> So execute it for China alone. The issue is that these blanket actions are lazy at best and exclusively populist.

Same argument. If there's a country that doesn't get tariffs, that country will very quickly become the leading global exporter to the US. It's the same thing for the "penguin island" that everyone mocked: if you put high tariffs on every place but penguin island, it will soon be Penguin Island Logistics Center.

Setting aside judgment of the tariff policy and the chaotic implementation, it does make sense to make them blanket actions. Much of the byzantine nature of our existing supply chains is due to gaming of international tariff policy.

▲

someotherperson 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> If there's a country that doesn't get tariffs, that country will very quickly become the leading global exporter to the US

No it won't lol, that's not how international logistics work. You don't just flick a switch overnight. Maybe measured in the order of years... in which case the policies can be adjusted. They clearly think this works for taxing Americans given how huge the tax code is.

> same thing for the "penguin island" that everyone mocked: if you put high tariffs on every place but penguin island, it will soon be Penguin Island Logistics Center

Penguin island was stupid because it reflected how lazy the policies they applied are. It clearly showed that the Trump administration doesn't fundamentally understand what trade deficits are nor does it have an actual, well thought out plan. The only thing Penguin island has in common with this is that both actions are incredibly lazy and superficial. The Trump admin needs to get serious.

	▲	timr 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> No it won't lol, that's not how international logistics work. You don't just flick a switch overnight. I didn't say "overnight". But if you don't think it would happen, you haven't been paying attention: it has been happening for decades. It's not a crazy thing to consider when establishing a tariff policy. > Penguin island was stupid because it reflected how lazy the policies they applied are. It clearly showed that the Trump administration doesn't fundamentally understand what trade deficits are nor does it have an actual, well thought out plan. The only thing Penguin island has in common with this is that both actions are incredibly lazy and superficial. The Trump admin needs to get serious. Flinging names ("lazy", "superficial") is not an argument. You've obviously decided that these actions are stupid -- maybe they are! [1] -- and nobody is going to convince you otherwise, but I just gave you a plausible reason that you'd choose to do it this way. [1] I don't personally like these policies, but I'm willing to admit when something I don't like as a whole makes sense in part.

▲

Symbiote a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Exports have a country of origin declared.

If I post something from Denmark to Canada, they want to know the origin of the goods. If it's China, the China tariffs (if any) apply rather than the Denmark/EU ones.

If the declaration is incorrect, the goods can be siezed or returned.

Penguin Island is a nature preserve (the whole thing), no one is building anything.

	▲	timr 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The words you're looking for are "substantial transformation" [1]. Exporters in country A (with high tariffs on exports to USA) ship partially completed products to country B (with no/lower tariffs to USA), and then do some manufacturing step. Country B then exports completed products to USA. China was doing this extensively via Mexico under the USMCA [2]. It's not a matter of debate. [1] https://www.trade.gov/rules-origin-substantial-transformatio... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i3Y14TNqCI