By on February 6, 2017

Automakers are waiting with bated breath to see where the pieces land once President Donald Trump complete’s the country’s trade revamp. One proposal would see a border tax of 20 percent placed on goods imported from other countries — a move that would impact the cost of manufacturing vehicles, and buying them.

Not every automaker would see a similar financial hit. Domestic manufacturers that use a high degree of parts built in the U.S., especially those that build few models in Mexico for delivery in the States, wouldn’t see much on an impact. For those that import most or all of their U.S. fleet from foreign factories, the cost per vehicle could be enormous. Customers, of course, would need to make up the difference.

While the tax proposal might come to nothing, a recent study shows what consumers could expect to see on window stickers if the idea becomes policy.

Research company Baum & Associates LLC, which advises automotive suppliers, set out to discover what the tax would mean in terms of an MSRP markup. The study’s findings are not good news for foreign automakers.

According to the study (via Bloomberg), Jaguar Land Rover vehicles would carry an average price premium of $17,000 per vehicle. For Volvo, the increased costs means buyers would shell out an extra $7,600 clams, on average, while Volkswagen aficionados would need to fork over $5,800 more.

Mitsubishi, which doesn’t have the U.S. manufacturing presence of its Japanese rivals, would see prices increase by just under $6,000. Mazda stands to add an average of just over $5,000. Meanwhile, both BMW and Mercedes-Benz flirt with the $4,000 mark. For many manufacturers, the only way to stay afloat will be to bring manufacturing stateside, which is exactly what Trump wants.

“The border tax approach will otherwise consume all of their profits from selling vehicles here,” the report states.

What about domestic automakers, you ask? Well, Ford comes out on top in this case — at least out of mainstream manufacturers. A border tax would add just $282, on average, to its vehicles. Rival General Motors stays in the three-figure range with $995, while the markup on Fiat Chrysler Automobiles vehicles would be just over $1,000. Tesla, on the other hand, builds all of its domestically sold vehicles in the U.S., placing it at the bottom of the list for price inflation.

According to a similar study by UBS Securities LLC, average vehicles prices in the U.S. could rise by 8 percent, or $2,500 per vehicle. Analyst Colin Langan told Automotive News annual industry-wide sales could slide by two million units.

To avoid saddling buyers of new vehicles with unreasonable costs, automakers could choose to return more of its America-bound production from south of the border, thus reserving Mexican production capacity for non-U.S. markets.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

74 Comments on “Depending on the Automaker, a Border Tax Could Bump Sticker Prices by Thousands...”


  • avatar
    mmreeses

    grab your popcorn if you like politics—

    if one argues that certain non-US countries benefit from lax environmental and labor standards on goods imported into the US, then that person should be in principle for Trump’s policy.

    And on the other side, if you’re 100% opposed to any form of trade barrier, your position is clear too.

    potentially some strange bedfellows showing up in the news soon.

    • 0 avatar
      Ol Shel

      Trump has limited options for instituting a tariff without congress’ approval.

      Republicans in congress will not go along with this. They have received a lot of money to make it profitable to move business to foreign countries. If they bite the hand that feeds them, then that money will not only dry up, but it will flow to the Dems.

      And please do not forget that Trump’s objective is to be adored by his fans. All he has to do is to demand the changes that they want. He gets credit if those things happen, takes credit even when they don’t, AND he gets to blame those that thwart him, pointing to a rigged system. This is about him, not about policy.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Remember Bannon only supports homegrown economics. Anything is possible.

        It seems National Socialism disguised as capitalism is on the table. Scary sh!t.

        • 0 avatar
          mmreeses

          a Nazi tariff? See Godwin’s Law.

          Many on the Left have been advocating for precisely the same thing that Trump’s calling for.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “Many on the Left have been advocating for precisely the same thing that Trump’s calling for.”

            Exactly! And elections have consequences.

            So now the union-pimping Lefties are opposed to this. Go figure!

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            No. I did not say Nazi.

            Nationalists are more dangerous than far left socialists.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            mmreeses,
            The problem the US confronts now is the POTUS considers himself above and beyond the people.

