Tariffs

Politically-inflected short post (one paragraph). Proceed on your own volition.

First, people yell at me for letting politics sneak in. TOP is an oasis, they shout. A refuge. Don't spoil it telling us what you think of the Criminal in Chief! Then they yell at me for not discussing the effect of the Voldemort tariffs on the camera market. Thom wrote about it; here's the link. His takeaway: "Anyone who thinks the whole tariff schedule shows great leadership is just showing their own stupidity. I can't say that more plainly." Me, I'm not so much thinking of the effect on photography as a whole as I am about the effect on me and on my livelihood. Forgive me for being selfish. I'm a camera store. I sell products made in Japan and Thailand and Vietnam. A few of you buy them through my links (thank you) and I get three or four percent. There is no domestic production of cameras. And business was already way down. If anyone really wants me to write about the utter idiocy of the tariff chaos, I'd be happy to venture a few words, but watch out. 

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Richie Thomson: "I don't come here for politics, but this is beyond politics. We have just witnessed the greatest act of economic vandalism ever; this will create worldwide disaster. The poor will suffer the most, as ever, not Trump and his allies. It's been a century since the last Great Depression. Prepare for a new one."

John Camp: "I believe I'm one of the people you think yelled at you about politics in the blog. I actually didn't—I dissented from that tendency, and spoke up, as did a couple of other readers. Our reason was quite simple: we come here for cameras and photography, not for political discussions. How many blogs are there about politics? A hundred thousand? A million? I do think of TOP as a refuge, and I did not, as one commenter ventured, dissent because I oppose your politics. Your politics and mine, and the other dissenters, I suspect are really quite close.

"However. Things have changed. We're no longer in a political happy-talk situation, we are in an existential crisis. I say go ahead and post on politics. I don't think Trump is a clown, I think he's a tyrant, a disaster for the U.S. and the world. He claims a mandate, but he got less than half of the vote in the last election. He uses the 'mandate' to tear up America out of sheer stupidity, ignorance and malice.

"We should be writing about this everywhere."

Comments

[B.J.Scharp]

This is why I prefer to support creators on Patreon or similar.

I don't want to buy stuff I don't need to support creators I enjoy. There's enough consumerism in the world already.

And it's a more reliable source of income for those creators as well.

[Daniel]

No teriffs in the US when you buy a Canham view camera. Located in Arizona, USA they make View Cameras from 4x5 to 20x24 inch film sizes.
Good service, good cameras and good folks to deal with.

[David Brown]

Hear, Hear!

[ASW]

Doesn't bother me at all. We have one world and we all live in it. We have elected a reality-TV businessman who clearly thinks his job is to be a reality-TV president. We're getting exactly what we (= the electorate) wanted and deserves.

I am 45. For as long as I can remember (late-Reagan presidency) the R party has made two arguments: 1) government is the problem or doesn't work and 2) tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and corporations will solve all problems. Each time the R party gets control of Congress or the presidency they have worked to make these arguments reality, generally with limited success. This time I think they're going to make both come true.

I'm not too worried about the tariffs because I think soon enough they will be the least of our problems.

[Craig]

One thing I've noticed regarding complaints about politics on forums is that people mostly object not to politics, but politics they disagree with. The real issue is not, "We shouldn't have politics here," but "How dare you have political opinions different from mine." Nine times out of ten, anyone who objects to criticism of that demented, vicious imbecile in the White House is just outing themselves as one of his supporters.

[Christer Almqvist]

If HE can't read, can't somebody read Adam Smith and David Ricardo to him?

[John Krumm]

I heard a great interview with a "Labor populist" yesterday, who argued that what Trump is trying to do, trade rebalancing, is a good thing. Bernie Sanders has long, long advocated for it. You can find his speeches about it from 40 years ago. But Trump is missing a crucial ingredient, this person pointed out, and that's comprehensive industrial policy, that is, the plan the actually gets things built in our country. If you just increase prices on imports, then domestic producers can increase prices. They are supposed to then build new factories, etc, but with zero incentive and no limits, they just give it to shareholders or executives through stock buy-backs, and they price gouge. Tariffs are a good tool, but not the way they are being used right now.

