A small violin part highlights bigger problems for the global economy
85 comments
·April 2, 2025Jun8
The article talks about violin shoulder rests manufactured in Canada. Maybe I’m not understanding the details but I think that this particular product is a bad example to showcase the damage of tariffs:
(1) This sounds like a product that can’t be easily interchanged with competitors’ offerings since Chinese competitors offer “crude imitations”, at least for now
(2) From a Google search I see that the price of this product is in the range $25-250. It’s hard to see violins students who plunk down hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for their instrument try to save tens of $s for a subpar shoulder rest. Unless perhaps it breaks weekly or something.
ziddoap
I believe this story is supposed to bring a more human/relatable element to the impacts of the tariffs and trade war, using a unique family-owned business that happens to make a violin widget.
Focusing on cheaper Chinese competitors and how student violinists might approach a cost/benefit analysis for the widget seems to miss the spirit of the article (at least, as I understood it).
plorg
Anecdotally every beginner violin student (and most players) I know use specifically Kun made shoulder rests. Instrument rental companies (where I'm from students rent instruments either through their school or a company, often run by a private teacher) generally include these with the cost of the instrument. The exceptions are generally not people using another brand but musicians not using the rest at all, many professionals will use just a cloth. Kun rests also rarely break, if ever, there aren't really any forces that would stress them.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had started to be supplanted by cheap Chinese or other import brands, but I haven't seen it.
ceejayoz
> It’s hard to see violins students who plunk down hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for their instrument try to save tens of $s for a subpar shoulder rest.
Grade school violin students almost never purchase an instrument; they rent, at surprisingly low annual cost.
navbaker
Our third grader just started viola this school year and I was amazed at how cheap the rental was! I was expecting to get raked over the coals monthly, but it was just a little over $100 for the entire year. The chin rest was one thing we didn’t have to pay for, the schools have the younger kids use a big foam sponge attached with a rubber band.
matthewdgreen
It is surprisingly profitable, given that those violins are cheap and many people forget to return it in a timely fashion.
dkjaudyeqooe
I'm not allowed to say "you're missing the point" because it's against HN rules, but maybe don't focus on this particular item so much?
It illustrates the dynamics of strictures on global trade with a simple item that has several inputs and that China is the most likely to win out in these sorts of situations because of their low cost advantage.
Cars or something are probably a better example but there are so many complicating factors that would make it less illustrative.
dcsommer
Have there been any studies or economists predicting macro-level benefits to the US economy with the tariffs? I'm not aware of any (much the opposite), but I'm interested if they exist.
Willingham
I too am interested in learning more about the other side of the debate.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion" --John Stuart Mill
nonethewiser
I think an interesting angle to this discussion is the fact that before the "temporary" income taxes (in 1913), tariffs were the primary source of tax revenue in the United States. There are lots of modern economists in favor of consumption taxes over income taxes. And in a climate where people are up in arms about billionaires skirting income taxes, you'd think it might be a popular idea to tax all the money they spend.
PaulDavisThe1st
Consumption taxes are wildly regressive. US tax policy since 1913 (and arguably even before) is (perhaps suprisingly) very progressive (*). Not a good fit.
(*) progressive in the sense of following the principle that the impact of taxes should be roughly the same for all, not in the general political sense.
D-Coder
"No more billionaires. None. After you reach $999 million, every red cent goes to schools and healthcare. You get a trophy that says, “I won capitalism,” and we name a dog park after you." — Mikel Jollett
sctb
Yanis Varoufakis has been writing about this with a mostly neutral, inquisitive tone. Recently:
https://unherd.com/2025/02/why-trumps-tariffs-are-a-masterpl...
https://unherd.com/2025/04/will-liberation-day-transform-the...
PaulDavisThe1st
Good links, though I would not call that a "mostly neutral, inquisitive tone". Varoufakis knows that the outcome of Trump's imagined/proposed tariffs cannot be known at this point, and so he explores a couple of the possible results.
milesvp
I don't know about any credible economist currently making positive predictions (marginal revolution might be a good place to keep your finger on the pulse), but I did see a paper a few years ago that showed protectionist tariffs in britain several hundred years ago had a strong correlation to current day prevalance/strength of current industries. Which is to say, that industries with higher tariffs had a stronger pressence today.
All things being equal, I might expect that strategic tariffs on important sectors to be vital in maintaining them. But, given how global the economy is, and how many more non-obvious substitutions there are today, I'm not sure these protections provide as much value going forward as they did 200 years ago. Worse, is blanket tariffs are not likely to do anything in the short term but drive up local prices to match foreign import goods costs, and is likely going to be a major wealth redistribution event towards physical capital holders.
PaulDavisThe1st
The idea is to encourage "at home" investment because the consumer-facing cost of production inside the tariff border will be less, and thus the products will sell better and thus ... capitalism.
