DigiKey's Tariff Resources
digikey.com
digikey.com
Tariffs have to be at an insane level to justify bringing manufacturing back. My worry is that the administration is may be prepared to go there. That will cause a deep deep recession across the whole globe. Even then it will take a couple of decades to have meaningful manufacturing in the US
That, I believe, is one of the reasons why the H-series and E-series exist in the United States, along with the L visa. It gives you the opportunity to bring foreigners into the United States, either for a limited (but finitely-extendable) period of time, or permanently.
You can argue that the current forms of those visas do not work, but that is not my point: My point is that the above reason is why the visas exist.
To bring my point back around to tariffs: I think making the above-mentioned visas harder to get goes against the purpose of the tariffs. If you want manufacturing etc. brought back here, then make it easy (or easier) to get the knowledgeable folks who you need to train the folks who will do the manufacturing here.
They don’t have a plan, only hopes.
I doubt this scheme would work, but from what I understand the rich typically prefer sale taxes to wealth/income taxes since they only consume a small fraction of their net worth in goods, preferring to invest (which wouldn't be taxed). They're also not regressive, meaning that poorer people would end up paying a larger portion of their income in taxes.
I don't think it's that altruistic. This is simply a way to defend or fund income tax cuts.
If you look at the federal gov P&L according to DOGE (https://doge.gov/spend); excise and customs taxes are the best opportunity to drive revenue if you won't raise income tax.
The distributional effects are still bad for consumers, even purchasing made-in-America goods. The domestic good will still be higher-cost than the pre-tariff foreign good, so low-income consumers will be worse off than the status quo.
If the tariffs are set at a moderate level (i.e. not so high as to make imports effectively impossible), basic supply and demand suggests that the sticker price of American goods should equal the post-tariff price of imported goods. That's essentially what consumers saw with tariffs on appliances in Trump's first term.
Protective tariffs could still arguably make sense in a demand-constrained economy where there was a lot of unemployment to go around: individual consumers would be worse off but more people would be employed. However, breathless media aside this conflicts with basic statistics that show the prime-age employment[†] rate (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1DUXA) near cyclical peak levels, currently above the pre-financial-crisis level.
Tariffs are a lousy solution for the more common complaint that stuff is just too expensive.
[†] — I use the prime age employment rate to avoid problems with "discouraged workers" or disability being excluded from unemployment and to correct for basic demographic shifts. If fewer people are employed because more people are retired, that's an entirely different problem.
I've been thinking about the recent layoffs impacting government. If 1% of the workforce is laid off at once for no good reason, are the impact restricted to 1% of economy? I'd assume no, because 90% of the other people would start saving just in case.
To not have that situation, you would need to be convincing that the impact are only restricted to the people that are laid off, but that isn't happening because they weren't laid off with an convincing cause. So now everyone is cowering because this suddenly looks like something that could happen to them.
A US startup is preparing to mine titanium in Tennessee. Three US startups in different states want to start up rare earth mines. They all need some assurance of not being drastically undercut on price, or some way to hedge that.
If we're going to have protective tariffs, they should be at the consumer product end, not the raw materials end. Smartphones, not steel.
I don't think there will be many startups reinventing products from scratch and building factories in the US.
I think multi-nationals will move a small factory to the US to avoid tarrifs.
That makes the US more resilient when some idiot leads us into another war.
25% is plenty to give a US location a comparative advanatage.
If they are even able to satisfy the needs of the customer, either in quality, price or supply.
Add in that you are then almost certainly limited to a domestic market since your goods are only affordable when the competition has to pay a whacking great penalty.
My customers pay me for product. Some of that pays employees. The assembly house. And for parts are are imported. The tariffs basically means I have to pay extra to the government so they can give it to bunch of wealthy financial parasites.
Thus, they save the US 25% + 10% tariff off, and whatever symmetric 25% response trading partners inflict on the US exports. i.e. one would save 60% off, avoid an economically hostile customs process, and may shop around for better tax systems. If the US market is isolated from a multi-origin product, than just collect the 35% markup on all products before shipping into the US like the new programs already require.
Best of luck, I don't think people have really thought about this very much... =3
People respond to actions rather than posturing, and business people view the political process very differently. We'd be fooling ourselves to think it is about anything other than profit. Many people are likely about to lose their jobs, and there is nothing funny about that... Best regards =3
Entirely logical response from a normal person used to think and act in a normal, decent way.
