Bikes in the age of tariffs
109 comments
·April 3, 2025whynotmaybe
yzydserd
And consumers will pay the $12. It won’t make it viable to make the bike in the US for < $40.
hx8
These blanket tariffs are less about protecting/encouraging domestic manufacturing and more about renegotiating trade. At this current framing ("reciprocal tariffs") there is an implication that they are short term. The negotiations with Canada and Mexico demonstrate a tic-for-tat game theory in effect.
Without introducing the tariffs as a long term position businesses will be less inclined to do the capital expenditure to manufacture in the US, even for businesses within the margin (mostly manufacturing with high energy inputs and low supply chain requirements) where it would be economical.
yzydserd
While the framing has been reciprocal tariffs, the WH has published the formula and it’s essentially based on reciprocal trade surpluses, not tariffs. If one country sells more to the US than the US sells back then that’s seen as bad. Even if the other country has no tariff.
jaredklewis
Like I hope you’re right, but what are you basing this on?
Just based on the words that Trump actually says and writes, I find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than Trump strongly believes that trade imbalances are unfair, that tariffs will reshore manufacturing, and that reshoring manufacturing will make America “wealthier.”
But if Trump is bluffing, it’s not clear there’s anything these other countries could give that would satisfy Trump. Vietnam could remove all tariffs against the US and in all likelihood not even make a dent in their trade surplus. It’s very hard for a small, developing country like Vietnam to import lots of stuff from a rich, expensive country like the US. Many of the countries whacked with massive tariffs by the administration already have very open trade policies with the US. What is there to negotiate?
bathtub365
This is also assuming no one along the supply chain will take advantage of the situation to put some more money in their pocket above the tariff (be it out of greed or uncertainty)
Yoric
Note two limitations to the maths (I'll admit that I haven't read the OP in detail).
1. That's assuming that shipping, warehousing, transport, etc. do not rely upon foreign imports, including services. Chances are that more than one link in the supply chain will be hit either by the US tariffs or by the actual reciprocal tariffs from the other end [1].
2. That's also assuming that the tariffs will not have an impact on the sales of the company, which might adapt either by decreasing its margin (to increase sales) or by increasing it (either to try and compensate for lost sales or because it feels like the right time to hike prices).
[1] We shouldn't let ourselves be fooled by the word "reciprocal tariffs" used by Donald Trump. All these numbers are bogus. In January, EU tariffs on US goods were about 2-3%, not 39%, just as US tariffs on most EU goods.
alkonaut
It's astonishning that we are discussing a price hike of asian made mass-market products (effectively your entire Amazon or Wal-Mart inventory from floor to ceiling) of 10% or more, and that's "just 10-13%" now? As if that alone wouldn't be felt more than the 2008 financial crisis in the pockets of Americans.
phalangion
Or the inflation worries with 8% inflation
tourmalinetaco
The problem is less that we’ll feel a 10% or even 15% price hike on foreign goods, but that we are so reliant on foreign manufacturing to begin with.
alkonaut
Why is that a problem? For some critical goods (Food, Medicines, Defense) it's a security risk to not have a supply. But for flip flops and umbrellas, no country is somehow better off by having thousands of factories, instead of doing what the US does: selling high value goods and services and importing the low value goods.
In fact, it's the opposite. Those industries are much more polluting per dollar GDP created, and that externality is something you are happy to not have on your own soil.
rstarast
With the huge differences in per-country tariff, there seems to be a large incentive to reroute and relabel imports. E.g., build a bike frame in China, export it to a sister company in Japan, and export it to the US from there, claiming production in Japan. How effective are existing controls against that? (And what are they even, I'm ignorant.)
dfadsadsf
I assume that if it’s done at scale it will change trade balance and middlemen country will see their import taxes rise. It actually creates self interest for countries to prevent this behavior and block such activity as it will hurt genuine export.
hx8
Or an interest for those countries to charge appropriate fees for such a service.
stubish
If people find hacks around the rules, they will use them if cost effective. I'm reminded of a train that used to shuffle freight a few hundred meters in order to qualify the goods for cheaper 'shipped by rail' taxes. But I can't find the article :-(
whenc
OtherShrezzing
It's trivial to get around these rules. Northern Irelnd is (or was at some point) a country of origin for both the EU and the UK. So a company could produce something in Greece, ship it to Dublin within the EU, then truck it to Belfast in Northern Ireland, and export it to the US with a UK certificate of origin.
theshrike79
Pretty much every single Aliexpress purchase I've made has been shipped from the Netherlands for years now.