You can read about all this here: https://rethinktrade.org

[Raphael]

It’s not stupid to put a regressive tax into place in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, and also fool half the country into supporting the tax because it’s supposedly good for them in the long run. That’s what oligarchies do.

[Gordon Lewis]

I have no interest in defending Trump's tariffs. They will inevitably cause the prices of new photographic equipment--the vast majority of which is imported--to increase. But they won't all increase overnight. Anyone who's been considering a major purchase of photo equipment and can afford to do so, would be wise to do so now, preferably in cash, before prices and interest rates rise and some companies cease shipments to the US entirely. If you can use Mike's links, so much the better. Fasten your seatbelts boys and girls; it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

[Keith]

As near as I can tell, camera prices in Canada shouldn't change much. (Yes, I know, the exchange rate fluctuations have an impact on prices, but the companies involved hire actually smart people to figure it out.) I'm wondering if there is now a market for camera stores in Canada to sell privately into the states. Does anyone know if Jane Doe in someplace USA buys a camera from The Camera Store in Calgary (an actual real, and really good store) and gets it shipped home, do tariffs kick in? They have to pay Canadian GST of course, but in Calgary no PST, but then the exchange rate is really good for Jane. I hope that made sense.

[Alan]

I think fundamentally we have to come to terms as to how we all got here in the first place.
Trump was elected through a democratic process vis a vis, an election. A Higher number of people who took the time out to vote, placed him in office. Be that as it may, one has to examine and question the bigger picture, that is to say, that democracy can in itself become a form of tyranny. The majority can swing in a direction (often by manipulation as it happened in the last election) that ultimately is harmful and dangerous to the common good. I believe that to be the current situation.
Plato once said that democracy is a danger due to excessive freedom. He also argues that, in a system in which everyone has a right to rule, all sorts of selfish people who care nothing for the people but are only motivated by their own personal desires are able to attain power. He concludes that democracy risks bringing dictators, tyrants, and demagogues to power. He also claims that democracies have leaders without proper skills or morals and that it is quite unlikely that the best equipped to rule will come to power.

So his conclusion is that essentially the average citizen's behaviour is driven by their personal agenda, desires, biases and prejudices and most often not in the best interest of the common good.
I think great leaders come to rule a nation very infrequently.
John F Kennedy who I personally believe to be one of the last great presidents.
His actions in the 13 days in October 1962 managing through the Cuban missile crisis is an example. He had to fight the establishment, the military industrial complex, maintain his moral compass and safeguard humanity to the best of his knowledge is a clear example. If he did not do so, I hate to think of the outcome.
Ultimately he paid the ultimate price for that strength of character.......

[Stan B.]

When someone says, "I alone can fix it," and that same guy goes on to say how windmills cause cancer- and he's just warming up; if you're still listening...

[Bruce Bordner]

It could be worse - while I'm watching my wife's 401K dissolve, I have to live in fear that Elon will find me.
I may be the last federal defined-benefits retiree so I am completely dependent on Govt payments to keep my home. It's been great so far... if no one looks. However, they converted everyone else to 401K in the 1980s so there aren't many stubborn old farts.
No one would notice if we get eliminated.

[Kodachromeguy]

Your occasional contributor from Austin, Texas, Kirk Tuck, suggested that if you want to buy a camera, do it now. After all, the stock market is in turmoil. Tariffs will make cameras more expensive (and no, camera factories will not open in the US). So I suffered a bout of explosive GAS and ordered a Leica IIIG.

[Ed Hawco]

There is not a single economist anywhere who thinks these tariffs are a good idea. This tariffs idea is 100% coming from someone who managed to bankrupt casinos and who advised us to inject bleach to cure Covid19.