Criminals break into a museum. There is an artwork there, 4000(!) years old. The thieves wreck the artwork and smelt the gold that is inside it for a €225 profit.
Have you seen the kids of the president ridicule the dying people in Ukraine? We are inclined to think that if you inherit almost the whole earth, you would be very grateful, kind and compassionate.
Instead, they see the world in terms of just a handful of peers with the rest as resources to be extracted. We live in a world where we are brainwashed to think it is normal for corporate to call human beings "Human Resources".
---------------------------
As soon as people learn to see what hides behind Trump and Doge, the networks that finance and selects people, they will lose the war. The theater is there to distract you, media will pick it up as bait but will not do the investigation of what it is. And so we are paralyzed by the news of the day.
What society needs to do is to not accept abnormal and egregious behavior as normal. We all know what is decent human interaction, and the few can only take power over the mass, if the people consent to it -- be it actively or passively.
Why would you be inclined to think that?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Being greatful is not manufactured by having stuff.
Being kind has nothing to do wtih what you have.
I'm inclined to think that if someone inherit the whole earth you are
1. A person who sought after that, which is bad
2. Even if you were magically a good person before, will be ruined by it at a minimum the way winning the lottery ruins a person.
3. Even if you survive 1-2 you will become famous and will have to cope with that insanity.
See the number of people arguing that a billionaire can obviously be trusted with their money because he has a lot of it and clearly wouldn't want more.
We know it. We don't believe it. We cannot grasp. For those few, we are nothing but a resource. Why share power with the powerless? Might makes right!
See the number of people who say they voted for trump because they think he's a successful business man.
That's why democracy was invented. :-)
That, perhaps, is the reason they are so cruel: because they have been so lucky so far, they do not understand human suffering and are incapable of feeling the pain of fellow humans.
If a product is cheaply produced in another country, and your domestic industry cannot match that price, your domestic industry might disappear. Suppose that other country is subsidizing their industry, then it's quite unfair, and it legitimizes supporting your own industry either by your own subsidies or retaliatory tariffs. As they say, to level the playing field.
If the domestic industry is already dead, tariffs won't magically resurrect it. For example, building a chip industry can take billions of dollars in investments and years of development. All that time, those taxes are basically just costing consumers money. They need to be kept in place up until the new factories come online AND are paid off. This can take decades. Will those tariffs still be there? Will those other countries have ALSO invested? Those uncertainties make it hard to invest in a dead/dying industry, even with tariffs in place.
One feature of tariffs is that it's a tax on consumption, so it's ultimately paid by consumers, and it's a regressive tax; the wealthiest will pay the smallest ratio of their income and/or wealth, while the working Joe will just see stuff getting more expensive - especially in the short term.
Tariffs can work to retaliate against, and discourage, dumping. They can play a role in protecting vital industries. But arbitrarily imposing them for political points is a dangerous gambit.
I don’t think it’s this simple. The wealthy fat cats that are making money producing their stuff overseas or simply operating as middlemen for overseas manufacturers are going to have a reduction of income and profits.
Furthermore, it depends on how the revenue from tariffs were used. If revenue from tariffs is used to lower taxes for lower income citizens, it would be effectively a progressive tax.
If all the middlemen see the same increase in costs, they are not going to be the one to try to keep prices the same. They know everyone is taking the same hit so they can just pass it along together. The consumer decides to buy or not at that level.
The innovation comes in avoiding the tariff. Often companies with sufficient scale of operations can pay additional lawyers and accountants to restructure and avoid tariffs.
Tariffs can dramatically affect specific companies, but squishy middlemen (and multinationals) can often work around them.
For die-cut plastic cards (think custom-shaped gift cards or hotel door hangers), I reached out to several US manufacturers for quotes and most never even responded. The one that did respond basically laughed at me and said my design was impossible to cut. So I went on Alibaba and had tons of quotes instantly and found a manufacturer. Not one of the responses were concerned about the design's manufacturability. And the manufacturer I picked does an incredible job with what is admittedly a challenging die cut design.
As a tiny business, most of my orders end up being under de minimis (which is actually great for helping small businesses avoid the overhead of dealing with tariffs and level the playing field against large players that can be much more efficient at handling regulatory overhead through high volume).
But with the change to eliminate de minimis and increase tariffs another 10% essentially overnight, my COGS is going to increase ~30%, which means either I shut down my business due to losing nearly all of my margin, or I increase prices substantially. It just hurts consumers AND small businesses like mine in the US.