They use it to get around EU customs and tariffs, dunno how but it works.
mmooss
Good point. It still would increase costs, maybe not as much.
bilbo0s
You forgot the part about going from China to Japan and the associated costs.
It could be cheaper? Could also be more expensive as well.
In any case, if too many people play that game, then it only raises the tariff on Japan. I wouldn't assume these tariffs are fixed. They seem to be tied to trade deficit. So..
yeah.
No real way around them over time.
Might even piss the US government off if you try that. Which is kind of like playing with fire right now. It's not clear to me that this administration believes in rule of law in the strict sense that everyone adhered to in the past.
Strange days ahead.
mmooss
> You forgot the part about going from China to Japan and the associated costs.
That was my point.
> It could be cheaper?
Why would it be cheaper? Wouldn't they do that without tariffs?
insane_dreamer
There are import/export costs that make such routing impractical other than for smaller volume, high cost items.
The other thing is that customers buying high end items care about where it was made, so you need to inform them. (Passing off the bikes as being manufactured in Japan but in fact the frame was made in China, would be a big blunder.)
yongjik
This assumes the difference in tariff stays consistent while you are setting up your multinational supply chain. The truth is that nobody has any idea what Trump will say tomorrow, never mind next quarter.
m463
> what Trump will say tomorrow
I'm trying to figure out what the real story is.
When I read this I wonder if everything is a negotiating tactic:
"Trading partners have repeatedly blocked multilateral and plurilateral solutions, including in the context of new rounds of tariff negotiations and efforts to discipline non-tariff barriers."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/regu... (wow, long url)
crawdog
The supply chain impact on manufacturers in the US on contracts is overlooked in this tariff fiasco. For example - auto manufacturers enter into long term agreements as a fixed price for a product. The only negotiation point they may have to reset that price would be a government action, which a tariff checks the box. The genie is out of the bottle, lots of contracts will be negotiated and prices will go up.
I would like to think this is some kind of 4-d chess game to avoid rate hikes and to devalue the dollar, but on implementation it will accomplish none of the above with a sprinkle of recession.
osigurdson
At least for high end mountain bikes, carbon frames are mostly made in Taiwan, not China.
cycomanic
Specialized is manufacturing in Taiwan (i.e. they use Merida IIRC?), but Trek manufactures at least partly in China AFAIK, Canyon frames are made in China (unless things changed recently).
Generally, many brands like e.g. Trek manufacture their highest end in Taiwan, but a lot of the mid- to high-level frames are still made in China, admittedly things might have changed since I last looked into this ~5 years ago.
davidw
Maybe everyone will start buying from https://argonautcycles.com/ - right?
SauciestGNU
I don't like carbon but I tend to prefer supporting USA and Taiwanese manufacturers. I'd love to see more domestic fabrication.
I was/am going to buy an Otso titanium frame, but they're made in Taiwan. Depending on the final price adjustment due to tariffs, it might actually be more cost effective for me to buy a Moots (made in America) frame to build.
insane_dreamer
Considering their bikes start at $15K, "everyone" is unlikely to be able to afford it.
I love to buy local, and I love to cycle, but what I can afford is $2K. Which is why I'm still riding the same Kestrel (full carbon w/ SRAM Force drivetrain) I got on Craigslist 8 years ago for $700, and on which I've since replaced a number of components, but have still spent < $2K overall. A comparable bike new these days would be at least $5K.
giraffe_lady
> That is a factor that’s often overlooked: The Civic Type R—and also many high-end bicycle components—barely make sense from a strict business perspective. ... International trade has made it possible to pool the global demand for such niche products and make them all in one place, achieving economies of scale that make them (almost) cost-effective.
This is such an interesting insight that would never have occurred to me and seems to have a lot of explanatory power.
mmooss
Of course there are enormous benefits to globalization: economies of scale, efficiency and lower prices, quality from specialization (wine from France, beer from Germany, etc), increased competition, etc. To think protectionism will benefit the economy is ignorant.
