54% China tariff

[msinger]

I'm guessing you won't accept this, but if you really want to try critical thinking, here's an alternative to what you've been told.

While that video is well-produced, you can save a lot of time by going directly to the source here. There are also additional details there that explain why this is apparently being implemented. Whether it makes sense or is complete is up for debate I suppose.

 

[Meta4]

While that video is well-produced, you can save a lot of time by going directly to the source here. There are also additional details there that explain why this is apparently being implemented. Whether it makes sense or is complete is up for debate I suppose.

It's well produced but also contradicts the blatant lies and propaganda in the document you suggested.

 

[Harleydude]

You've fallen for misinformation.
Countries aren't "ripping us off" in trade and the tariff policies you've been told about just aren't true.

Please notice that I used quotations around "ripping us off" for a reason. I was quoting the president, not necessarily siding with his sentiment. My summation of what the president means by "ripping us off" is the non-monetary barriers, which I will get into in a subsequent comment below.

Do you have any idea where Autel drones came from?

Touché. I should have cited:

• Skydio
• AeroVironment
• BRINC Drones
• Freefly Systems
• Teal Drones
• Insitu
• Vantage Robotics
• Draganfly
• Easy Aerial, or
• Vision Aerial

There is so much BS being spread around this issue.

The problem is that tariffs and the calculation of "effective tariffs" (via of ALL factors involving trade) is complicated. While there are literal tariffs on many U.S. goods going into China, there are other non-monetary trade barriers that factor into the entire "tariff pie" if you will.

I'm guessing you won't accept this, but if you really want to try critical thinking, here's an alternative to what you've been told.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I absolutely accept this. But the problem here is twofold:

1) Trump literally told us out loud in his own words how he was going to calculate the tariffs.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

2) The video fails to mention these non-monetary barriers and actually seems to dismiss them. Here are just a few non-monetary trade barriers on U.S. exports going into China.

• Quotas and Licensing: China restricted U.S. agricultural exports through import quotas. Cotton faced a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) system: 1% duty within 894,000 tons, but 40% beyond it, choking U.S. supply. Licensing delays for U.S. biotech crops (e.g., GMOs) also stalled market entry.
• Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures: China blocked U.S. poultry with unscientific avian influenza bans (lifted partially in 2020 but reapplied sporadically), and rejected U.S. seafood over vague “health standards.” The 2024 NTE Report notes these as “arbitrary.”
• Subsidies to Domestic Firms: China’s subsidies to its agricultural and industrial sectors (e.g., $22 billion annually to farmers, per OECD) undercut U.S. competitiveness in China’s market, indirectly acting as a barrier.
• Regulatory Opacity: U.S. firms faced unpredictable customs delays and certification requirements. For example, medical devices needed redundant China-specific testing, adding costs and time.
• Forced Technology Transfer: U.S. companies entering China often had to share tech with local partners, a condition not formalized as a tariff but a steep barrier to market access.

Now, you seem like a smart guy, so I'm sure you're aware that this is just the tip of the "nuance" iceberg. So where do I stand on all this?

Q: Are the president's assessments of trade imbalance accurate?
A: Of course not.

Q: Are they fair?
A: It's hard to say.

Beyond these simple questions, talking heads and pundits ask consumers over-simplified questions, and then publish the answers:

OSQ: Are tariffs good for the U.S.?
CTA: Good for whom? Bad for whom? And for how long?

The stock market is in a state of shock due to volatility and uncertainty in this post-tariff world. Is this bad? Again, bad for whom? And for how long?

My 401(k) lost $3K this week. All my stocks went down. So you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to throw $20K into it Monday.

My point is that, because this kind of tariff strategy has never been tried before, I promise I won't celebrate the tariffs if you promise you won't panic over them. Personally, I think it will work (key word "think"), but in the long-term. In the short term there is going to be panic and volatility. Paraphrasing; "4% of the population owns 90% of the stocks." So the stock market isn't representative of your average Joe worker. Ergo, average Joe worker isn't going to panic over the Dow Jones. Realizing that a 401(k) is a LONG-TERM investment, I'm not going to panic. Not even remotely. Instead, I'm going to take advantage of the dips and BUY stock.

Will prices on goods go up? In the short term, most certainly. In the long term I believe the U.S. will benefit and as America gets stronger and back on its financial feet (pay down on the deficit), inflation will settle (maybe even DEflation for the first time centuries), and the economy will boom. I predict that whatever drone we end up buying in 2 years, we'll be happy with the price and/or the change of brand. Why? Because it will either be a cheaper-than-now Chinese drone or an American-made drone.