There isn't a US manufacturer I can switch to (again, price wasn't the issue). And the US manufacturers in the space that WERE still selling products despite the international competition will just increase their prices now that competition is more expensive.
Again, knowing how short-sighted the US politicians and the society as a whole (e.g., look at how a majority of corps only care about short-term/quarterly profit) have become, it is not surprising but saddening to observe (because I have been living in the US for a bit over two decades and cannot move back to my home country, which is, at the moment, riddle with civil war).
Is that an immediate win for the consumer and the economy? Probably not. In the long term it could be reversing the globalization which is maybe a good thing (or at least that's the argument).
Seriously though- yes. But it moves the needle a little bit on the expected value. If the tariffs survive for a year it'll move the needle more.
You’d need dramatically higher tariffs for there to be any chance of that. Or a complete trade embargo. And either way, it’s gonna mean much more expensive goods for consumers.
So what would you propose as the proverbial kick in the butt to encourage domestic production? And before you say “subsidies”, remember that a large segment of the population isn’t wild about those either because they perceive it to be some sort of evil tax dodge for big corporations (see: literally every time some state gives a company incentives to build a plant or office).
The reason we’re in this mess in the first place is because we chased cheaper means of production and once everything at home was gone, we just threw our hands up and went “well it’ll be too painful to fix it, anyone who tries is an idiot.”
We dodged this in the 90s, but we need massive training programs to move those displaced workers to new jobs + resettlement assistance to get them to where the jobs are.
You're conflating two things here, the subsidies are one issue but the bigger issue is the ability for large companies to "shop around" states looking for the most favorable tax incentives. Our government shouldn't be bidding against ourselves.
Yes, it should, because that's how individual companies (and governments for that matter) find their optimal operating points.
That is the explicit central dogma behind the United States' system of government. It works pretty well for the most part. If all the states had the same laws, policies, and taxes, there would be no need for federalism at all.
Certainly not when tariff policy changes every few days on a whim. That doesn't make you want to build a chip resistor plant in the US. Or even a smartphone plant.
Or when you have trade agreements in place, but then use emergency powers granted to you in 1977 to push aside those agreements and add tariffs
It doesn't engender trust.
Businesses within and without are not a fan of constantly shifting sands.
In the EU we pay full taxes on every import, it's really not that complicated once you explain to the Chinese guys to not mark it as "gift" like its 2005.
Eg. https://www.quora.com/Do-I-need-to-pay-California-sales-tax-...
Now tariffs are different because they are applied in addition to the above and only affect imports specifically.
Buy hey, now you,'ve got trarrifs, congrats on your election.
I'm not saying the primary objective of a de minimus policy is to help small businesses, but in practice it can make a huge difference to correct for economies of scale to promote competition. I can't afford a team of lawyers and lobbyists to creatively classify my products to avoid tariffs like the big companies do; regulatory burden disproportionately hurts smaller players, so it's typically considered good policy to promote competition to phase in regulations based on size/volume/revenue etc.
And an industrial entrepreneur, such as yourself, might start a new business, making these products at a cheaper price in the US due to the new inefficiencies of simply raising prices by existing manufacturers. It takes time for these things to move through the system.
The companies who moved manufacturing abroad and pocketed the savings for their investors and CEOs aren’t likely to just say “oh well” and take a big hit to their margins—they’ll just mark up their products to make up the difference. Maybe, eventually, domestic competition will emerge but it’s not a given and likely takes time. In the meantime, consumers are paying the increased costs.
I'd love this to be true, but where is there recent evidence this will happen? When Trump put tariffs on washers in 2018, LG and Samsung (importers of machines) didn't lose profits, their prices went up: https://youtu.be/_-eHOSq3oqI?t=130
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/higher-prices-extra-jobs-less...
Prices went up in short term, but imports went down and jobs increased due to manufacturers bringing jobs to the United States. Seems like it worked.
I think that kind of logic only applies to iPhones.
Companies simply add the cost of the tariff into the price of the final good to the consumer. It does not eat into the margin.
To wit, every tax a business pays today is included in the cost of the final good sold, there is no reason to believe these tariffs won't be as well.
First, there are not necessarily increased margins, the margins may stay the same or even decrease. Some companies may choose to keep their margins the same, in which case profit would increase.
But importantly your _profit_ will not decrease, you'll defend that as the seller even if that means your margins decrease.