The global system of free trade and human rights has been the most free, prosperous, and peaceful era of humanity by far. Whole nations lifted from deep poverty, such as China and India (with still more to be done!). Incredible prosperity for the wealthy. Freedom, self-determination, democracy and human rights as the global norms.
Why are we throwing it away again? Much could be done to reform it, but we'll just throw it out?
teddyh
If your country outlaws slavery and child labor, but imports freely (i.e. without tariffs) from countries which allows it, why does your country even have those laws? It’s certainly not to protect children or people from slavery; they’ve just exported the negative effects to other countries.
type0
Or replace it with child labor in US itself
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/29/florida-repu...
mmooss
Could you apply your hypothetical? What countries are you talking about? How do you balance the benefits and the costs? If you wanted to improve human rights, what would be the best strategy?
Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?
agumonkey
Mostly we're reducing it's spread. Countries don't want to rely on others for a core set of industries. Also culturally I think being good at one or two things is unhealthy. My 2 cents.
9rx
> Why are we throwing it away again?
Because we haven't figured out how to square allowing people the freedom to work in the industries they please, no matter where in the world that industry has found itself, with allowing countries to strictly limit who is allowed inside its borders.
The "just learn to code" message never sat well with those who have no interest in coding and now they are rising up to try and take back, so to speak, the work they actually want to do. The far reaching consequences that go along with that are not of their personal concern.
mmooss
I've never heard that. I don't think many people migrate for specific industries. People migrate to have any job and some income, regardless of industry. Am I not thinking of some population?
teddyh
This – eliminating costs and other negative effects of transportation – is one of the major reasons people started living in large cities, instead of spreading themselves out in small tribes across the land.
mmooss
It's the enshittification of the US economy, in a way:
The method of enshittification, as I understand it, is to create businesses with a moat that prevents competition, cheapen the product in every way possible, and squeeze as much rent out as possible. Also, extract as much as possible via debt.
The tariffs are the moat. The debt I don't need to explain (though Dems aren't great with it either).
It's all the opposite of competitive business and free markets.
insane_dreamer
An excellent summary that applies to many other small industries. Too bad the Trump Administration economists didn't read this article before coming up with their tariffs plan (of course considering its stupidity, especially in how the tariffs were calculated, it's plausible no actual economists were involved).
mmooss
An essential question is, what is the political angle for Trump and the right wing? They know what they are doing. They know it will cause economic calamity.
They often seek to create calamity and crisis - with Covid; spreading fear (of immigrants, etc.), hatred and violence; disrupting health, education, and housing; international peace and security (NATO, Ukraine, etc.). You never see them spreading calm and peace - crisis seems necessary to their movement.
Tanking the economy does the same thing, but it is a much bigger step that impacts many of their supporters. What is their exit plan?
I expect part of their plan is to blame others: They will blame Democrats somehow, and other political enemies - it doesn't need any basis because the Dems don't have any effective means of refuting it to the public; whatever the GOP says becomes reality. I suspect they'll use it to ramp up hatred and fear, blaming their current objects of hatred such as immigrants, minorities, certain religions (a traditional object of blame, the right has already been normalizing antisemitism and general prejudice - which makes antisemitism inevitable. Rogan recently hosted a conspiracy theorist blaming Jewish people for 9/11, for example - how long before does he blames them for the economy, 'undermining President Trump'), liberals, etc.
Edit: I did some rewording
logicalmind
I've been thinking about this same thing. Trying to figure out what the endgame is with all of this. I can only come to one meaningful conclusion. Preparing for a future war with China. In that context, everything starts to make sense. The whole point of these tariffs is two pronged. One, make the rest of the world pick a side. And two, attempt to disconnect global dependence on China.
Making America "stand on its own two feet" would give it a lot of freedom in making choices that are at odds with future super powerful China that is no longer benevolent.
defrost
> One, make the rest of the world pick a side. And two, attempt to disconnect global dependence on China.
Logically this may well push many to greater trade with China.
China has a growing middle consumer class already greater in number than the total population of the USofA. China already has global scale manufacturing in place, now looking for fresh markets as US markets lower demand due to tariffs.