D

P.S. The fact that comments are turned off for the CBS YouTube video is very telling. One of the tenets of fascism is to oppress opposing viewpoints. Just sayin'...

 

[Meta4]

My 401(k) lost $3K this week. All my stocks went down. So you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to throw $20K into it Monday.

Good luck with that.
S&P futures don't share your confidence.

 

[msinger]

It's well produced but also contradicts the blatant lies and propaganda in the document you suggested.

Here's a breakdown of the video (feel free to correct me if I missed anything notable):

• 1:29: The infamous tariff chart includes a column named "Tariffs Charged to the U.S.A.", which notes the listed values also account for other things like currency manipulation and trade barriers.
  
  
• 3:19: References the 67% figure from the tariff chart, which the Trump White House claims China is charging the US in tariffs.
  
  
• 3:26: Clarified that the 67% number number is not based on any actual tariff China imposes. (Yes, this was already pointed out at 1:29 in the video.)
  
  
• 4:01: Breaks down the formula posted on the USTR site, making it easier to understand.
  
  
• 4:44: CBS host congratulates himself for simplifying the overly complex formula.
  
  
• 5:05: Seems confused about how the formula makes sense, even though the first sentence on the USTR site clearly explains the goal of the formula ("balance bilateral trade deficits between the U.S. and each of our trading partners").
  
  
• 5:39: Played a video clip that explains bilateral trade balances aren't necessarily a bad thing. (This may be the only redeeming segment of the entire video.)
  
  
• 7:02: A well-known left-wing video clip is played, featuring Trump calling "tariff" the most beautiful word in the dictionary. (Par for the course since US news is a massive propaganda machine.)
  
  
• 7:48: Continued to comment on the simplicity of the formula.
  
  
• 8:04: Plays a strange clip where someone argues that countries won't be able to reduce their tariffs because they aren't actually as high as the tariff chart suggests. (Yes, this was already explained at 1:29 in the video.)
  
  
• 8:31: The same clip continues on and claims the real issue is other countries aren't buying enough from the US. (This shows a lack of understanding about the US economy, which isn't even able to produce many of the goods it consumes.)
  
  
• 8:48: After nearly 9 minutes into the video, CBS finally makes a valid observation that tariffs are also being applied to countries that import more from the US. (This is the only thing not mentioned on the USTR site.)

From what I can tell, the only propaganda was in that video clip itself. I can see how that might be hard to recognize if you're not from the US and aren't familiar with how things actually work here.

That said, the plan on the USTR site seems highly unrealistic to me. It would take years to accomplish much of what is documented.

S&P futures don't share your confidence.

Markets are a long game. There will always be ups and downs, especially during times of uncertainty (like now).

The good news is that uncertainty doesn't last forever!

 

[Harleydude]

Good luck with that.
S&P futures don't share your confidence.

Yep. The 4% are shaking in their boots. To assert that the market will never recover would be obtuse. I predict it will fully recover and STAY recovered before the year is out.

D

 

[jaja6009]

• Skydio
• AeroVironment
• BRINC Drones
• Freefly Systems
• Teal Drones
• Insitu
• Vantage Robotics
• Draganfly
• Easy Aerial, or
• Vision Aerial

I'd rather have my DJI. Draganfly is Canadian also. Our public safety program runs well because of Flight Hub 2 which would be a $20,000 subscription for Skydio and Brinc if you wanted the same bells and whistles. I don't know if the others have a similar offering, but the 3rd party solutions (Flight Hub 2 type software) are also pricey for those above that do not offer a similar platform.

 

[Harleydude]

• Skydio
• AeroVironment
• BRINC Drones
• Freefly Systems
• Teal Drones
• Insitu
• Vantage Robotics
• Draganfly
• Easy Aerial, or
• Vision Aerial

I'd rather have my DJI. Draganfly is Canadian also. Our public safety program runs well because of Flight Hub 2 which would be a $20,000 subscription for Skydio and Brinc if you wanted the same bells and whistles. I don't know if the others have a similar offering, but the 3rd party solutions (Flight Hub 2 type software) are also pricey for those above that do not offer a similar platform.

The same first and third-party software compatibility DJI enjoys now would migrate over to any other drone company who becomes #1 seller in America. Or said software would be replaced with something better. Like any other company, software developers follow the money.

D

 

[jaja6009]

Not sure how software we can't afford is better for us. All Flight Hub 2 competitors are out of range of our limited budget. The same goes for drones we can't afford.

I've had demos on several of the listed drones. None came close to price to capability and ease of use.

