dishonestly by sidestepping legislative oversight and claiming that imports of products from allies like Canada are a national security issue... really?? Canada is a national security threat?

 

Sure, the tariffs have produced 150 new jobs in aluminum (whoopie!). That's really small potatoes... think about the fact that Ford expects to take a $500M hit this year and the other domestic manufacturers expect similar costs due to tariffs. And they employ some 870,000 workers who could be looking at job cuts. There are already cuts being made at newspapers across the country (already 50 jobs cut at the Tampa Bay Times alone) because of tariffs on Canadian newsprint paper. And the same party that objected so strenuously to bailouts during the Great Recession is now bailing out farmers to the tune of $12B to offset unnecessary tariffs?

 

This tariff thing is about as stupid as promoting jobs in coal over jobs in renewable energy (oh yeah... they did that too). There are about 66,000 total jobs in coal mining in the entire country - less than a third of the jobs in solar energy and a fraction of the total jobs created overall in just a single month.

[akirby]

I think these will be temporary (at least for Canada) and we'll see some negotiation soon. I think it's all part of making a bigger point about our allies paying their fair share (which probably doesn't apply as much to Canada).

 

But even so - why can't newspapers get their newsprint from US sources? There can't be a huge price difference. Nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to buy imported product. I'm sure that Canada isn't the only source. That's the whole point here - produce these things in the US which will create long term jobs.

[TheWizard]

There are only five newsprint mills in the US and they are not able to produce sufficient quantities to supply the entire country. One of them, Northern Pacific Paper Co. in Washington state (which employs all of 250 people), complained about Canadian newsprint being cheaper and tariffs were imposed. The Canadian paper is cheaper because they use hydro-electric power and have leases to cut trees on government land (they have to replant of course). The cheaper Canadian paper is not directly hurting this company but I suppose it may be limiting their growth due to the competition. Even the trade group which represents the paper mills is opposed to the tariffs and a bill has been introduced in Congress to rescind them. The issue is that the tariffs negatively impact newspapers and publishers which in turn affects advertisers and small business that would put flyers in the papers, along with ink suppliers, equipment manufacturers, and parts and service companies. The point being that the ripple effects of any tariff are almost always much greater than the initial impact - especially when we're talking about something as small as a single 250-employee company's complaint... politics at its worst.

Edited July 27, 2018 by TheWizard

[akirby]

So if the tariffs are permanent or at least long term wouldn't the US suppliers be able to expand to meet the demand? Maybe delay the tariffs for a year to allow them to do that?

 

This is the problem that got us into this mess to start with. Another government subsidizes a business which allows that business to undercut US prices which causes the US mfrs to either lose jobs or not be able to expand. The end result is a loss of US jobs. Take away the government subsidy and it would be a much more fair playing field. That's the idea and I think it has a lot of merit. There might be short term impacts but those can be mitigated. I think the point is to start having those discussions instead of just sitting back and letting it keep happening.

 

Besides, I didn't think people still bought newspapers.

[TheWizard]

You would have a point if the product was actually being subsidized but relatively inexpensive hydro-electric power is simply making good use of resources and leasing government land is certainly something that could be done here as well. Not exactly hand-outs by a foreign government to artificially support an industry. Not to mention the huge subsidies that the US provides for corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, milk... shall I go on? A bit of a myopic view of world trade, wouldn't you say? Maybe we should practice what we preach before pointing fingers.

 

The same applies to steel and aluminum. Even our own Department Of Commerce reported that Canada is a partner and not one of the "bad actors" which dump subsidized products on the US.

[akirby]

If the US is subsidizing farmers who are then exporting that to other countries and undercutting the local prices then it's exactly the same and I wouldn't blame those other countries for imposing tariffs in that situation. It's fair both ways.

 

I thought you said the government is essentially giving them the trees as long as they plant new ones (which they would do anyway). That sure sounds like a subsidy making it far cheaper which to me counts as a subsidy. Can you do that in the US - lease land and take the trees for free?

 

I'm just saying the playing field should be level and the foreign government should not be providing subsidies that make the imported goods cheaper.

[TheWizard]

The US exported $4.14B of heavily subsidized soybeans to Asia (mostly China) in just May this year. In FY 2017 (ended in October), the US exported over $9B in subsidized corn and $5.6B in subsidized wheat. Not exactly fair trade.

 

Yes, they take the trees without paying for them individually... exactly like a mill that harvests their own land except that leasing land is cheaper than buying it. That's not a subsidy, that's just smart business. They don't get any special tax breaks or other incentives that would normally be considered subsidies. So if the US government wants to level the playing field then they should lease some land to the mills and let them compete, not artificially prop them up by penalizing their competition (and their consumers as well) with tariffs.

 

Tariffs are a tool for punishing unfair practices by countries like China who dump products here at subsidized (and sometimes below cost) prices or steal intellectual property. They should not be a protectionist tactic against allies like Canada and the EU who happen to do something more efficiently.

[akirby]

I agree that they shouldn't be used to protect inefficient businesses.

 

However - are you saying that the paper companies can lease land with the right to harvest trees on the private market for the same cost as what they're getting from the government? I don't know for sure but I doubt that. And that's where the subsidy comes in. If it costs $10K/acre for US companies but the Canadian govt is giving it to their paper companies for $5K/acre then that qualifies as a government subsidy to me.

 

Now if it is the same price then you're right and it's not a subsidy at all. But I don't think having our government subsidize a US business just so it can compete with a Canadian business subsidized by the Canadian government is the right model. Let's just get rid of the subsidies altogether and there probably wouldn't be a need for a tariff.

