Tariffs [ADMIN WARNING: NO POLITICS; POLICY DISCUSSIONS ONLY]

[B-Dog15]

Was my comment seriously the only one that got removed for "no politics"? That's kind of bullshit. My comment was totally unbiased. Would the mod who removed it please message me?

Mine got removed too. To be fair I did kinda take over the post and some of my comments were not biased and dwelled into politics rather than policy… I can’t even be mad at them.

Sponsored

 

[Quashish]

Mine got removed too. To be fair I did kinda take over the post and some of my comments were not biased and dwelled into politics rather than policy… I can’t even be mad at them.

I'm not mad at it. Initially I thought I was singled out. Either way.

 

[hellb0y]

A (say) 25% tariff that applies to all cars and trucks made in Mexico and Canada is essentially a non-negotiable "additional dealer markup" of 25% for all of those vehicles.

A 25% increase in prices (~$10,000+) would slash sales of affected models, if not kill them.

quite the opposite - this would represent an amazing opportunity for the free market, competitors will INSTEAD raise prices and increase profits, you can level the market pretty easily and still come out ahead.

also keep in mind, you are thinking “high level” “one car”…in reality, all cars have parts that come from Mexico, Canada, China, etc…so it would be very easy for these car makers to slap a substantial price increase.

 

[Bucko]

You know Rick, if mine is $10k more, I just might buy something else.

I would most definitely be buying something else!

 

[Aviator]

It could mean more jobs, but where would BS (and Mavericks) be built. Not enough capacity in U.S. currently. Maybe build new factory in U.S. in 3 or 4 years. Factor the supply chain where many parts come from Mexico and Canada. Regardless, labor costs in U.S. will always be higher which will increase cost. With vehicles like BS and Maverick which are price sensitive, any increases could mean Ford simply gets out of business for small vehicles, i.e. like Ford did with small cars.

The reductions in Ford gas model cars along with other US manufactures was due to pressures to build other types of transportation by the previous administration. Hopefully market changes will occur by demand and not manufactured forced demand.

 

[Davexxxx]

The reductions in Ford gas model cars along with other US manufactures was due to pressures to build other types of transportation by the previous administration. Hopefully market changes will occur by demand and not manufactured forced demand.

I'm gonna stay out of who did what but there is another half to what you are saying and that is competition.

New technologies, that can gain enough footprint to provide competition, don't spring out of nothingness.

They need seed money to develop, room to grow and eventually, a market.

All the while, the dominant technology will be resisting that, including buying and shelving patents, stifling startups with lawsuits, corporate buyouts etc. (See John D Rockefeller)

Mandates can serve the function of leveling the field.

I am better off, because of fuel economy, emissions and safety standards.

It can certainly be a bumpy and sometimes long road but industry really does need a push sometimes and unrestrained market forces alone, can take too long.

For instance, even with mandates, my 1990 F150, got 16mpg, all round. My 11 year newer and smaller engined F150, was much more powerful and cleaner but got the same mpg. Moving from 2001, to 2023, or 22 years newer (a literal, human generation) my Hybrid Powerboost F150, gets mpgs in the mid 23-25 range, while delivering a whopping 430 hp and 570lb.ft' of torque, while also being the cleanest re emissions of the 3. Oh and did I mention the built in 7.2KW inverter generator?

That took mandates and even with them, we're talking a span of 33 years, or about half a lifetime.

 

[Adam CW]

The United States has the largest economy by far. No one else comes close. It also has abundant natural resources.

The economic power of the U.S. is immense and could easily be used as a weapon.

The only reason countries such as Mexico and Canada believe they can threaten, demand or dictate trade and/or political terms is because we are kind to them and have been for decades.

We don’t have to treat them as equals because they aren’t. Their economic power is relatively small.

Due to the weakness displayed by most administrations over the past few decades, there seems to be an assumption that we have to simply give other countries/economic blocs everything they ask for.

Guess what? We don’t.

It should be noted that many of the countries we trade with apply tariffs to U.S. products.

It’s only fair to retaliate by doing the same.