The U.S. is supposed to be a republic and a democracy, yet it's currently being run by the whims of the above-mentioned casino bankrupter with effectively no opposition, as if the U.S. were a monarchy or dictatorship. Sheesh!

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

No comment on last USA election - Australia is about to go into its own.

I think the hard part is accepting that some people hold opposing views to oneself, and that they believe / accept those views in the same way that one believes / accepts one’s own views. Hence, where views differ = “you must be an idiot”.

If TOP can bring the same sense of curiosity and politeness to politics as it does to photography, we’d be in a much better place.
https://theconversation.com/feel-free-to-disagree-on-campus-by-learning-to-do-it-well-151019

[Geoff Goldberg]

We can talk all day about tariffs, but what about tearing up the NIH, CDC, research, public parks, natural resources, etc. This just makes no sense, no matter what your politics are. None.

[Ken]

I wanted to point out that Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930 helped turn the 1929 crash into the Great Depression, from which the U.S. economy did not fully recover until 1942 / WWII. But, alas, I think it is superfluous: all that needs to be said is in Mr. Camp's second paragraph.

And yes, camera prices will go up and the number of people who can afford them will, at least temporarily, go down. To echo Mr. Lewis's comment, if you want something and can afford it, now is not a bad time to get it.

[Bill S.]

The political stuff is OK, but it is best to put it behind a link for those wishing to escape from it. Also, short, with a tie-in to yourself and or photography is good.

Trump is doing what he said he would do. 60% of registered voters thought it was a good idea to vote for him, or not important to get out and vote for the alternative. 66% of those eligible to vote thought the same. I suspect a great deal more pain is needed to get them to admit their mistake.

[Mike Fewster]

As an Australian, it pains me to write this. Trump is the symptom, not the disease. Rupert Murdoch is Australian. Go to Murdoch's Fox News now and read the coverage given to the fallout from the tariffs. Try to find it. Try to find any analysis there from economists. Trump is the logical outcome of what passes for news coverage in the biggest media outlet in the USA. Fox News is responsible for the rise and election of Trump. And for the USA rejection of Climate Change.
Murdoch's son James split from his father and the family business in disgust at the lack of journalistic ethics of Fox News. Unless Fox News is held to account, there will be more Trumps.

[Bear.]