Second, small companies are _more_ sensitive to taxes (costs), not less sensitive. Existing, large players are better able to absorb costs _and_ command stronger pricing power relative to new entrants to the market.
But overall, your view of the "market" just doesn't play out in reality. You can go look at any industry that encountered tariffs in Trump's first term, you may also look at any consolidated market in the last twenty years. Market power has been heavily concentrated, regulatory capture has gone up, and the result is that markets aren't working as you may expect.
I posted this link separately and it fully demonstrates what I would expect: more jobs in the US to compensate for the increased cost to import. In this case, the jobs were provided by existing manufacturers like LG and Samsung; however, these jobs could also be produced by new competitors entering the space.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/higher-prices-extra-jobs-less...
Worse than that... you also need all the other things in the "ecosystem" that support them chips, such as discrete components, circuit board fabrication, assembly, etc.
The more detailed answer boils down to if you as a business can save 1% producing a product by buying a widget you need from overseas, that's what you'll do. So instead of a domestic company paying employees in your country all through it's supply chain, it all goes overseas. This costs you as a business 1%, but in theory has a large enough economic impact to benefit the country overall.
These tariff threats are so broad. They are not aimed at encouraging this or that local industry. (And for the US you would need much more than a few percentage points of margin to encourage that.)
It feels like they are (1) threats. very crude threats. to get entire countries to change their policies a little this way or that - favoring the US a little more in exchange for dropping the threat. and (2) a source of govt revenue that doesn't look to the voters like income or capital gains tax. Although obviously it is - in the US everything ends up there.
This is all very simple. There is no plan, there is no us, there is no future. There is only him, now, and a revolving list of people trying to ride his coattails to more power for themselves.
You may also want to double check the plan. Yes there are income taxes cuts included to make the little guy feel like they got something, but as usual the bulk of the cuts will go to the top.
I'm trying to do some things with LEDs, and ouch.
Seriously though they have a lot of stock in their warehouse. If this is already imported and paid for then it should be exempt right?
The page doesnt state what happens to foreign customers. Does the duty only apply for domestic buyers?
I pay local VAT and any local tariffs, all collected by DigiKey, and don’t think I pay any US taxes on the shipment.
By intuition I’d think whatever US tariff wouldn’t apply, but these things don’t exactly make sense a lot of the time.
Edit: Upon reading about the tariff drawback process, and these latest ones not being applicable to it - it does seem that I’ll be paying US tariffs for something [from China] that is then exported to me in another country.
That said I'm struggling to fully understand it all, the site kind of implies that the 50% Semiconductor tariff _is_ drawbackable - and if we look some of those were in effect since 2024. It does say that the 10% 'China tax' is not.
My reading here then is that the 10% extra is for everyone, and the rest of that table in addition is for goods consumed in the US. (And, some of those tariffs don't look very different from some of them in my non-US locale, which I would have to pay anyway)
Still a daft situation, will for sure be looking around for other suppliers.
That said, shipping was $40-50 for one small box with around 50 components (varying quantities), so if you do order from LCSC it's best to order as much as possible within the same order, since the shipping is gonna be a significant chunk of the cost for any order <$1K. It took a few weeks to arrive using DHL, where Digikey/Mouser both generally deliver within a week (domestic shipping, I'm in N. Carolina).
TLDR; I would recommend LCSC if you are buying enough such that the per-part savings offsets the significantly higher shipping costs, and you don't mind waiting a ~10-14 days for your parts to arrive. I personally still use domestic suppliers for most parts, but when I have a larger BOM and I'm not under a deadline, I'll go with LCSC.
If you're ordering from the US, you should also be aware that Trump's tariffs still apply, so be prepared to pay at least 10% more for everything (some items--things like medical equipment, batteries, and semiconductors--are significantly higher, up to 100%). There may also be a processing fee levied by the shipping carrier if they collect the tariffs on your behalf. As I understand it, LCSC includes a customs declaration form with the shipment, and it's your responsibility to pay any duties or tariffs as the importer.
As far as I’m aware Farnell are the only major electronics retailer to have European warehouses. They don’t have nearly the same level of stock as the big players. But this will certainly be a big boost for them.
Maybe its a good time for they to create one then.
Not doing it that way would be an immense disadvantage for Digi-Key against non-US distributors.
