Single malt Scotch whisky targeted by United States tariffs
bbc.com
bbc.com
Not siding with the tariffs, but that's the idea, no?
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-s...
Hurting Scotch means a better chance for the Japanese whiskey market in the USA. Total random speculation on that. There are lots of other products without Japanese replacement. Especially since scotch is really one of the smallest mattering products in that list. Parmesan, I argue, is a far bigger deal and we'll see that effect more. At least for me.
But, to be fair, after looking into trade relations for a while, Trump isn't as insane as CNN and BBC makes him out to be. I don't understand why everyone makes it seem like he's throwing dice and making decisions in a bubble. I'm starting to think he's making short term pains for long term gains. Which, to be honest, is the thing we should always be doing. Losing in the short term for mid to long term gains is not insane, stupid or crazy. Just... you know, sucks for a while.
On top of that, everyone seems to be a trade-deal expert suddenly because they've obviously negotiated with foreign govs all the time. I'm not and don't claim to be like others on HN and reddit. I just see there's more going on than just China and things don't look as one sided as it's being made out to be. But then again, BBC and CNN, and social media agreed, thought China would dump $1+ trillion in US bonds for pennies on the dollar and lose out on the loan leveraging they get to "punish the US"...by bankrupting themselves? Which never happened anyways. Such great "economic experts" who can't figure out supply/demand market dynamics taught in macro econ 101 textbooks. Same folks are commenting on the trade war. So whatever...
There's plenty of hyperbole out there, but hyperbole doesn't negate reality. China is buying fewer treasury bonds, and this is one reason why the bottom fell out of the market for purchasing U.S. treasury bonds, requiring Federal Reserve intervention. It's one, small reason, but it will become increasingly more important as Chinese purchases drop while U.S. deficits continue their upward climb.
The reason you know Trump isn't crazy like a fox is because his policies are inconsistent and erratic. Demanding your investment managers to buy high, sell low doesn't make you Warren Buffett. Starting a trade war with the expectation that the other guy will flinch before you doesn't make you a cunning strategist; it just makes you dangerous.
If you're suggesting that the pain of losing Chinese money will force the U.S. to reduce its deficits, that has manifestly not been the case for decades. For treasuries, instead what will happen is exactly what we've seen happen the past few weeks--something or someone will fill the gap before the whole house of cards collapses, which will sustain the status quo but ultimately put us on a more perilous path.
You can't bluff and cajole your way to smarter fiscal and industrial policy. Republicans have tried that and failed because it turns out you can't avoid making hard, considered decisions; nor avoid compromise. There's no avoiding the fundamental dynamics at play, which are complex and merciless. Entitlements exist for a reason. Trade with China exists for a reason. You can't address those things without addressing the underlying reasons they exist. Doubling and tripling down on a failed strategy with the world's worst bluffer isn't going to work any better.
That and you put the cart before the horse. It's always been to cut spending first so rev wouldn't need to increase.
It’s more tangible than adding a tariff to some obscure machine part because it becomes a pride thing. Also politicians of every country are acutely sensitive to the needs of their farmers.
Many high quality single malts are $40-50. Expensive for a daily drink, but within reach as an indulgence. The new tariffs will raise the price of the bottle by $10. That's not terribly significant on it's own, but knowing that buying a bottle contributes $10 on a needless trade war to feed a maniac's ego is pretty irritating.
So both companies are claimed to have received substantial "illegal" subsidies.
This isn't Trump's making btw. This legal battle over subsidies started I think in about 2004, so Trump is the third president involved. But of course, he was eager to jump on it and announce those tariffs now, even before the WTO ruling was finalized.
[1] https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/september/tradoc...
Regarding the effective price increase, it would likely be shared between consumer and producer.
Truly, most of us will just switch from scotch to bourbon until this is cleared up (which is the purpose).
I'm gonna pass on that, bourbon is too sweet and tastes gross to me. I suspect if you like Scotch then Bourbon is probably a bad fit.
It just happens to be a very specific market where I would dare to say (and this is just my opinion) most consumers are willing to pay a little more for the real deal, that is, the imported goods instead of looking for "local substitutes"...
Both the taste preference and the "perceived value" are super important in the market for alcoholic beverages.
At the same time, if you like the burning hospital taste, there’s no substitute for Islay Scotch.
It involves a Trump golf course project.
It's seems better to have 2 manufacturers supported by government than to have only 1 that essentially owns the whole market.
> Myth: Aerospace is different from other industries and requires some level of government support.
> Fact: Boeing has proven otherwise. We have financed all of our new airplane programs without the kind of government handout that launch aid represents.
http://www.boeing.com/company/key-orgs/government-operations...
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-boein...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/boeings-historic-t...
Boeing doesn't necessarily get direct subsidies but they get hefty tax breaks. Boeing will almost certainly get bailed out by the feds if the MAX or 777X come close to bankrupting them.
I don't have to, since Boeing already came out and said as much on the URL I posted. They make a distinction between legal and illegal subsidies recognized by the WTO.