[Chipster]

There are only five newsprint mills in the US and they are not able to produce sufficient quantities to supply the entire country. One of them, Northern Pacific Paper Co. in Washington state (which employs all of 250 people), complained about Canadian newsprint being cheaper and tariffs were imposed. The Canadian paper is cheaper because they use hydro-electric power and have leases to cut trees on government land (they have to replant of course). The cheaper Canadian paper is not directly hurting this company but I suppose it may be limiting their growth due to the competition. Even the trade group which represents the paper mills is opposed to the tariffs and a bill has been introduced in Congress to rescind them. The issue is that the tariffs negatively impact newspapers and publishers which in turn affects advertisers and small business that would put flyers in the papers, along with ink suppliers, equipment manufacturers, and parts and service companies. The point being that the ripple effects of any tariff are almost always much greater than the initial impact - especially when we're talking about something as small as a single 250-employee company's complaint... politics at its worst.

 

Interesting that you bring up newsprint. Our local paper newsprint plant as be down for a while and low and behold the plant has been contracted for, and will be taken over by Cascades in two years. You got to be quick to make a buck with Bozo in the White House before he and his the whole adm. gets run out of town.http://www.nbc12.com/story/38741122/company-to-invest-275-million-create-140-jobs-in-hanover-paper-mill

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Chipster

[enigma-2]

I think these will be temporary (at least for Canada) and we'll see some negotiation soon. I think it's all part of making a bigger point about our allies paying their fair share (which probably doesn't apply as much to Canada).

 

But even so - why can't newspapers get their newsprint from US sources? There can't be a huge price difference. Nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to buy imported product. I'm sure that Canada isn't the only source. That's the whole point here - produce these things in the US which will create long term jobs.

It's not looking good for this. Look at Harley Davidson moving production to Europe, over the tarrifs. Moves like this will be permanent.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/25/news/companies/harley-davidson-motorcycles-tariffs-trump/index.html

Edited July 28, 2018 by enigma-2

[akirby]

So if American companies are moving production overseas to avoid the tariffs doesn’t it stand to reason that other companies would be moving production here for the same reason? You guys are acting like this only works one way.

[Waldo]

But if everyone is moving production around just because of tariffs, then the end result will be a less efficient system and higher costs for everybody. Higher costs result in lower demand, which results in lower production, which results in layoffs.

[enigma-2]

So if American companies are moving production overseas to avoid the tariffs doesnt it stand to reason that other companies would be moving production here for the same reason? You guys are acting like this only works one way.

The reason companies are NOT moving to the US, is because a large percentage of OEM parts are made overseas. For example, an American domestic car relies on approximately 40% of parts made outide the US. For a company to relocate here, they would still have to import parts.

[Chipster]

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/07/29/bmw-raises-price-x5-x6-china-tariffs-trade-war/

[IWRBB]

All the doubters just need to look at what happened with the EU. They blinked. Everyone else will too. They have no choice. Trump ain't just fucking around and doing one big long world apology tour like Barry did.

 

Trump will negotiate substantially better trade deals for our country than any previous president.

[TheWizard]

I know this will stir up some angry responses but I'm going to ask it anyway... how can anyone be a Trump supporter? I can understand being Republican and having a conservative point of view. I can certainly understand why people would have voted for him - there really wasn't a good choice in the 2016 presidential race. But I really can't understand why people would still support a man who is a proven liar, bigot, bully, misogynist, narcissist, who doesn't even listen to his own people, and who doesn't appear to really understand the purpose of government or how it works. As was said in the movie The American President... " being President of this country is entirely about character". I have supported presidents from both sides of the aisle and even when I have disagreed with them at times, I have never until now doubted a president's character.

 

This is a serious question not simply some sort of rant... I really want to know why people would continue to support this president. Please tell me it's not simply "anybody but a Democrat" because that's just more tribal politics without regard to the real issues.

[akirby]

I'll take someone without character who isn't paralyzed by politics and who isn't beholden to either political party and who understands business and jobs over the mess we've had the last 20 years. I don't agree with everything and I don't like him personally but at the very least he's a wake up call to the GOP establishment that the people aren't going to put up with their crap candidates any more. At least he's trying to keep jobs in the US and stimulate our economy - whether you agree with his actions or not. And we need somebody to stand up to other countries and not get bullied. As for Russia - I haven't seen anything that he's done or purported to have done that would harm the US. I don't care what he says in a press conference - what is he doing with Russia is all I care about. All I see is a bunch of liberals who are hell bent on destroying the man on every word he utters and looking for something bad every hour of every day. It's really shameful. And I have liberal friends who are caught up in it. I mean, I didn't like Obama but I never hoped he would die.

[enigma-2]

It's not just liberals. I keep looking for 666 on his forehead. In a different country, or time, he would take power completely. And I see him trying to do now.

 

I held my nose and voted for him, but he's a loose cannon without real morals (or understanding of what he's doing). He's like a child who's been handed a gun on a playground. He's attacks on Canada and NATO are not supportive in any way.

 

His love of Russia goes back years. Some say they had something on him from over a decade ago. Something involving a prostitute and what happened to her. (A friend of his that has since stopped talking).

 

Russia is a real threat to our democracy. (This is shared by both sides of the house and Senate). And they are continuing to spy even today. (Look at the news of what they did just last week).

 

Just a little too cozy for my satisfaction. I hate to say it, as I really, really, really, really hate VP Pence. (And I'm from indiana). But I think he would make a better president. Trump is inexperienced, insecure, comprised and a spoiled brat grown up. And he will never change (as I had hoped). I respect your opinion and hope for the best, but I cannot agree.