This is such a childish, simplistic, naive view of both capitalism and material production in 2025 that it barely deserves a mention.
bryanlarsen
AFAICT a lot of studies and economists predict macro-level benefits to the US economy for tariffs, but they also predict that the costs will outweigh the benefits.
For example, this analysis of the term 1 tariffs show 1,000 jobs gained and up to 75,000 jobs lost.
null
null
tim333
Peter Navarro says it's going to be good.
>“The message is that tariffs are tax cuts, tariffs are jobs, tariffs are national security,” Navarro told Fox News Sunday. “Tariffs are great for America. They will make America great again.” https://inews.co.uk/news/world/peter-navarro-behind-trump-ta...
nonethewiser
I too have found the discourse around tariffs lacking. This is a common and blatant logical fallacy I see:
- Tariffs are bad. They hurt the country enacting overall it in the long run.
- It's correct to respond to the US tariffs with tariffs in response.
Additionally, people seem to not understand that a country that exports more to the US than it imports stands to lose more when the US/that country have the same level of tariffs.
At a large scale, if global trade breaks down the United States will be comparatively (not absolutely) better off because they can support themselves (consumption, food, raw materials).
None of this is an endorsement of tariffs. I think the US is in a pretty good spot and things could get a lot worse. Tariffs absolutely will make expensive things more expensive, and it will hurt. But the discussion I've seen online has reduced itself to some sort of weird orthodoxy that doesnt even make sense.
pcthrowaway
I think this is only the case if there aren't replacements available from other countries.
I feel like China is going to be the biggest winner of this tariff war.
Just as an example (from Canada), we had long had a 50% tariff on Chinese EVs which helped U.S. EV manufacturers stay competitive. Now I think we're going to relax that (which IIUC was only implemented to appease our relationship with the U.S. in the first place) and cheaper Chinese EVs should start appearing on the market.
Good for Canadians, good for China. Not as good for the U.S.
drivebyhooting
What’s good for China is not good for Canada in the long run. There are many reasons you can think of.
A small and often overlooked one is that a Chinese hegemony would decrease the língua franca status of English.
nonethewiser
China is quite reliant on food and energy imports (two critical preconditions for everything) and their consumption rates arent great which is not good for an export based economy.
They could be a beneficiary if global trade doesnt go nuclear. And it probably wont. If it does they are in big trouble.
BenFranklin100
Just about any undergraduate textbook will discuss tariffs and why they are nearly universal regarded as poor policy. See Samuelson for instance. The online discourse is poor because the vast majority of people, even those who are educated, have never cracked open a 1st year Econ textbook.
dkjaudyeqooe
I think most people are not thinking on purpose, and just accepting the dogma of one side or the other.
nonethewiser
>Just about any undergraduate textbook will discuss tariffs and why they are nearly universal regarded as poor policy.
I think its poor because people see tariffs not immediately derided and they swoop in to denigrate them. Please re-read my entire comment.
lakhim
Its not a fallacy but game theory playing out - known as beggar thy neighbour policies.
nonethewiser
That is very relevant overall and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. But what I'm talking about are people who declare tariffs as an absolute bad and then go on to say enacting them is rational and good. In the beggar thy neighbor policy, the behavior is not considered an absolutely bad thing. This happens with tariffs as well, but people can be even more dogmatic about it.
dragonwriter
War is bad. It is correct to respond to aggression initiating war with defensive war.
Trade wars are like regular wars, in that respect.
nonethewiser
OK. So you support the US enacting reciprocal tariffs.
edit: lots of evasion from this point below
tialaramex
My understanding is that in principle you could use this to cause onshoring, but you want to target the tariffs narrowly and you need everybody to believe that they're long term.
Trump's plan doesn't do the former and no US President could achieve the second.
tim333
It seems kind of bizarre to me how a few months ago the Economist cover on the US economy was 'Envy of the World' on how they were doing better than everyone else https://archive.ph/xIJmT And now we have:
>“For decades our country has been looted, pillaged and raped,” Trump told an audience that included cabinet members and car workers. “It’s not going to happen any more.”
as a justification for a trade war. I guess people voted for this?
dkjaudyeqooe
This article illustrates how economically destructive these tariffs are for all involved.
Of course those who are politically favored, such as US farmers, will get a handout, everyone else gets to pound sand.
I think a US recession is a given at this point, the only question is if there will also be a global recession.
If Trump persists with the threatened tariffs, there will definitely be a reordering of US and global trade, but not in the way he thinks. The US will likely have lower growth and higher inflation, ie "stagflation" and the rest of the world will move to trading with itself and without the US. There will be less competition and a consequent lowering of quality and innovation in areas such as cars.
It's a recipe for long term US decline.
dehrmann
> such as US farmers
The foreign strategy of punishing industries in regions that voted for Trump makes sense. So does subsidizing US farmers because we want to overproduce food to ensure supply stability. A key job of government is to step when when markets would/will fail, and markets don't like over-producing.
dkjaudyeqooe
> So does subsidizing US farmers because we want to overproduce food to ensure supply stability.