Tariffs derive from a 19th/ early 20th Century world in which profits from international trade between developed nations were heavily dominated by goods manufactured in countries that were in competition in respect of those goods. In my opinion, Trump's tariffs therefore suffer from numerous flawed assumptions. For example: (1) that the USA can revive a manufacturing base within a short, few years. While no one can sensibly doubt that the USA has the economic clout to revive itself as a major manufacturing powerhouse, as a nation it has failed to invest in the infrastructure that would enable it to do so for at least three generations. A tariff wall would need to remain in place for decades before any manufacturing revival could have a material impact. That is how long it will take to rebuild the transport infrastructure, the factories, the plant and equipment and retain and train the necessary labour force. (2) That the remainder of the world will not react with punitive taxation on US exports, which it will. That should result in the tariffs being both inflationary and suppressive of economic growth within the US - probably to an extent that the sought after revival cannot occur, as the only market behind the wall will be domestic. (3) That modern manufacturing is vertically integrated and can wholly be conducted within the US. That is neither true nor likely to become true, at least for many decades. (4) That manufactured goods remain the backbone of economic trade. That is not true as international trade - especially in exports from the US, is dominated by services and intellectual property (software). Prior to Trump’s second term, many of the US's major trading partners were already concerned about profit shifting and revenue base erosion by US multi-national companies, especially through complex legal and economic arrangements designed to minimise international taxation and maximise (mainly US) shareholder wealth, especially as such profits as are not repatriated remain untaxed by the US. It will be astonishing if the entire world does not respond to Trump’s tariffs with punitive taxation on US software imports, which will heavily impact the US tech sector and stock market. (5) Finally, that the rest of the world cannot live without the US as a trading partner. That is just not so. For example, in recent years, China sought to tax certain Australian imports out of existence to punish perceived economic imbalances - especially for wine and primary production. The measures caused short term pain to certain Australian business but failed dismally because the exporters simply pivoted their product base and diversified their market base to domestic markets and other countries. The US is a major market - perhaps the major market for many products - but it is certainly not the only market.
In any event, Trump's promulgated premise for the tariffs that the US needs to protect its market base because of trade imbalances that are "unfair" is, in my opinion, simply laughable. (a) It is quite true that the Western World has relied upon US military power to protect its global interests largely at the expense of the US. But it was US policy to do so post-World War 1 and even more so post-World War 2 and during the Cold War precisely to protect US economic interests. The expenditure created the very markets into which the US now exports and with which the US now competes and about which Trump now complains. As the US deliberately created that state of affairs by 100 years of military and political policies, it is mere churlishness for Trump to attack its very trading partners as if they were somehow behaving unfairly. The US dictated the terms of its bargain with the Western World and has received a more than fair exchange for the price. (b) Many of the US based multi-national corporations trading world-wide are of themselves financially equal to or larger than the nations in which they trade. They are more than capable of looking after themselves and I doubt they will thank Trump for his tariffs. Nevertheless, they will suffer financial pain as the respective governments of their international customer base visit their displeasure upon them in response to Trump's policies. Whether that will have a material impact remains to be seen and may depend upon the extent to which the multinational companies can transfer their economic activities outside the US to avoid punitive responses. However, the impact will certain be inflationary within the US, suppress US economic growth, decrease US tax collections on non-domestic profits, and - oh yes - seriously damage the share market. (c). I could go on and on but will stop there.
There are, of course, many good arguments to support targeted tariffs in many circumstances. For example, to create disincentives against shifting labour from higher cost to lower cost jurisdictions. Yet it is hard to see how anything good can come from Trump's general tariffs, which are likely to produce both short and long term outcomes that are precisely the opposite of his promised economic utopia. That gives rise to a US domestic political question as to how House and Senate Republicans will cope as the fiscal consequences of Trump's tariffs bite upon their constituents, and especially as many of the services previously available to assist have just ceased to exist. More importantly, it also gives rise to a wider global question; namely, whether the US - which has been the trusted backbone of the economy and military security of the Western World for the last 80 years - will ever recover its position of trust and therefore, the economic power and military leadership it has held for that time.
If the international chaos that Trump is creating in the Ukraine and with Taiwan leads to World War 3, that question will be answered, although the question may become irrelevant in the process. My fear is that Trump, in due course, decides that such a war as a desirable outcome as means of disguising the consequences of his actions thus far, including his tariffs. At that point, regardless of their politics or nation, everyone loses.

[Jayanand Govindaraj]

International trade is all about relative advantages. My country, India, for example, came out better than I expected, mainly because our competitors for various products that are exported by us to the US markets, like China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, etc, were taxed at a rate higher than we were. That gives us a small competitive advantage in the short to medium term, as the US cannot really just stop buying stuff from the rest of the world at the drop of a hat. Of course, that depends on there being no reversal of the tariffs! An aside, though, is that China, by reacting as it did, has probably just dug a deeper economic grave for itself for the near future. The real danger now is of the USA and China going into recession together. The USA (like India) will recover relatively easily, as it is still a domestically focused economy, but China, being an export led economy, might have a tougher time as demand for its goods reduces worldwide. Interesting times!

[Thom Hogan]

First, let me correct Bill S, since in order to have an effective debate, we need to use more accurate statistics. Of the ~240m potential voters, ~32% voted for Donald Trump in 2024. ~30% voted for Harris. So, one third of the country thought Trump was a good idea. More people didn't vote than voted for him. So to our International friends reading this, be careful about saying things like "Americans don't like us any more." It's a subset that might have that opinion, and it might not be a majority.

Now to Keith's comment: we've had instances before where cameras were priced higher in the US than other countries. That's one of the things that ratcheted up Customs Duties enforcement. While it's possible that tourist purchase of cameras will happen, it might not be without consequence.

Finally, I'll have an update on my site soon, but I wanted to make sure everyone isn't believing the "Nikon cameras will cost 36% more because they originate in Thailand" thing that's getting passed around. Tariffs are on the cost to the importer, not the list price to the final customer. They increase the cost of a product, but that's cost to manufacturer and distributor.

Every camera maker is discussing with their subsidiaries how they're going to handle this. One major company—I won't shame them publicly because no one really knows what they should do yet—pulled their sale prices for a few hours, then decided to reinstate them.

If Trump wants to play the trade game, he's going to find that companies game the game. Which leads me to a final thought:

There's a school of thinking that says the tariffs are just a bully-type set up as a favorable negotiation tactic. There's likely some truth to that, which means tariffs can be pulled in some cases when a country acquiesces to Trump's demands. But I'll also point out that Trump has as far as anyone can remember has had a burr up an orifice about physical trade deficits (he doesn't care about service surpluses or deficits, apparently). That his tariffs actually directly target deficits instead of actual reciprocal trade seems to me a warning signal that they won't go away, at least not completely.

[John Abee]

As our good friends at The Bitter Southerner say (and proudly display on the t-shirt) "It's not about left and right, it's about right and wrong". Doesn't make this apolitical but it's a damn good excuse.

[Kye Wood]

The thing I don't get is why the press doesn't just ignore him. Starved of attention, he'd ratchet up his crazy until you could conceivably have him removed under existing laws.

But instead, he's being given the attention he craves. Nobody is being smart about how they handle the situation. When they should be being as machiavellian as possible.

You can't beat him with protests and court action. It's just refueling his bases outrage.

[MikeR]

Billionaires are the only minority actually destroying the country.
(Okay, certain billionaires)

[Kirk]

Bill S. is incorrect on one point. Trump got less than 50% of votes in 2024 and won only because he was able to leverage the electoral college scheme. Let's not play into the idea that he gained a mandate delivered via a majority of voters pulling the lever for him. To do so is a re-write of actual fact and history.

Nothing against Bill....

[Steve]

What bothers me as much or more is all the self-alleged "smart trumpers" who try to sane wash & put an academic framework around his BS. It's a variant of the narcissist's prayer, for example on tariffs:

* He's unpredictable, you can't take everything he says seriously
* It was just a campaign promise he won't follow thru
* Tariffs aren't inflationary
* OK Tariffs are inflationary, but it's just a negotiating tactic
* The tariffs will be narrow and targeted
* OK he might do some broad 10% tariffs
* Sure the tariffs might be global and up to 54% but they will temporary as no one will retaliate
* OK China retaliated but..

He just caused one of the all-time greatest spike in volatility and 2 day market crash (in %), on the scale of GFC and COVID.

The actual non-partisan smart money understands how much he has broken the economy and the pain that lies ahead.

Things are not going back to good & normal quickly or quietly.

[Dogman]

Politics? Ain't politics. Human decency is more like it. I don't see that much in our government any more. No one even pays lip service to it. It's okay to indirectly kill kids with disease, let other tyrants take whatever country they want to take, watch while families lose their futures and the world plunges into economic chaos. Anyone with a grain of human decency would try to prevent all these things from taking place. Instead He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named will play golf and ship people to other countries prisons.

Tariffs? We now put tariffs on penguins? Okay. Enough. Enough madness. This has gotta end. I dunno how but this shit ain't right.

[Dan Deakin]

Here in the UK we had a new prime minister in 2022 who managed to crashed our economy with some bonkers economic policies that the markets simply didn’t believe. She resigned after 50 days becoming our shortest serving prime minister in history. I wonder if there are parallels with what you’re going through over there.