            I think Trump will not last the distance, like many Ancient Roman Leaders.

            Trump disregards hard data if it doesn’t suit him. He misrepresent data.

            I read a fascinating article yesterday about Trump.

            It stated he doesn’t lie. He bullsh!ts to sell his position, like any low life sales person on a commision.

            This constant bullsh!tting creates inconsistencies with his views and beliefs.

            To me it lacks integrity and sincerity, which is trust. These attributes are the basis for respect. Hence, what appears to be massive disrespect for Trump. This is not good for a leader. Other nations leaders see this and little or no trust for Trump.

            I wonder how Trump manages failure? I bet he will hold all to account for his failings other than himself.

            This US Trump experiment will cost the US trillions. Trump will not be able to tax imports enough.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          That’s a deep subject and I think you’re jumping to conclusions. If such a thing were to reoccur, then the Federal Reserve would be have to be completely nationalized first.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            28 Cars,
            That is on the table. Trump does not like the current Fed board or leader. He’s already discuss remobing her as she will not do as Trump wants.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            This would be a move of epic proportions, and would most certainly lead to war of some kind.

            Additional: Just removing and replacing the Chair does not constitute a big move.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          ” Scary sh!t.”

          This is what I’ve been saying. This guy does not mess around. The Lefties need to get a grip! The world as they know it is no more.

          Trump’s his own man, calls his own shots, and believes that he owes it to the people who voted for him to make good on all his promises.

          If he does, he will be re-elected in a landslide.

          If not, we’ll see him lose Senate, House and State delegates, like the last guy did.

          We’ve already seen the reaction to his travel restrictions, even though other presidents have levied the same restriction in the past.

          As is within their purview.

          Trump’s supporters don’t care about his travel restrictions. That’s what he promised them, and that’s what he tried to deliver for them.

          For now, the Lefties will win this one, until Gorsuch becomes a Justice.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            highdesertcat – please name another President that has levied the same level of restrictions?

            BTW those restrictions have been ruled unconstitutional which can be viewed as grounds for impeachment. He is going to have to re-write his travel ban or cause a constitutional crisis.

            “f not, we’ll see him lose Senate, House and State delegates, like the last guy did.”

            I just read an article on that. Republican filibustering/blocking almost everything that Obama tried to pass. That made the public think that he was ineffective as a leader.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Lou_BC, let this thing play out and believe what you will.

            Just keep in mind that the world as you know it has come to an abrupt end when Trump took the oath.

            I’ll be spending a lot of time outside of the US of A until I see how this presidency breaks. I, for one, am scared of what is yet to come. Remember his campaign promises.

            So for me, Winter/Spring in Ensenada, BC, Mexico.

            Summer in your neck of the woods, Vancouver, BC, Canada, with my sister and Canadian brother-in-law.

            The wrath of the people who elected Trump is going to affect the lives of each and every person in America. Not all in a good way, either.

            The forces emboldened by Trump’s triumph are going to have wide consequences and retaliations throughout social strata.

            They are going to extract their pound of flesh for the political correctness they suffered for the past eight years.

            And do your own research on American presidents who placed similar entry restrictions on aliens.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            highdesertcat – please name another President that has levied the same level of restrictions?

            I’m waiting……………..

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Big Al from Oz – “I did not say Nazi.” Know your audience ;)

          The “left” has traditionally supported import tariffs as a means to add some stability to markets which provides some protection and stability to the working man.
          Unfettered neoliberal free trade tends to hurt the working man. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration were very neoliberal. Ronald Reagan i.e. Reagonomics was another form of neoliberalism. Reagan was constrained by various factors and was never able to fully implement it (IIRC). Hillary and Bill Clinton both were neoliberal.
          Trump is just playing to populist fear and insecurities. Extreme tariffs and import restrictions will trigger another global depression.
          Unfortunately bipartisanship is next to dead in the USA therefore making it highly unlikely that there would ever be any reasonable balance.