I'm sure that isn't right - Digikey imports and exports from across the world - including existing items with tariffs and duty - effectively their warehouses act like Bonded warehouses - they claim back 99% of Duty and Tariff paid on exported items using Drawback. I don't know the details of the new tariffs but it wouldn't make sense for the US to stop this for reexports.
One way DigiKey helps provide high-quality products at competitive prices is through our Duty Drawback Program, which allows us to recover a portion of the tariffs paid on imported products. However, under this Executive Order, the new 10% duty on all products imported from China and Hong Kong is not eligible for duty drawback programs.
The US has now effectively added an 'export' tax on DigiKeys business.
Most credible alternative in Europe: Distrelec/RS Components (both part of RS Group).
Companies do not price things as they are now, or how much it cost in the inventory, but about how much they must charge to keep the business afloat. That means that prices will go up only because there's a risk that prices would go up, so that in any event, they can cover whatever they need to keep operations on-going. While prices go up in both a high risk or no competitive markets, prices would only go down if there's a competitive market.
Given they didn't have to pay tariffs before, I would assume they've declared all the goods and in that case yes.
> Does the duty only apply for domestic buyers?
If you re-export goods that was previously imported without using it, like DigiKey, then at least here in EU you can apply to get the duties paid back. However it's quite annoying if you import large quantities and sell small fractions. It works better if you do it on a 1-1 basis.
Not 100% sure how it works in US, but in EU you can have a bonded warehouse, where you store goods before you perform the import declaration to free them for general use.
This allows you to postpone the import declaration, and hence tariffs to be paid, to when you've sold the goods, or even avoid paying tariffs if you export the goods directly from the bonded warehouse.
The latter part is very attractive to companies like DigiKey which sell a lot of their goods abroad.
There are typically strict rules regarding getting a bonded warehouse license, with requirements for bookkeeping and physical separation with access control to avoid mistaking the bonded goods for normal non-bonded and hence technically smuggle goods into the country.
This also affects who's performing the import declaration. Pre-tariffs there's usually not much incentive to do anything more fancy than letting someone else handle the import declarations. However the added bookkeeping and usually means the one responsible for the bonded warehouse is best suited to perform the declarations. At least here in EU there are companies that offer this as a service.
Anyway the point was, if they didn't already have a bonded warehouse and decide to go with one, it's not just sending an email and get some approval. It might affect how DigiKey has to handle this goods deeply.
With UPS the added kicker is UPS charges a $70 processing fee themselves for processing something through Customs for you, paying the tariff for you so the package isn’t delayed and then enabling you to pay them back in advance of delivery on ups.com or the driver will ask for payment at the door when delivering your goods.
[1]: https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/import/courier/lvs-efv/menu-eng....
In a perfect world, we would just outlaw brokerage fees, and just have CBSA do the clearance since all of the information is already input in a computer system. We should at least outlaw forced brokerage. I never agreed to have UPS act as my agent, so I get pretty upset when they charge me a fee no one agreed to.
Here in Norway that also involves a service fee by express companies like UPS as paying tariffs means they can't use a simplified customs declaration, and they typically front the payment to get you your goods ASAP. YMMV.
edit: Seems I missed that Trump postponded[2] the low-value exemption, De Minimis, so your shipment is probably in the clear. But next one might not be.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterms#Allocations_of_costs...
[2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2025/02/07/trump-reins...
At least here in Norway, though similar in many other countries that I know, it's not entirely bogus.
Typically there are real costs involved with submitting a customs declaration, especially if it requires actual people looking at the invoice and filling out the customs declaration based on it. An order from JCLPCB or similar would typically fall in that category.
Then there's the duties. Either they hold the goods until you've paid, in which case they need storage space and bookkeeping, along with inspections from customs every so often. Or they just pay up front and bill you after the fact. In either case there are real costs involved.
That said they're certainly not a charity, and I do think they exploit a bit the fact that often the importer doesn't have much of a say or knowledge in picking the shipping company. Perhaps the seller only deals with UPS for example.
But I agree that the transparency regarding customs processing fees is very lacking. Obviously they don't have an incentive as long as customers don't see this as a differentiator.
For example DigiKey allows me to select[2] between DDP or CPT, which means I have to pay for importing the goods[3].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterms#DDP_%E2%80%93_Delive...
[2]: https://www.digikey.no/en/help-support/delivery-information/...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterms#Allocations_of_costs...
JLCPCB recently started offering them as a shipping option, and they tend to be $5-10 under DHL's quote. The DHL price takes the additional processing fees into account and I'm not left with a nasty surprise in addition to the tariffs/customs fees.