 

[Harleydude]

Not sure how software we can't afford is better for us. All Flight Hub 2 competitors are out of range of our limited budget. The same goes for drones we can't afford.

I've had demos on several of the listed drones. None came close to price to capability and ease of use.

Chinese drones are manufactured by cheap Chinese labor with no labor unions or ADA compliance and cheaply developed with no FAA or DOT restrictions and cheaply manufactured with raw materials that are cheaply mined with no EPA restrictions. Because of this, the Chinese get to sell their cheap drones to countries that have rules, regulations, restrictions, agencies, permits, certifications, licensing and on and on and on much cheaper than their domestic counterparts. China simply modifies their firmware to comply with foreign regulation. These modifications are nothing more than checking boxes or modifying numbers in the existing firmware. I know, because I have unchecked these boxes and modified these numbers. They then throw these drones on a large container ship at a cost of pennies per drone.

Conversely, drones made in America have, what add up to, thousands of dollars in restrictions, regulations, certifications and compliance. If U.S. drone manufacturers wish to sell in (export to) China, they are taxed by the Chinese government. To make things worse, there are other non-monetary barriers that ultimately raise the cost of American drones exported to China. Not only has China made it impossible to for American drone companies to compete with Chinese drone companies in China, America has made it impossible for American drone companies to compete with Chinese drone companies in America. It's an uneven playing field.

One facet of this administration's multifaceted economic plan is to lift 10 rules and regulations for every new regulation passed. Facet 2 is to give tax breaks to U.S. manufacturers for the purpose of bringing manufacturing back to our shores. I'm sure this administration will also have a discussion with the FAA about their draconian drone restrictions. I'll cite the entire 107 program as one of the most ridiculous, time-wasting, revenue-generating, ineffective regulations to ever scourge the UAV community. I would challenge anybody to prove that that program has done anything to improve the piloting skills of a single UAV pilot. Another chat for another day.

To offset labor and mining discrepancies, this administration is going to tax imported Chinese drones imported into the U.S. All this, in theory, should level the playing field for American-made goods, including drones. Once the U.S. gains domination in the drone industry (as we should have a decade ago), you will find U.S. drones cheaper and more capable than their Chinese counterparts.

I concede that this is all theory and depends on codification of this administrations EO's, plans and paradigms. It's a house of cards tipping on 2026/2028 elections. But if the U.S. is allowed to continue forward with its change of trajectory that took us out of world domination and into a debt wall that has reached critical mass after decades of abuse, there's a good chance that "made in America" will mean something again. But the world is against us. And to make things worse, there are some Americans who are against us. It's an uphill battle. Time will tell.

Discuss.

D

 

[dewens]

Yep. The 4% are shaking in their boots. To assert that the market will never recover would be obtuse. I predict it will fully recover and STAY recovered before the year is out.

D

34% not 54%

 

[dewens]

Chinese drones are manufactured by cheap Chinese labor with no labor unions or ADA compliance and cheaply developed with no FAA or DOT restrictions and cheaply manufactured with raw materials that are cheaply mined with no EPA restrictions. Because of this, the Chinese get to sell their cheap drones to countries that have rules, regulations, restrictions, agencies, permits, certifications, licensing and on and on and on much cheaper than their domestic counterparts. China simply modifies their firmware to comply with foreign regulation. These modifications are nothing more than checking boxes or modifying numbers in the existing firmware. I know, because I have unchecked these boxes and modified these numbers. They then throw these drones on a large container ship at a cost of pennies per drone.

Conversely, drones made in America have, what add up to, thousands of dollars in restrictions, regulations, certifications and compliance. If U.S. drone manufacturers wish to sell in (export to) China, they are taxed by the Chinese government. To make things worse, there are other non-monetary barriers that ultimately raise the cost of American drones exported to China. Not only has China made it impossible to for American drone companies to compete with Chinese drone companies in China, America has made it impossible for American drone companies to compete with Chinese drone companies in America. It's an uneven playing field.

One facet of this administration's multifaceted economic plan is to lift 10 rules and regulations for every new regulation passed. Facet 2 is to give tax breaks to U.S. manufacturers for the purpose of bringing manufacturing back to our shores. I'm sure this administration will also have a discussion with the FAA about their draconian drone restrictions. I'll cite the entire 107 program as one of the most ridiculous, time-wasting, revenue-generating, ineffective regulations to ever scourge the UAV community. I would challenge anybody to prove that that program has done anything to improve the piloting skills of a single UAV pilot. Another chat for another day.

To offset labor and mining discrepancies, this administration is going to tax imported Chinese drones imported into the U.S. All this, in theory, should level the playing field for American-made goods, including drones. Once the U.S. gains domination in the drone industry (as we should have a decade ago), you will find U.S. drones cheaper and more capable than their Chinese counterparts.

