First impacts of tariffs

[Coug90]

I’ll start off by admitting that I got a C- in economics and considered that a minor miracle. But…I don’t see how clamping down on exports of an entire country (which American consumers are going to pay for anyway) is going to have any impact on the flow of drugs.

There’s a pretty simple reason that drugs are flooding into the US - people are buying/using them. There’s a strong market. Pinching off a bit of the supply is going to do two things - drive up the price, and force smugglers to get more creative. Without doing anything to impact the demand, monkeying with the supply is pretty futile.

I guess the theory is that if people have to pay more for avocados and maple syrup, they won’t be able to afford meth?

Yeah drugs flood the country because there’s a lot of money in this country and the consequences for holding or dealing are worth the risk for junkies and dealers. These tariffs won’t do shit. If the idea is to starve out the druggies, congrats you just increased auto thefts, burglaries, robberies, muggings, along with the prices the rest of us pay for shit they steal. Brilliant.

 

[COUGinNCW]

That’s where private contracting is less maddening than public. Procurement rules pretty much force public entities to allow themselves to get hosed. As if being forced into prevailing wage - which is a huge crock - wasn’t enough, it also locks in bid pricing on the low end (not the high), punishes changes in scope, and is soft on deadlines.
If a public bid went back to the table to renegotiate when costs went down, it would lead to an immediate lawsuit and a trial by public opinion that the agency wouldn’t win. If a corporation did the same thing, well, that’s just business.

DOT contracts have escalators for fuel and oil that giveth and taketh away.

 

[95coug]

I agree that where there is demand, profit motive will provide a product. And I suspect demand in the good ole US of A isn’t going away anytime soon, no matter what Nancy Reagan said. The other thing not going away is the political pressure to rid the US of drugs.

The way I look at it is kind of like NATO defense spending. The border is a line on a map. It can be secured on either or both sides of the line. But if it’s only be done on one side, the other side is getting a free ride. So, I think it’s fair for Canada and Mexico to contribute to border security similar to NATO countries contributing to defense. If Canada doesn’t spend the two percent (and Canada is one of the worst NATO countries for spending) it means Canada is getting a free ride on national defense. Universal healthcare and the public pension gets funded instead. If Russia decides to invade Cape Columbia (I looked up Canada’s northern most point), guess who’s launching the cruise missiles at the Ruskies? I guess there has been a surge of crossings at the northern border. I kinda doubt the Mounties are doing much heavy lifting on border security.

Now, Mexico is a lot messier, for a lot of reasons. One of the big things is Mexico needs to secure (and keep secure) its own southern border. That stems the flow of migrants from Central and South America. Trump wants remain in Mexico back too. He seemed to get what he wanted on both those points in his first term.

And of course, the USMCA hitting its “joint review” in 2026 should not be overlooked. The parties are supposed to discuss revisisions, and each must submit a notice to extend the agreement, or it will ends in 2036. Trump will obviously leverage that to the hilt.

Mexico won’t be able to secure a border - any border -no matter what we do to them economically. Their government doesn’t even control most of their country.