Smaller countries, say Australia, can trade their wagyu beef to China now that the US has tariff'd the US demand down towards zero .. in a number of ways the US has removed itself from global trade which will continue on with or without it.
giraffe_lady
The tech-right of musk, thiel, vance, andreessen etc are enacting the "reboot" envisioned by curtis yarvin, he wrote about it calling it "the butterfly revolution" iirc. The rest are just trying to roll back 80 years of social change along with reestablishing segregation but as national policy this time.
And yeah I think your read on how they'll manage the fallout of this is correct.
bobchadwick
I think you’re right, and they’ve found their useful idiot in Trump.
As for Trump himself, I think he truly believes the rest of the world is taking advantage of the US and tariffs are a way of setting things right. My guess is that in his view, the country (or at the least the rich people he cares about) will benefit from all this.
mullingitover
I've never been a political donor, I might've thrown $20 into a small donation a couple times. However, it seems financially irresponsible not to pour everything up to the legal limit into punishing everyone involved in this tax hike to the maximum extent.
toomuchtodo
The politics are important, and that effort must continue, but also directly targeting conservative voters economically. When they have distressed assets to sell, farmland, homes, businesses, I am ready to buy at a substantial discount. I have prepared to lever up with access to debt for this opportunity, and I recommend others who can do so. I want to buy when there is blood in the streets (economically), but only taking from those who caused this.
mullingitover
People expect to be able to take advantage of events like this, but if you're working for a living when there's blood in the streets, it's your blood. If you're an investor who wasn't correctly catching the falling knife (or insider trading) it's also your blood in the streets.
The Peter Thiels of the world are who this move is for, not us plebes who spend time posting on HN.
null
alkonaut
Retaliatory tariffs from the EU have repeatedly targeted things like Bourbon, in order to target specific parts of the US (likely mostly aimed at certain politicians, but also at voters I imagine).
whatshisface
They've already been swindled once, man.
toomuchtodo
I will quote a recent exchange:
“How do you feel about this economic path? Are you concerned at all about the harm this will cause?”
“It’ll hurt but I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat.”
Certainly, always compassion and empathy for compassionate people. I am a very empathetic and compassionate person myself, I will give you the shirt off my back. For everyone else? Hard times ahead, as compassion and empathy have limits. Kindness is not weakness.
watwut
They were not. Trump is doing exactly what they wanted. They just wanted others to be hurt.
palmotea
> ...but also directly targeting conservative voters economically.
That's kind of an asshole move. Did people react to having their communities and livelihoods damaged by neoliberalism, in a way not approved by economically advantaged software engineers? Don't try to solve their problems in a better way, try to fuck them even harder instead! We should teach 'em to get fucked and not complain!
If you want to target anyone, you should target the people who made a shit-ton of money off of neoliberalism, in a way that paved the path for Trump.
bryanlarsen
That's not why they're targeting conservative voters. They're targeting the states & districts of senators and congressmen who are voting for Trump's agenda in an effort to get them to change their vote.
eesmith
All I've gotten from my donations has been being added to mailing lists asking for more money to help fund the next election.
Not for building grass roots organizations. Not for building resiliency. Not for active protests, and organized opposition by the politicians.
I'm sure the political consultants got paid well though.
davidw
Depends where you send your money. I've used this in the past and as a huge bonus, I don't get added to 29494494292 mailing lists https://app.oath.vote/
eesmith
From what I can tell, all that does is send money to campaigns. While not getting junk mail is great, it doesn't build long-term grass roots organizations or resiliency. It doesn't support active protests, or get politicians to vigorously oppose what's happening to the US.
I don't like how you can't see their recommendations for previous elections. That would help others judge if their "algorithm" is effective.
tomdawgnigger
[dead]
metalman
the article ends with a FUD statement about certain products bieng no longer financialy viable in the world market due to them bieng priced out of the US, and insuficient demand, elsewhere. This can only be accepted if there is no question about the obscene profits generated by all large manufacturers, where "not financisly viable" means double digit profit and growth, rather than actualy unprofitable. If there is real demand, and no way for large established industrys to meet it, then this will spur the creation of countless small manufacturers.,..............everywhere. And that once it picks up speed, will be a good thing for comunitys worldwide. Globalisation, only works for the biggest players and sharpers, and for the smallest least developé countrys, there will still be the things they need on.the world market. But ,ha!, that just me trying to see a brite side, the whole thing could be just the first stage in something much much worse. early floyd...."Ive got a bike...you can ride it if you like" excellent sound track for this world now
mmooss
The point is that there are products for which there is not enough of domestic market for domestic small manufacturers. There is enough market worldwide for those manufacturers.