There's the option of doing it yourself or have some third party doing it, though you usually still end up paying some fee to the express company.
A lot of business customers do that, at least here, especially if they got goods with duties where they might not be confident in the goods classification[1] done by the express company, or if they have exemptions.
Though as I mentioned earlier, I do agree there's too little transparency here, and that they're taking advantage of it. I suspect the only way they'll improve is if customers start voting with their wallet.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonized_System#Classificati...
Export or import classification? The first six digits are the same, but the rest vary per country so if you specify the export tariff codes then the one doing the import declaration will still have to do the import classification.
Haven't had to classify when ordering from JLC, then again I've only ordered PCBs so that might be why.
In the past with a DHL order over $800 they just sent me an invoice to pay before they'd deliver the package. Make sure you check the invoice though - DHL screwed up the HTS codes and tariff calculations and substantially overcharged, so I had to talk to DHL support to get it fixed (which ended up being really straightforward).
https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2025/02/07/tru...
I have two anxieties about Ali that are keeping me from making a decision though:
- You're essentially trusting foreign eBay sellers to get customs right. If they screw up, it's a ding against your Global Entry account. You're making yourself liable for the competence of strangers, and I don't know the system well enough to know if you can trust their ratings.
- I've yet to hear anything about how the tariffs are working out in practice. I don't wanna hit buy and find out everything is way more complicated/expensive than it was last month.
I should probably just buy from Amazon, but it's hard to commit to paying full price when you know everyone else is selling it for way less (but more risk of something shady happening).
(Contrary to the current US administration's lies, the buyer pays the tariff, not the seller.)
You cannot just tariff if your industry is not there, people end up paying higher prices.
Next thing you'll hear is that America is producing but actually they will be assembling (for this you'll need to get along well with China). Crazy that Milei and Trump get along well mainly because of their social policies, but economic policies are so different. The US needs only two allies, Mexico and Canada, the only countries it has borders with, and instead Trump is just creating hate there.
(With the assumption that this will be just the start of a trade war around chips)
Another solution is to just live in ShenZhen when it's applicable. The city is nice and vibrant, and you are treated pretty well as long as you don't get into politics.
That's an extremely subtle way of saying "keep your mouth shut".
and
"Talking about politics is always taboo."
Hahahaha. That's not the airtight argument against "a subtle way of saying keep your mouth shut" that you apparently think it is.
Not around where I am, at least withing the various circles I talk to. It can be hard to avoid, even. (to be fair, I live in a city which is relatively an outlier on the political spectrum compared to the country as a whole)
Historically this was true, because the de minimis exemption meant small value imports didn't get charged tariffs. But the recent tariff EO both increased existing tariffs AND removed de minimis, meaning even a $5 import now needs to go through the overhead of tariff calculation and payment.
The de minimis change is temporarily paused because there's no way carriers or enforcement could actually handle the change in tariff volume with no warning, but broadly speaking, the low value direct import route is going away.
Yes.
> I might have to just source from China
It also applies to anything you source from China yourself. It's an import tax. Any applicable goods or services introduced to the US market incur it.
The one place it doesn't apply is when Digi-Key (or Mouser) ship to outside the US, their warehouses are apparently transit areas. (Source: I ordered to Switzerland a few days ago. No tariffs. You can probably check yourself by creating an order.)
Buying your Chinese stuff through Mouser or Digikey or Arrow will spread that administrative fee across a whole shipping container of components. You'll still be paying the tax, but the administrative costs will be amortized.
Present day conservatives are just awful people in general in my experience.
Lindsey Graham was on TV being all "never Trump" one week and then fully supportive the next. c.c. almost everyone else in Washington.
I wonder what the tipping point is among Republican voters between those who genuinely support Trump vs those who think the Democratic candidates are so bad for foreign policy, DEI, etc. that they'll vote from Trump in protest.
Who would the Democrats have to nominate to get the libertarians who used to vote Republican to back them instead?
I know lots of conservatives who aren't religious.
No, Sanders would never be a unifying figure. Libertarians see him as being essentially equivalent to Trump: a demagogue who makes emotional appeals to build a cult of personality, deeply misunderstands economics, and seeks to use political power in an unbounded and illegitimate ways.
They are noise in the data.
Populism is a marketing tool (to quote Hank Green) and Sanders wielded it as well as trump, but to help people, not punish them. Both have decades of track records demonstrating this fact.