    • 0 avatar
      Advance_92

      It doesn’t matter because whatever Bannon puts in front of Trump to sign will have more to do with de-coupling the Presidency from the rest of government than actually trying to establish a functioning economic policy. It’ll be designed for conflict with the courts and congress.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        It doesn’t matter, is right.

        No one, inside or outside of government, is going to be immune from the changes that are coming to America, starting with DC.

        But this is what WE, THE PEOPLE, voted for.

        And America always gets exactly what it deserves.

        Because we vote for it.

        • 0 avatar
          Louis XVI

          H.L. Mencken’s quip about democracy seems particularly apt right now: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

        • 0 avatar
          nrcote

          highdesertcat
          > But this is what WE, THE PEOPLE, voted for.

          Indeed, all 46.1% of you.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            nrcote, I didn’t vote for Trump, but I did vote.

            The 46.1% who did vote for Trump obviously constituted the majority of Electoral votes, hence we now have President Donald John Trump.

            Moot point.

            Whether you and I like it or not, Trump is the prez. B!tch!n’, p!ss!n’ and moanin’ will not change that.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    “Average” means little. What would be the price bump on a “Envision” v. a “Lacrosse”? Lacrosse at Hamtramck has no tax, Envision in Chi-na $_____.

    • 0 avatar
      notwhoithink

      This is 100% true, but there’s another angle you have to consider: are parts taxed when they are imported? For some manufacturers different components are sometimes shipped across the borders multiple times before a completed vehicle is finally imported into the country. If a tax is levied on each component each time it comes into the country, as opposed to only taxing complete vehicles, then it gets ugly very quickly.

      The alternative is to say that you’re only taxing complete cars, in which case you’ll have 95% of the manufacturing done where it makes the most financial sense and then final assembly of the last two components gets done in the US to avoid the tax. I seem to recall Mercedes doing something like this once already.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        I could see that happening. “Sure, all that’s left to put on is the mirrors, but these cars are officially incomplete vehicles until they go through our US facility for ‘final assembly,’ and don’t you forget it!”

  • avatar
    zoomzoomfan

    I commented this on a prior article but it applies here, too.

    My main fear is that smaller manufacturers may end up leaving the U.S. Take Mazda, for example. I own two of their recent products (and have a loan on one), so the company’s future here is of some interest to me.

    Mazda is already a tiny automaker with tiny sales. They manufacture their cars in Japan, and more recently, Mexico. If Trump slaps tariffs on the Mexican-made cars, that will either force Mazda to raise the prices of those, or move all production back to Japan. I don’t think they have the R&D money to open a U.S. plant.

    Producing and exporting here from Japan is already expensive, and will probably become even more so. If the budgets don’t make sense, I could see them giving up here in the USA – a la Suzuki in 2012.

    Subaru, the other tiny Japan automaker, has it a bit better since they manufacturer some cars in Pence’s home state of Indiana.

    Anyway, if I’m left with two orphan cars with zilch resale value and hard-to-find parts, I’m not going to be a happy camper.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Subaru wouldn’t go anywhere, the U.S. market is practically licence to print money for them. They sure aren’t developing a 3-row SUV to sell in Japan.

      The supporters of this initiative would argue that anyone who closes up shop, ” “Good and good riddance, more business for the cars manufactured here.”

      • 0 avatar
        zoomzoomfan

        Meanwhile, I’ll be struggling to unload my perfectly good vehicles and trying to find some “made here.”

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        The supporters of this initiative would argue that anyone who closes up shop, ” “Good and good riddance, more business for the cars manufactured here.”

        Remove “car” from your statement and replace with the work “truck”.

        Let them eat truck……

        Welcome to TTAT – “The Truth About Trucks.”

        That is one way to kill all of those “Compensating for small d!ck” comments.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “My main fear is that smaller manufacturers may end up leaving the U.S. Take Mazda, for example. ”

      I was a proponent of more automakers packing up their toys and moving down south, to get away from UAW harassment.

      But with Trump, those dreams are shattered.

      Trump is all in for the UAW and other unions.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Who says all of those jobs will be unionized?