> Globalisation, only works for the biggest players and sharpers
That's just not true. Many small businesses sell their products worldwide via online marketplaces. Have you downloaded software from another country? Bought something on Alibaba?
> once it picks up speed, will be a good thing for comunitys worldwide
How about the people in those communities paying higher prices for worse goods - the extra money going into the pockets of large domestic corporations.
metalman
Missreading my emphasis.....Globisation ....I thought....refered to the creaping take over of "multinational" corporations consolodating whole industrys under one companys rule....locking out small businesses...like mine so ending the competion that realy boils down to makeing it easyer for BTB to buy from the giant multi national, but use my(and other) small businesses just to get that 3'rd quote, with no intent to purchase from me, is a good thing The supposed efficiencies in "economys of scale" are false, and wink wink, refer to the efficiency of extracting profits from a captured market, rather that the localisation of economys, which actualy stregthen comunitys. Problem with trump, is that, some of what he is doing, resonates strongly with actual local comunities, and the possitive effects there, could be quick and profound.Underestimating this, is a big mistake, if you are opposed to his other, shall we say......initiatives.
sandworm101
>> Our rulers seem to think that the U.S. imports more than it exports, so the net effect will be positive.
It is eye opening to see people so casually speak of American "rulers". Not politicians. Not business leaders. Rulers. That's new.
a_t48
I think it's intended to be a bit flippant.
beloch
It reflects the nature of the current trade war. It's not congress levying import taxes. It's not the secretary of commerce. (Lutnick has been completely out of the loop at times during the Canada-U.S. trade-war.) It's Trump declaring spurious emergencies to abuse IEEPA and unilaterally pass tariff's without the approval of congress.
At the same time, the Trump administration has taken issue with the independence of judiciary branch. When a judge ruled against one of their deportations, the executive branch ignored the ruling and argued that the judicial branch is subordinate. i.e. The king is above the law. So far, there have been no consequences. This is, quite literally, rule of a sort that hasn't been enjoyed by European monarchs since people became serious about enforcing the Magna Carta.
For the moment, Trump is ruling as an absolute monarch. It remains to be seen if there will be a response to assert the supremacy of law and the independence of the judiciary branch, or if the Republican controlled congress will assert it's right to control economic policy. If the law is not enforced, then Americans have a de facto king. Institutions do not defend themselves. People do.
xmprt
The checks and balances still exists in theory. The problem is that a slim majority in congress and a slim Supreme Court majority aren't willing to use their checks and are instead ceding power to the President.
mtmail
That phrasing is weird indeed.
whynotmaybe
As a non native English speaker, "rulers" isn't problematic for me.
Is it really that pejorative ?
Wumpnot
It means like king/queen/emperor, you wouldn't use it for an elected official, so here it is more sarcastic because Trump is acting like he is an emperor.
uoaei
It has a cultural weight because of the emphasis on the Revolution.
null
taude
people forget he was voted in.
mmooss
Many dictators are initially voted in.
rahkiin
To be president, leader of the executive branch. He is using executive powers ignoring congress and actively ignores judges putting himself above all branches. That was not votes on
4ndrewl
As was Putin.
insane_dreamer
It's in keeping with the times. Trump wants to be king.
akavi
[flagged]
> Let’s do the math: Take a kid’s bike that retails at a big box store for $ 150. Let’s assume that bike costs $ 30 to make. The rest of the cost is shipping to the U.S., warehousing, transport to the store, marketing, admin costs, customer service, warranty, retailer profits, etc. Whether the bike is made in China, Vietnam or Cambodia, the new 34-38% tariffs will increase the cost by ‘only’ $ 10-12. (The old tariffs are already part of the pricing.) Add overhead and capital costs on those $ 10-12 (financing and insuring the higher purchase price, etc.). Now the price goes up by $ 15-20, or about 10-13% of the final price of the bike.
That's a great explanation of the direct impact of tarriffs for a business like this.