The US already does this, I'm talking about payments for losses due to tariffs.
gosub100
.> everyone else gets to pound sand.
Or the factory can build their parts here in one of our 50 great states. Turns out, Canada isn't the only place you can build a violin face rest.
ziddoap
Extend this thinking out globally, where some of the products need factories (or entire supply chains) that take a decade (or more) to establish, and you might realize that there are some issues (at least short-term) with the "simply build it here" mentality.
drivebyhooting
I agree. But unless the incentives are changed, the US will continue to deindustrialize. Many here constantly bemoan the financialization of American companies. But that’s all that’s left after gutting the industrial capacity.
Think not for one moment that Apple et al can rest on their laurels “designed in California”. China is coming for the value chain lunch.
mikestew
Just pick up a manufacturing process and tooling and move it to another country? To sell $35USD violin shoulder rests to a niche market? I just can't think of a polite way to ask how hard you thought about this before posting.
gosub100
If they're $35 items they weren't that valuable in the first place. Easily can be retooled here. Nice try to turn it into an ad hominem though, I didn't even notice:)
ceejayoz
As with "I coded a Twitter clone in a weekend", this tends to be a lot harder than you might imagine.
morkalork
Hello investors! I have an opportunity here and would like to build a factory in the USA. The market is tiny, the product is bespoke, and the MSRP is also tiny. We'd be looking at employing around 10 people (as per the fine article). Also the economic conditions may disappear tonight, tomorrow or next few years. Any time, really. Oh, not interested in investing? Quelle surprise..
mjewkes
Sure, they can build it here—but protectionism doesn’t deliver long-term success.
In the short term, it drives up prices and makes consumers poorer. In the long run, tariffs shield companies from global competition and limit their ability to scale. Without that pressure or opportunity, businesses grow weaker—not stronger.
That weakens U.S. industry, not strengthens it.
gosub100
> deliver long-term success.
Is that Wharton business buzz-speak? Did the millons of jobs lost when manufacturing was moved overseas "deliver long-term success" ?
Driving up prices is ok sometimes. It makes sense when the value of the dollar is diluted thanks to inflation. People cannot afford to live anywhere, and judging by the replies, everyone here is fine with that.
rwmj
How would they get US visas for all of their staff? How much will it cost to move their factory? How will this new factory in the US avoid retaliatory tariffs from the other countries they want to sell into?
dragonwriter
Yes, and those new factories can employ some of the people unemployed from more valuable industries as a result of the retaliatory tariffs, but the net result of broad tariffs is to constrict both the global and domestic production possibilities curve and the aggregate value created, both globally and locally.
Symbiote
> Or the factory can build their parts here in one of our 50 great states.
Then the ⅔ they sell outside the USA would be subject to the retaliatory tariffs likely to come in response to Trump's tariffs. They'd also lose at least some of their existing 10 employees who wouldn't want to move, so they'd need to train more — quality would suffer.
It's more likely they'll find ways to avoid the USA — the European nylon supplier mentioned in the article might reduce their minimum order size, or maybe they could find another business to split the minimum order. The Canadian packaging producer is probably trying to find a Canadian paper supplier.
gosub100
Or maybe a US start-up will fill the need? Why do you rule that out, when everything else you said was conjecture?
debacle
Before these new tariffs, Canadian tariffs on US goods were more than double US tariffs on Canadian goods, as a percentage. If we want to eliminate tariffs, the proper outcome would be for Canada to lower its preexisting tariffs. I don't think anyone in the Canadian government has proposed that solution.
acc_297
"Canadian tariffs" doesn't mean anything please specify on which goods you are referring to. (e.g. lumber, dairy etc...)
The American government is proposing across the board on every import (>=$800 or something) tariffs which has never been implemented by the Canadian government on American goods.
Canada is highly protective of certain industries which are typically small and are engaged in by a large voting population but small portion of the economy (GDP). As a percentage of total goods that American companies might actually want to export to Canada import tariffs are typically quite low.
ceejayoz
Citation?
It sounds like this debunked claim: https://www.factcheck.org/2025/04/trumps-misleading-claim-on...
debacle
Your linked source is a completely different issue, which is that there are other tariffs designed to artificially limit trade. These are de facto quotas on trade.
ziddoap
If it isn't in reference to what ceejayoz linked to... what tariffs are you talking about?
A link would be great, but you can just name the products if that's easier, and I'll look up the data.
ceejayoz
If you don't like my source - which appears to be very close to your claim - I would encourage you to provide your own.
programmertote
I didn't downvote your comment above. But I think you might be interested to watch this one (of course, the video is made by a Canadian YouTuber, but I think he can back up his claims in the video from what I observe): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZvDhayPHxs&t=471s
https://archive.ph/Rq4KK