        I’m betting that if anyone sets up shop in the USA it will be in a Southern “right to work” state.

        Trump isn’t “all in for the UAW and other unions.” He is pandering to the angry masses.
        What next?
        Building a Colosseum and feeding the immigrants to the lions?

  • avatar
    Freddie

    Twelve million US jobs are tied to exports (source: US Dept. of Commerce). Those tend to be the higher paying jobs. Say goodbye to those jobs if we get into a trade war.

    • 0 avatar
      jjster6

      Trump and his ilk seem to think that the USA has the God given right to demand products bought in the USA be manufactured in the USA, but the rest of the world should also be buying those products. How is that going to work? Why will anyone (or can anyone) buy the USA’s products if they won’t buy theirs. Trade has to be a two way street. People don’t exchange money, they exchange goods and services (money is just a convenient medium of exchange). If I can’t sell anything to you I can’t buy anything from you.

      If these border taxes become law the biggest corporate loser will be Boeing and the biggest winner will be Airbus. And the biggest losers will be the American people. Economic productivity will be lost. Products will no longer be made in the most efficient manner possible.

      Think about bananas. I like banana’s. I live in Canada. How much would Canadian grown banana’s cost… maybe $40 a pound… greenhouses don’t come cheap. Or I could buy my banana’s from somewhere that produces them for 50 cents a pound. And what if the people in the banana producing country like maple syrup? Canada can make maple syrup much cheaper than a country in the tropics can. They can get there maple syrup from Canada for $40 a gallon instead of the $500 a gallon it would take to grow maple trees in air conditioning in the tropics. So Canada gets cheap bananas and the tropics get cheap (or much cheaper) maple syrup. With trade everyone wins.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @jjster6 – everything will go “black market”. Canada can trade marijauna for banana’s.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        How do you think the US got to be so rich? We had tariffs to protect our industries and made fortunes exporting, right up to WW2. The federal government’s main revenue stream was tariff income until the income tax was enacted in 1913. That was a bad year, with direct election of senators and the Federal Reserve also enacted.

        We started giving trade advantages away to help nations shattered by the war to recover, but we’ve continued to give away jobs and industry long after they recovered, and became balance of trade rivals. That’s why economists are calling Trump’s initiatives the dismantling of the Bretton Woods arrangement set up after WW2.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Lorenzo – 85% of lost jobs have been to automation. The USA produces more now than it did 30 years ago. Jobs have been lost because no one in public office has invested in education. If you have the right degree or trade, you aren’t unemployed. Unskilled labour is Trump’s biggest supporting demographic. Education has not kept pace with technological change.

        • 0 avatar
          jjster6

          The USA did not get rich based on tariffs. It got rich through freedom and technology. It developed the car (or at least the way to build them for a low cost) the airplane, and multiple other technologies. I would argue without tariffs the USA could probably have been richer.

          And trade doesn’t require one party to become better off than another. Trade actually allows both parties to better off than if they didn’t trade.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “Tesla, on the other hand, builds all of its domestically sold vehicles in the U.S., placing it at the bottom of the list for price inflation.”

    Hmmmmmmmmm…

    I’m starting to think the new admin might end up being quite favorable to Elon’s businesses.

    Has Trump said anything about EV subsidies recently?

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “Has Trump said anything about EV subsidies recently?”

      My take on this is that Trump really doesn’t care either way, as long as manufacturing returns to the US and provides jobs, jobs, jobs for American citizens.

      Silicon Valley is howling about forthcoming limitations on H1Bs, and visa-overstays, because Silicon Valley imports the best and the brightest from all over the planet.

      America does not have the quality of talent Silicon Valley needs, as expressed by Jonathan Gruber’s “Americans are stupid” proclamation.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        The US isn’t modernising its manufacturing plants and factories quick enough against the competition.

        How can the US expect to compete when its workforce is not trained or mobile enough to take on competition.

        The people living in the Rust Belt might need to move to where opportunity exists and retrain.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          “The US isn’t modernising its manufacturing plants and factories quick enough against the competition.”