But it's clear that both these companies are getting a ton of government contracts and have a special relationship with the US/EU.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-28/wto-issue...
0: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investig...
On the other hand, you have this ridiculous flailing, which actually makes the establishment look good. There really is no alternative.
Makes me want to start drinking. But since tariffs are up on scotch, I'll have a bourbon instead.
A study by the CESifo Institute in Germany found unweighted average EU tariffs of 5.2 percent, compared with the U.S. rate of 3.5 percent.
“The EU is by no means the paradise for free traders that it likes to think,” Gabriel Felbermayr, director of the think tank’s Center for International Economics, told the German business newspaper Handelsblatt.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/22/europe-resist...
The best numbers I could find are more comparable, namely total US tariffs of 7.1 billion USD on imports worth 684 billion which approximately equals 1% vs EU tariffs of 5.7 billion USD on imports worth 575 which is also roughly equal to 1% [1,2]. To me that seems pretty fair.
However I think the biggest issue (as an EU citizen) is the US insistence on not adhering to EU regulatory regimes, which is what I think made a lot of people oppose the TTIP. Also note that this has not been an issue when negotiating a EU-Japan trade deal.
[1] https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/politics/unfree-trade-tru... [2] https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe...
It’s amazing to me the EUs solution to this is to increase tariffs themselves (at least that’s their threat). It would be much cheaper to just stop subsidizing airbus or reduce it to a level where it’s not undercutting Boeing (which is the real target).
They can also apply tariffs based on the fact they didn't do so last time they won a case against the US and Boeing:
https://leehamnews.com/2019/09/29/eu-ready-to-instantly-reta...
Honestly, from Trumps perspective it’s probably a win either way. A less integrated world appears to be his goal
After reading this, I had the stupid question:
Couldn't producers of tariffed goods in an EU country send their goods to a shipping hub of a nearby non-EU country to change the country of origin to avoid the tariffs?
Example: Could or could not Scottish whisky producers send their bottles to be shipped from Iceland to America to avoid the tariffs?
My presumption of the article is that places matter more to the tariffs than the actual goods themselves sourced from anywhere else (?).
I assume that Canada and Russia will keep gladly buying this products as before, and that new channels will open with China and other Asian countries. Is not impossible also that the raise in prices for US citizens would be made permanent after trump interlude by the increase of demand. Is uncertain what will happen.
Interesting times to be alive ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Taking in mind that those are among some of the most faked products in the world I would not surprise if a black market emerges to overcome regulation and somebody became pretty rich selling counterfeits.
Maybe US now will need a wall also in the North, who knows?. Other probably scenery is that a lot of US citizens start self-restricting themselves to consume only US products that is a perfectly respectable option also (but would increase pressure against US nature).
“The US was given the go-ahead to impose tariffs on $7.5bn (£6.1bn) of goods it imports from the EU following a World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling on Wednesday.”
The WTO imposed the tariffs against the EU due to a recent ruling.
My needs are very simple, my wants and expectations are more complicated.
I'm not saying that everyone should expect to have what they want, but expecting the world to survive on what they need is unrealistic.
Growing up in an Italian household, I often got in trouble for sneaking chunks off the expensive cheese to be eaten without grating. It was reserved exclusively for grating, or served sliced thinly on special occasions.
The point is: it's not called parmigiano or parmesan, as that would be cheating the consumer.
That's the excuse, it's more about pleasing the local producers, as Denomination of origin laws generally are. As a consumer, I care much much more about taste and price for the same type of product.
That is, if it tastes the same or better, and is cheaper.... I don't care if it was produced 100 meters from my house outside of Europe, or in the basement of a 1300-year old church in a specific region of Italy. With today's technology, it's perfectly possible to emulate the ambient conditions from the original place in the super controlled food producing facilities.
But the local producers in said region might lose competitiveness or would have to stop pricing it as a "premium" product just because of where it was produced.
So, in my opinion, the concept of Denomination of Origin ends up being a legalized scam, as it end ups cheating more on the consumer, because in reality it doesn't necessarily mean the product is of better quality (as it's often advertised).
that's great, as you're free to buy any of the things not called "Parmigiano". There's plenty of awesome stuff which is not PDO/PGI.
The only reason you would call something unrelated "parmigiano" is if you wanted to attach yourself to the concept of "premium" without having to follow the same rules.
You can absolutely make a great succesful product and not give a damn about denomination of origin rules.
Bolgheri Sassicaia[0], for example, established itself as a fantastic wine without having an italian DOC(G) classification, until one was defined explicitly for it.
> So, in my opinion, the concept of Denomination of Origin ends up being a legalized scam, as it end ups cheating more on the consumer, because in reality it doesn't necessarily mean the product is of better quality (as it's often advertised).
But that is true of any advertisement. I agree that the basic denomination of origin does not imply quality, but I don't see how removing it improves things.
In the US origin is separate and required. So, if you want Parmesan from Parma you can still be sure you'll get it.