Featured EU set to allow possible retroactive tariffs for Chinese EVs

This comes as a surprise, yes?

 

How is a retroactive tariff applied?

Poliz: KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK.
Herr Schmidt, "Coming, Wass ist going on?"
Poliz: "Vee are here to collect the tariff you did not pay!"
Herr Schmidt, "VOTT?"
Poliz: "Yah! Das Chinese EV car you bought."
Herr Schmidt, "OK, here are the keys. Who is our Prime Minister and his party?"​

Bob Wilson

 

Retroactive or "ex post facto" laws are not allowed in the US Constitution and most other countries.

 

Tariffs are a two-edged sword-
for some their perspective is it protects jobs and industry-
for others their perspective is it artificially increases consumer cost and access to goods-
and then there are a wealth of others whose opinions are a mixed bag between these two views.

The EU and currently the US (within a certain political party) would both have an unhealthy alliance and undue influence from Labor Unions for better or worse depending on your view.

At one time the USA and Europe were Kings of Manufacturing Worldwide - now in many instances they cannot even compete in some areas of manufacturing.

 

My understanding is the statute of limitations can be 'adjusted.' See "E. Jean Carroll vs Donald Trump."

Bob Wilson

 

An extension of the statute of limitations is not an "ex post facto" law.

The act that occured at the time of the E. Jean Carroll rape was illegal at the time it occurred.

If rape was legal at the time it occurred and now illegal, that would be an "ex post facto" law action.

 

Tariffs are a tax on the consumer. Tariffs are paid by the consumer, NOT by the country whse goods the tariffs are placed on.

It is a cause of inflation.

It allows the domestic producer to raise prices on account that they do not have to compete against lower cost imported goods.

It is another way to make the corporations richer at the cost of the poor consumer.

The better way to protect domestic jobs is by innovation and efficient manufacturing. Make a better product efficiently can beat the import and benefit both the worker and the consumer.


The worse case was Herbert Hoover's Harley-Smoot which worsened the Great Depression, as did the English Corn Laws that was a significant cause of the Irish Potato Famine.

 

That's why I still drive my level 2 2012 Prius v with no connection to WiFi.

 

Do you have a smart phone or wifi in your home?

 

These amounts on the tariff seem much more reasonable than the US 100% tariff wants to implement. at around 20%, they likely did an analysis that showed china tends to subsidize the manufacture of the vehicles by about that much more than the various EU based subsidies for their EV industry do.

If there's a factual basis behind the percentages, then I personally see no issue with it. Though - to some extent - fighting fire with fire might be a better choice in terms of broadening EV adoption as part of a broader suite of climate change combatting policies.

 

An "ex post facto" adjustment to a tariff would require hunting down each purchaser and demand they pay the tariff fee.

Bob Wilson

 

You think Google and Apple have your best interest in mind? Or the Chinese factories making their products?

If security and privacy are really the concern with Chinese products, shore up the regulations to protect the consumer from all actors instead of engaging in tit for tat trade squabbles.