Various surveys have indicated that 20-30% of the US population broadly align with libertarian principles, regardless of party affiliation or nominal identification. This aligns fairly well with the proportion of the electorate that had negative opinions of both Trump and Harris in the last election (even those who took a "lesser of evils" approach and voted for one of them).
I don't think I've seen any conservatives involved in mainstream politics in the past 15 to 20 years. I see people using the word "conservatives" to describe something else entirely, but few actual conservatives.
Conservatism as an actual movement was formed after the French Revolution when monarchists found that “deus vult” was no longer sufficient justification for wanting a king. The core principles are just rationalizations for the main idea: there should be a king.
American conservatives got swept away by democratic ideals and focused on the rationalizations, but now they’re getting back to their roots.
It's really not.
> Conservatism as an actual movement was formed after the French Revolution when monarchists found that “deus vult” was no longer sufficient justification for wanting a king.
In fact, conservatism in the Anglo-American world has no relationship whatsoever with the French revolution; the sort of reactionary monarchism that informed the royalist factions during the French revolution was already all but dead in the UK and America by the time of the French revolution -- it had already been driven to the fringes by the English civil war and the Glorious Revolution, and in the aftermath of the Whig ascendancy and the American revolution, was utterly gone by the 19th century.
Modern conservatism descends from the non-radical side of the Whig philosophy, as exemplified by Edmund Burke, and is characterized by preferring stability and continuity rather than forceful change, within a context of limited, balanced government, rule of law, and respect for the individual. Many of the people referring to themselves today as "conservatives" are collectivist, authoritarian radicals, and have much more in common with the extreme left than with traditional conservatism.
They were for renewable energy:
> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.
> Republicans support measures to modernize the nation's electricity grid to provide American consumers and businesses with more affordable, reliable power. We will work to unleash innovation so entrepreneurs can develop technologies for a more advanced and robust United States transmission system that meets our growing energy demands.
They were for energy conservation, recycling, telecommuting, and reducing business travel:
> Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less. Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better. We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases. Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel. The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.
They wanted better gas mileage for cars and a push for cars that do not rely on oil, with electric cars specifically mentioned:
> We must continue to develop alternative fuels, such as biofuels, especially cellulosic ethanol, and hasten their technological advances to next-generation production. As America develops energy technology for the 21st century, policy makers must consider the burden that rising food prices and energy costs create for the poor and developing nations around the world. Because alternative fuels are useless if vehicles cannot use them, we must move quickly to flexible fuel vehicles; we cannot expect necessary investments in alternative fuels if this flexibility does not become standard. We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.
> Given that fully 97 percent of our current transportation vehicles rely on oil, we will aggressively support technological advances to reduce our petroleum dependence. For example, lightweight composites could halve the weight and double the gas mileage of cars and trucks, and together with flex-fuel and electric vehicles, could usher in a renaissance in the American auto industry.
They had a lot to say about climate change:
> Addressing Climate Change Responsibly
> The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.
> The Solution: Technology and the Market
> As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.
> To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets.
> International Cooperation
> Because the issue of climate change is global, it must become a truly global concern as well. All developed and developing economies, particularly India and China, can make significant contributions in dealing with the matter. It would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all.
> Using Cash Rewards to Encourage Innovation
> Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change. Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon.
[1] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2008-republican-pa...
The conservatives I grew up around called Nixon a "wannabe tyrant" and my dad described as "believing he was king" in the Frost-Nixon interview. People were outraged by "when the president does it, it's not illegal".
My uncle ranted and raved about "billionaires like Soros subverting democracy".
Today, the White House can tweet a picture of trump wearing a crown titled "Long Live the King" and there's not even a peep. The Supreme Court can rule the President to be above the law, and there's no outcry. There's a billionaire talking over the president in fox news interviews, and not a single conservative I know has anything to say about it.
Truly there is no more American principle than "No Kings Here", and yet my uncle, a former marine, KNEELED when he saw Trump on TV during the Super Bowl. It's bewildering - I don't recognize any of these people anymore.
And as a Canadian whose country been the target of a certain leader's 51st state jibes, I find it pretty hard to sympathize with the pain that Americans are going through and how bad inflation is going to get.
I suspect we'll end up seeing the Trump era as a good thing for the rest of the world -- a stable America tends to suck up all the oxygen in the room and the current daily whiplash makes the rest of us just prefer to trade with each other.