          It never has, and never will, because America always has been reactionary in manufacturing where necessity was the mother of invention.

          “How can the US expect to compete when its workforce is not trained or mobile enough to take on competition.”

          It can’t! America never was competitive in wages and benefits against any other nation.

          “The people living in the Rust Belt might need to move to where opportunity exists and retrain.”

          That didn’t happen with over 9-million jobs going unfilled in the US over the past eight years, and it ain’t gonna happen in the future.

    • 0 avatar
      John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

      What? A “green” company with ties to the President? This sounds familiar.

      I don’t think Tesla is the new Solendra, bud.

    • 0 avatar
      Whatnext

      I suspect Trump recognizes a kindred ego in Musk. And since Tesla is a Made in America success story (sorry haters) he would be shooting himself in the foot to hamstring them.

      • 0 avatar
        pbx

        Musk was an immigrant to the US having been South African-born and his family having emigrated to Canada before he arrived in the US as an adult. Not sure he would be so welcome in today’s environment.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Sure he would, as long as he came in legally. America is a nation of immigrants. Always has been, and the vast majority of them came here legally, many through Ellis Island.

          Trump’s objection is not about legal immigrants. Trump’s complaint is about illegal immigrants and visa-overstays.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Musk is self made. He runs several real businesses, not marketing scams and tax frauds. We isn’t a philanderer, or a sexual predator, or a Propecia addict.

            Musk is honestly trying to make the world a better place by replacing the fossil fuel/ICE industries with solar/EVs. He’s created billions of dollars in wealth for investors, and never screwed them through bankruptcy.

            How on earth are these kindred egos?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            If we let in people today the way we did at Ellis Island, all of the people now here from Mexico and Latin America wouldn’t have had to come in illegally — they could have done so legally.

            I think it’s a big loss for our country that we don’t allow that anymore. Immigrants by their very nature tend to be highly motivated and ready to work. Letting them in is not a zero-sum game where people already here lose. Ellis Island immigrants and the first two generations of their descendants built much of American business.

  • avatar
    vvk

    I have not heard the White House propose a UNIFORM 20% tax. The tax proposed is SPECIFIC to Mexico. Has anyone heard a uniform tax mentioned by anyone other than the press?

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I suspect everything on the subject is still be fleshed out. Isolating such a thing to one country would be a nice trial balloon to determine how effective it would be.

    • 0 avatar
      Rudbek

      Trump was referring to the House Republican tax plan released last summer.

      It’s a total reform of the corporate tax and it is not a 20% tariff.

      It scraps the current corporate income tax for a 20% tax on gross corporate revenue minus employee compensation costs, capital investments, and revenues from exports. It’s the last item that makes it “border-adjustable”. It’s part of a reform that moves the US from a global tax regime to a territorial tax regime.

      Read details here:
      https://waysandmeans.house.gov/taxreform/

      Under this plan – regardless of where something is made – revenue from its sale is taxable (by the US) if sold in the US and not taxable (by the US) if sold outside the US.

      The weird thing is that everyone seems to want to call it a tax on imports when it is a tax on both imports AND domestically made stuff. The linked Bloomberg article even gets around to saying that in the sixth paragraph. I think the House Republicans are trying to sell a trade-neutral tax plan as anti-import to gain support for it. (Trump at least seems to be falling for it).

  • avatar
    John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

    WHAT??
    Hecho en Mexico Ford has the least average? I thought everything was Mexico Ford Mexico.

    Its not easy to point fingers and back it up sometimes. Yes, Ford has a Mexican manufacturing presence. Who doesn’t? You gonna drive your VW and point fingers at Fusions?

    Mexican manufacturing makes sense for the big 2.5 TRUCK (and some cars) manufacturers. They are concentrating their much-more-expensive U.S. production plants on what they do best: light trucks. Their less popular and less profitable cars tend to get shuffled to lower wage places. Its not some crazy scheme on everyone, its sensible business.