I concede that this is all theory and depends on codification of this administrations EO's, plans and paradigms. It's a house of cards tipping on 2026/2028 elections. But if the U.S. is allowed to continue forward with its change of trajectory that took us out of world domination and into a debt wall that has reached critical mass after decades of abuse, there's a good chance that "made in America" will mean something again. But the world is against us. And to make things worse, there are some Americans who are against us. It's an uphill battle. Time will tell.

Discuss.

D

America did not invest in research and development, that is why we are in the position that we are in as it relates to drones. Like DJI has.

 

[dewens]

I think it only starts to get political when people post things like this that haven’t actually happened. Are you saying a 54% tariff automatically means prices will go up by 54%? If so, I’m not sure that’s accurate, and whoever told you that might have their own agenda.

Besides, if DJI raised the prices of all their drones by 54%, we both know what would likely happen. Most people would stop buying them.

It is 34%. It is paid by the importer and the cost is passed on to the buyer to pay

 

[jaja6009]

Chinese drones are manufactured by cheap Chinese labor with no labor unions or ADA compliance and cheaply developed with no FAA or DOT restrictions and cheaply manufactured with raw materials that are cheaply mined with no EPA restrictions. Because of this, the Chinese get to sell their cheap drones to countries that have rules, regulations, restrictions, agencies, permits, certifications, licensing and on and on and on much cheaper than their domestic counterparts. China simply modifies their firmware to comply with foreign regulation. These modifications are nothing more than checking boxes or modifying numbers in the existing firmware. I know, because I have unchecked these boxes and modified these numbers. They then throw these drones on a large container ship at a cost of pennies per drone.

Conversely, drones made in America have, what add up to, thousands of dollars in restrictions, regulations, certifications and compliance. If U.S. drone manufacturers wish to sell in (export to) China, they are taxed by the Chinese government. To make things worse, there are other non-monetary barriers that ultimately raise the cost of American drones exported to China. Not only has China made it impossible to for American drone companies to compete with Chinese drone companies in China, America has made it impossible for American drone companies to compete with Chinese drone companies in America. It's an uneven playing field.

One facet of this administration's multifaceted economic plan is to lift 10 rules and regulations for every new regulation passed. Facet 2 is to give tax breaks to U.S. manufacturers for the purpose of bringing manufacturing back to our shores. I'm sure this administration will also have a discussion with the FAA about their draconian drone restrictions. I'll cite the entire 107 program as one of the most ridiculous, time-wasting, revenue-generating, ineffective regulations to ever scourge the UAV community. I would challenge anybody to prove that that program has done anything to improve the piloting skills of a single UAV pilot. Another chat for another day.

To offset labor and mining discrepancies, this administration is going to tax imported Chinese drones imported into the U.S. All this, in theory, should level the playing field for American-made goods, including drones. Once the U.S. gains domination in the drone industry (as we should have a decade ago), you will find U.S. drones cheaper and more capable than their Chinese counterparts.

I concede that this is all theory and depends on codification of this administrations EO's, plans and paradigms. It's a house of cards tipping on 2026/2028 elections. But if the U.S. is allowed to continue forward with its change of trajectory that took us out of world domination and into a debt wall that has reached critical mass after decades of abuse, there's a good chance that "made in America" will mean something again. But the world is against us. And to make things worse, there are some Americans who are against us. It's an uphill battle. Time will tell.

Discuss.

D

Way too political for me. I'll keep using DJI until I can't.

 

[Meta4]

But if the U.S. is allowed to continue forward with its change of trajectory that took us out of world domination and into a debt wall that has reached critical mass after decades of abuse, there's a good chance that "made in America" will mean something again. But the world is against us. And to make things worse, there are some Americans who are against us. It's an uphill battle. Time will tell.

What a warped perspective.
You have no idea what the actual problem is.

 

[Mark The Droner]

It is 34%. It is paid by the importer and the cost is passed on to the buyer to pay

Sorry, but I don't really think it's that simple. It seems to me the manufacturer will be forced to pay some of it indirectly because the importer will raise his fee. And the importer will pay a chunk of it because he knows or will quickly learn that many buyers will balk at a 34% increase. And the buyer will pay some of it.

 

[msinger]

And the importer will pay a chunk of it because he knows or will quickly learn that many buyers will balk at a 34% increase. And the buyer will pay some of it.

That's what I'm thinking as well. Also, the tariff is based on the declared value of the goods upon entry into the country, not the retail price paid by consumers.