While the US still holds a fair bit of monetary power worldwide, we're basically seeing them spend soft power at a ridiculous rate.
Meanwhile, we're refocusing our economy to make it less US-centric, finding new markets for our resources and watching America self-immolate.
With that said, the average Cuban is so down that they don't get a chance of being a victim of USA's long-term sadism (though many, many, have benefited from USA's long term generosity. Florida is full of them). Being affected by USA's sanctions require sufficient standing to, well, try to import something from USA or access its financial markets in some way.
Yes, USA's legislation forbids the Cuban government and its citizens from doing business with American entities, and that includes accessing financial instruments. But all Cuban citizens are forbidden by their own government from commercially importing goods and services from any part of the world. Goods for private consumption are under a 100% tariff, except for food, which is under a temporary exception due to famine[^2]. That exemption is re-examined every three months, with government officials showing up on TV and bemoaning the missed tariff income.
Foreign investment is heavily regulated, and only allowed for big industries that the government considers strategical. The business regulation forbids citizens from participating in or forming stock corporations. There is no legal notion of corporate veil.
The Cuban banking system is wholly-government controlled[^1], and it only allows privates and businesses to give foreign currency to the government at a rate set by the government, with no exchange in the other direction. But the Cuban government decided to stop printing its national currency to force everybody to use its digital ledgers, so that they can levy revenue taxes directly (yes, "revenue", not "profit"). It makes sense in some sort of Machiavellian way. Problem is, the power infrastructure has collapsed and nothing digital is currently working. There is still a stiff tariff and insurmountable paperwork on importing solar power infrastructure--which is only allowed for private residences. If you do manage, you are required to connect that infrastructure to the public network but it's impossible to do due to bureaucracy and red-tape, and you are not to be paid by the power delivered into said network. Solar farms which do not belong to the government are not allowed.
I could keep going for a few more pages. Yes, there is USA long-term sadism towards some small nations, I've been affected by it and it's not exactly kosher. But it's a drop in the bucket compared with what those small nations do to their own citizens.
[^1] But there are some interesting corruption twists in that story which I don't have time to go on.
[^2] Famine in a country with great weather and good soils, because the government forbids farmer from selling their produce at market prices and from importing machinery and miscellaneous equipment, fertilizers and seeds.
If you look at trade action against China, you can see the contours of a strategy that could maybe actually work. Obviously, tariffs cannot be the only component of such a strategy, since the disparity between Chinese and American manufacturing capability in many fields is absolutely gigantic. It took decades for China to reach their current position, there's no reason to expect that America, or the west as a whole could expect to catch up in anything less than roughly a decade scale, especially with only unpredictable tariffs.
Trumps tariff plans against the rest of North America and the EU however... those fly in the very face of attempting to seriously take on China. USMCA is up for renewal in 2026. Whatever legitimate issues Trump had with Canada and Mexico, and whatever strong arm position he wanted to take, he could have messaged as a part of a prelude to the renewal. This probably would result in better outcomes for the US.
The US is finding that many of their critical supply chains (including defense supply chains) are passing through China. Tariffs alone are not sufficient to disentangle these elements, and the domestic messaging from Trump simply does not create the domestic conditions for sustaining both the tariffs and whatever other policies and aid are required to enact these structural changes. It's difficult to reconcile "lower inflation", "slash the budget and deficit", "tax cuts for the rich", "tariffs", and "reindustrialize America" all at once.
Randomly picking the Toyota EV battery plant that's supposed to come online this year in North Carolina - site selection was announced back in 2021. In many of these critical areas, we're talking multi-year minimal lead times to bring new capacity online.
As a Brit, I've been surprised by how much my view has shifted in the last few weeks. I used to assume we'd be allies with the US and have a probably competitive and maybe adversarial relationship with China. Now I see the US administration basically saying "we're going to make you pay through the nose for everything" (e.g. taking Ukrainian minerals). So I've started thinking "Well, if the US and China will both behave like that, surely we're best off playing them against each other and seeing who'll offer us more?"
That seems like a very bad deal for the US. So I figure that (a) the administration isn't serious about taking on China, or (b) assumes European and North American countries will roll over, or (c) they think they can go it alone.
Less than half of Americans that voted voted for Trump, and while there are definitely some people happy about what he is doing, there are also many who voted for him that aren't. I'd also like to point out that Trump didn't say anything about annexing Canada until after he had won the election.