    They try to diversify. GM did a fine job with the Cruze (no matter where it was designed primarily, its a “global” car that’s built here for here…mostly). Result? Sales fall. Why does it not out sell the not-fine half-a§§ Corolla? Reputation? But, wait, that’s what a Silverado owner says is why he has owned nothing but GM trucks since 1971.

    But, that’s stupid fly-over state dwellers and their opinions don’t count because 1994 F-150s were smaller (but acutally drove like a Mack dump truck comparatively) than a 2017 because I don’t get trucks so you’re all wrong and my Lexus ES is all the truck I need.

  • avatar
    orenwolf

    This may cause some really interesting polarization, where US domestic vehicles are made in the USA, and the plants and investments on foreign soil are used to create international models. *especially* if reciprocal tariffs come into play from the affected countries.

    I wonder if this would be the beginning of the end of vehicle design parity in the US? The US gets non-CAFE (since I presume that’s going away), made-for-Americans design and the rest of the world gets a different car. It’d be weird seeing an even larger disparity between Canadian and US model options.

    I know the US vehicle market is fairly large, but If the market bifurcated in two, who would, say, ten years from now, have the better vehicles in terms of tech? or safety? or fuel economy? Or overall design?

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I believe the greater concern is going to be the drastic increase in prices of vehicles. Will we start seeing 10, 11, 12-year car loans in sub-prime lending?

      • 0 avatar
        Kendahl

        I think we would be more likely to see an increase of several years in the average age of the fleet. It would be sort of like Cuba but caused by unaffordable prices rather than trade barriers.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Kendahl, I agree. We’re going to have more “older” cars on the roads because people will not be able to replace them as readily at these higher prices.

          But more older cars on the roads does have its benefits for repair shops and parts suppliers.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      “The US gets non-CAFE (since I presume that’s going away)”

      If Trump achieves that he can grab *my* crotch. I think he’d like that since male blowhards like him are usually made in reaction to conflicted feelings of emerging gender in early adolescence.

      Instead of becoming a serially imprisoned thug his physical cowardice and his daddy’s money determined a different path.

      Pro Tip: There’s always a reason for Liberace Hair.

    • 0 avatar
      Varezhka

      Don’t we already have that due to the difference in US market preference (and the size of the said market)?

      All the popular foreign models: Camry, Accord, Civic, and (US market) Corolla are already designed in the US to specifically match our local taste. I think the last I checked, Toyota barely sold 10K Camry a *year* in its home Japanese market, while Honda a little over 3000 Accord due to its vast mismatch with the local taste.

  • avatar

    I’m curious how the NADA feels about this, because this would negatively impact a lot of dealers.

  • avatar
    LS1Fan

    A tariff plays well to the populist crowd,but it’s a nail in the aAmerican economic coffin down the road.

    A uniform tarrif as applied above would mean many firms would leave the US market,either by reducing imported models or leaving completely.

    Those automakers will in turn sell their wares somewhere else; and the Chinese await with open wallets. Major automakers are already designing US sold cars with Asian preferences in mind (see Lexus).

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      3 Executive Orders signed by Trump in just the 1st 16 days of his presidency that prove HE’S STANDING UP FOR THE AVERAGE ‘MERICAN:

      1) Allowing mining companies to dump untreated, uncaptured toxic waste directly into streams and tributaries,

      2) Exempting oil companies from having to report the bribes receive from third-world dictators and other foreign despots, and

      3) Stripping a fiduciary rule (as part of Dodd-Frank) that obligated financial advisors to act in their customers’ best interests.

      #MAGA!

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I’m quite leery of number three and m’eh number one and two (could be trading favors who knows). Number three though is particularly concerning because I don’t think there was a “deal”, more like we (Satan’s children) say you will do this [or else].

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Trump better be careful. 2 of his 3 wives are imports.

    • 0 avatar
      TonyJZX

      And the outlier Marla Maples wasnt exactly a harmonius relationship… and Ivana wasnt too amused (apparently Donald is slight ‘rapey’)… and this current one looks like a prisoner of circumstance… like Rapunzel stuck in Trump Tower… the First Lady who never wanted to be First Lady.