Free and fair trade would be OK, but it’s not exactly what we have.

 

[birddog2]

I'm sorry that I started this thread which has deteriorated into such a political discussion.
My intent was to ask what would happen to Bronco Sport production and availability if a 25 % tariff is enacted.
Since I already own a Badlands I will not be affected personally.
But a 25% increase in the price of Corona is not right.

 

[jkernitzki]

I'm not mad at it. Initially I thought I was singled out. Either way.

Definitely not you or B-Dog. Someone else was seriously letting their hate get the better of them.

 

[jkernitzki]

I'm sorry that I started this thread which has deteriorated into such a political discussion.
My intent was to ask what would happen to Bronco Sport production and availability if a 25 % tariff is enacted.
Since I already own a Badlands I will not be affected personally.
But a 25% increase in the price of Corona is not right.

Don't be sorry, you can't control how people choose to respond. It's a valid question and topic of discussion, even if most of what's out there is FUD, not fact (including my own takes on it).

One can barely have a civil thread about 1.5 vs. 2.0 around here... ?

 

[Mark S.]

That took mandates and even with them, we're talking a span of 33 years, or about half a lifetime.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. The U.S. Congress introduced legislation in the 1960s to encourage adoption of electric vehicles, but it wasn't until the oil embargos of the 1970s that the public became interested. More here.

Automakers will always look for ways to get around mandates (mostly lobbying), but they MUST respond to market demands in order to survive.

 

[Quashish]

But a 25% increase in the price of Corona is not right.

Seriously! Back in 2018 a 12 pack of Sierra nevada pale ale was $12 all day long. Now it's $18 which is usually around what import beer, or more specialty sierra nevada prices. So I usually end up getting the seasonal 12 pack or torpedo or something if it's going to be the same price as regular pale ale.

But doesn't corona have a brewing plant in South plains colorado?

 

[sajohnson]

quite the opposite - this would represent an amazing opportunity for the free market, competitors will INSTEAD raise prices and increase profits, you can level the market pretty easily and still come out ahead.

also keep in mind, you are thinking “high level” “one car”…in reality, all cars have parts that come from Mexico, Canada, China, etc…so it would be very easy for these car makers to slap a substantial price increase.

As aa tenured professor at Wharton, I say hogwash -- nay balderdash!

Tariffs can a useful tool, but by definition they are not part of a free market economy.

Competitors would likely raise prices, as you said, but that only *hurts* consumers. Then not only will the makes/models subject to tariffs cost 25% more, the others will increase in price dramatically also.

Tariffs can sometimes be justified, but they are essentially another tax Americans must pay.

 

[hellb0y]

As aa tenured professor at Wharton, I say hogwash -- nay balderdash!

Tariffs can a useful tool, but by definition they are not part of a free market economy.

Competitors would likely raise prices, as you said, but that only *hurts* consumers. Then not only will the makes/models subject to tariffs cost 25% more, the others will increase in price dramatically also.

Tariffs can sometimes be justified, but they are essentially another tax Americans must pay.

absolutely is more tax for the customer…but ultimately, it’s a good opportunity to make easy money and get away with massive increases!

 

[Dadio]

I'm not saying this would absolutely be the case, but tariffs should be covered as another business expense.

Of course there's nothing (aside from a class action lawsuit) to prevent Ford from claiming otherwise.

Fords retail cost of all vehicles is partly calculated based on the sum of the landed cost of its components. Landed cost includes tariffs, material costs, insurance, labor, overhead fees and transportation. When any aspect of the landed cost increases it will impact the retail price.

It’s not clear if the proposed tariffs would apply only to finished vehicles from Mexico and Canada or also to the many thousands of components (interiors, engines, hardware) that also come from Canada and Mexico and China. If a US built vehicle has 50% of its parts made outside the US (conceivable ) then what will be that impact ?

In this case the tariff increases will also impact the price of US assembled vehicles that use these components. Either way , Ford or any other company will pass the costs to the consumer. So yes , call it a business expense or not - it will have an impact.

Interesting discussion ….

Sponsored