to the surprise of absolutely no-one with even the most basic grasp of how economies function.
No, it is surprising, as noted in the article, because basic economics suggests that suppliers will adjust pricing, and eat some of the tariff to keep their products competitive. Page 5:
This finding was initially surprising to some observers. Standard economic models suggest that the incidence of a tariff depends on the relative elasticities of supply and demand. If foreign exporters face highly elastic demand (meaning buyers can easily switch to alternatives), they might be expected to absorb part of the tariff to remain competitive.
What that view ignores is the opposite which is what happens if sellers can easily switch to new alternatives?
ie what happens if global demand exceeds supply and a lot of companies have never tried to find other markets because of the inertia required to do so - but if they are pushed by tariffs they find there are alternative customers out there.
As an example - Canada appear to replaced trading food for cars with the US, to food for cars with China.
that assumes that external suppliers were not already at their cheapest price point and that they were not competing with each other already
it also assumes that there are no other alternative markets to sell to or that supplier capacity is equally elastic; the US might be a high margin market to sell to, but if you only have a fixed amount of product to sell then it makes no sense to eat the high cost of a tariff to keep selling a low margin product when you can instead sell your product at a medium margin in europe
building out more supply for a product is often capital intensive if you want to make it at an economically efficient price point in these times; efficiencies of scale are hard to overcome and a rapid shift of economic policies makes anyone uncertain about future investment so it takes a very long time for these supply chains to rebalance, if they ever do
I'm trying to buy a tool made in Pennsylvania but which for some coincidence is popular in Canada, and to my surprise all the US online suppliers have doubled their prices to match Canadian online suppliers after shipping.
Yes, so turns out people with a basic grasp of how economies function can have different models of how things work. This a great paper, and important in that it shows who is paying the tariffs in the examples they looked at. What it still leaves unaddressed is the obvious prediction of increase in CPI not really showing up.
FWIW, the MD-11 was designed by McDonnell Douglas, and manufactured by McDonnell Douglas in 1991, before the Boeing merger. A McDonnell Douglas DC-10 failed in a similar way in Chicago in 1979, so it the issue may go way back.
AA Flight 191 in 1979, 273 dead. American Airlines invented their own engine removal procedure using a forklift and damaged a pylon and mounting bracket. The engine ripped off the wing on takeoff.
Interestingly, the reason American Airlines was removing the engines (and pylons) in the first place was to replace that same aft bearing. McDonnell-Douglas had found that the aft bearing could wear out sooner than expected and issued a service bulletin requiring replacement. There is mention of it in the AA191 NTSB report[1] and also at Admiral Cloudberg's article on the accident[2].
I'm reasonably certain it was McDonnel Douglas that acquired Boeing with Boeing's own money. Most likely everyone who designed that plane has retired at this point anyways.
It's commonly trotted out, but the people who spearheaded the disastrous changes including mass outsourcing were Boeing for life - with McD people writing alarming memos about outsourcing goals set for Dreamliner
> Meanwhile, Vietnam will be the chief manufacturing hub "for almost all iPad, Mac, Apple Watch and AirPods product sold in the US".
> We do expect the majority of iPhones sold in US will have India as their country of origin," Mr Cook said.
Still not made in the US and no plan to change that. They will be selling products made in India/Vietnam domestically and products made in China internationally.
The amount of sugar in Coke hasn't changed in the last 40 years, and probably longer than that. It's been consistent at ~39g/12oz, even through the "New Coke" debacle. Wouldn't be surprised if Coke in the 40s, with sugar rationing, had less sugar though.
"The amount of sugar in Coke hasn't changed in the last 40 years,…"
Likely so, but there's some evidence it's different in different markets. That's why I made my reference point the 1940s. I first tasted Coke in the late 1950s in a market outside the US and it was definitely less sweet than it is nowadays.
Better in that it was clear, but worse that you had to resize from the bottom right. Made expanding to the left, or up, very annoying. I'd take the current situation over this.
True, but not a 1:1 comparison, because Classic Mac OS windows were much better at staying where you put them, even between sessions. John Siracusa wrote a lot about how this was missing from Mac OS X: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2003/04/finder/
Yeah that is also true. I have had that experience with certain CD-ROMs (maybe like two or three ever but has happened) on my PowerBook 2400c. If the authoring machine had a higher display resolution than my machine, and the author had the writable disc image's window open to a place outside my screen resolution, and the window positions got saved to the DesktopDB/DesktopDF, and the DesktopDB/DesktopDF got written to the CD-ROM, then it would open in the position outside my screen resolution every time my own DesktopDB/DesktopDF got erased. One particular artist's CD-ROM is completely outside of it which annoys me every time.
Gmail is a product, but the comment wasn't saying "Gmail the product deserves to be shamed... ", more like "the Gmail team/devs/company deserves to be shamed...", which is why the plural still made sense to me (given the omission of an explicit "team"). The singular makes sense to me too.
In any case, I wasn't really interested in correcting or proving anyone right or wrong, just pointing out an interesting linguistic detail and where the grammar may have come from.
Can you "shame" a product, though? Obviously not. So you're shaming the people who built Gmail, the organization - hence the plural form is acceptable.
reply