      Now back to the topic… I think this administration is the king of ‘unintended consequences’ or more accurately ‘uncosted consequences’.

      Boeing stands to lose $20 billion on airliner contracts and almost 5 million US jobs depend on the current nafta trade agreement. You might say that they did Nazi that coming….

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        TonyJZX – I doubt congress will let Trump tear up NAFTA. I’m expecting to see all of those Goldman Sachs alumni Trump appointed interfering with what Bannon wants. In reality that is the fellow calling the shots. Trump is just a puppet with Bannon’s hand up his Azz.

  • avatar
    deanst

    As a Canadian I look forward to great deals on made in Mexico cars as the auto manufacturers dump them here rather than sell at a huge loss in the US.

    Realistically, you must remember everything is just an opening bid from trump – if he can get a few wins (real or perceived), he will quickly move on to his next target. Perhaps he’ll loosen CAFE targets in return for some promises to keep or increase jobs in the US.

  • avatar
    brn

    20% of what? Retail, wholesale, or something else? I can’t make heads or tails of the numbers without this information as a start.

  • avatar
    Garrett

    The Volvo hit might not be as bad once they get their SC plant up and running.

    I’m fine with some imports getting taxed, but it should depend on the country. Built in Germany or another country with high environmental standards and decent wages? Minimal tax. Built in China, Mexico, or Brazil? Brace yourself…

  • avatar
    Joss

    What about Nissan? A chunk of their stuff comes from down Mexico way.

  • avatar
    Jeff Zekas

    Time for a history lesson. Back in 1950, ninety percent of TV’s, cars, beds, clothes, furniture, tires, household goods, were made in the U.S.A. What changed? Nixon opened the door to China, flooding America with cheap goods. NAFTA allowed U.S. carmakers to move to Mexico where they pay $3.50 an hour. Instead of the “rising tide raising all boats” the tide dragged down everyone else to the level of Third World nations, which have no pollution controls and use child labour. So, a tariff is no more than a “pollution and slave labour” charge on countries which have gotten a free ride for the last free decades. Don’t blame trump. Blame the Chinese and Walmart, who caused all production to move overseas.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      “Back in 1950, ninety percent of TV’s, cars, beds, clothes, furniture, tires, household goods, were made in the U.S.A. What changed?”

      I’m gonna go with: Germany and Japan astonishingly emerged from sh1t-bombed-out-of-’em status so the important half of Germany could resume its former scientific/industrial parity with the US while Japan could establish same while also scientifically/industrially colonizing its near abroad (ex-GEACPS) to, along with the Soviets, seed the Pacific Rim economies.

      Without all that there wouldn’t be any Western competition to worry about and East Asians would still be using the same word for ditch and toilet.

      Many more factors here than US trade policy though that has recently been a great enabler.

    • 0 avatar
      seth1065

      Two facts, one if we are gonna blame anyone blame us consumers, very very few are willing to pay top dollar for made in the USA goods, that is a fact the reason most TV, furniture … that was once made in the US is now imported is price, we consumers now have 4 cheap TV’s in our homes vs one expensive made in the USA TV, hell even Trump has had his ties made in china. As for the auto tax I think the car companies will not do much of anything, you build a factory for the long haul not 4 years, they will either trade some south of the border jobs for something they want w the white house i.e. cafe reduction or they will line up their lobbyist to put plenty of loop holes in the deal or they will flood congress w cash to stop it, if they will not it is only 2 years to midterm elections.

  • avatar
    OldManPants

    What Thumpers need to realize is that there is already a precedent for systematic discrimination according to percentage of favored/disfavored origin that was long used by America’s original Deplorables:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypodescent

    “So, is that Cruze an octoroon or just a quadroon?”

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • 28-Cars-Later: *faint
  • Corey Lewis: The excessive holdout was the gawky D-body Imperial!
  • 28-Cars-Later: Well at least it got a fair amount of use and wasn’t wasted.
  • 28-Cars-Later: Damning with feint praise right there.
  • mikey: The entire 58 G.M line up never really appealed to me. That being said. If I had to pick the best looking of...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber