Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/biden-sharply-hikes-us-tariffs-on-billions-in-chinese-chips.20203/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Biden sharply hikes US tariffs on billions in Chinese chips

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
Shell EV charging station in Beijing



WASHINGTON, May 14 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday unveiled a bundle of steep tariff increases on an array of Chinese imports including electric vehicle (EV) batteries, computer chips and medical products, risking an election-year standoff with Beijing in a bid to woo voters who give his economic policies low marks.

China immediately vowed retaliation. Its commerce ministry said Beijing was opposed to the U.S. tariff hikes and would take measures to defend its interests, urging the United States to cancel the measures.

Biden will keep tariffs put in place by his Republican predecessor Donald Trump while ratcheting up others, including a quadrupling of EV duties to over 100% and doubling the duties on semiconductor tariffs to 50%, the White House said in a statement. It cited "unacceptable risks" to U.S. economic security posed by what it considers unfair Chinese practices that are flooding global markets with cheap goods.

The new measures affect $18 billion in imported Chinese goods including steel and aluminum, semiconductors, electric vehicles, critical minerals, solar cells and cranes, the White House said.

The United States imported $427 billion in goods from China in 2023 and exported $148 billion to the world's No. 2 economy, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, a trade gap that has persisted for decades and become an ever more sensitive subject in Washington.

"China's using the same playbook it has before to power its own growth at the expense of others by continuing to invest, despite excess Chinese capacity and flooding global markets with exports that are underpriced due to unfair practices," Biden economic adviser Lael Brainard told reporters on a conference call.

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said the revised tariffs were justified because China was stealing U.S. intellectual property. But Tai recommended tariff exclusions, for hundreds of industrial machinery import categories from China, including 19 for solar product manufacturing equipment.

Financial market reaction was muted. U.S. stock index futures were little changed. The announcement came after Chinese markets closed for the day, but in U.S. premarket trading shares of Chinese EV makers Li Auto and Xpeng were around 3% lower. Treasury yields were fairly flat, suggesting little worry that the move would aggravate U.S. consumer price pressures.

FREE TRADE NO MORE
Even as Biden's steps fell in line with Trump's premise that tougher trade measures are warranted, the Democrat took aim at his opponent in November's election.

The White House said Trump's 2020 trade deal with China did not increase American exports or boost American manufacturing jobs, and it said the 10% across-the-board tariffs on goods from all points of origin that Trump has proposed would frustrate U.S. allies and raise prices. Trump has floated tariffs of 60% or higher on all Chinese goods.

Administration officials said their measures are "carefully targeted," combined with domestic investment, plotted with close allies and unlikely to worsen a bout of inflation that has already angered U.S. voters and imperiled Biden's re-election bid.

Biden has struggled to convince voters of the efficacy of his economic policies despite a backdrop of low unemployment and above-trend economic growth. A Reuters/Ipsos poll last month showed Trump had a 7 percentage-point edge over Biden on the economy.

Analysts have warned that a trade tiff could raise costs for EVs overall, hurting Biden's climate goals and his aim to create manufacturing jobs.

Biden has said he wants to win this era of competition with China but not to launch a trade war. He has worked in recent months to ease tensions in one-on-one talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Both 2024 U.S. presidential candidates have departed from the free-trade consensus that once reigned in Washington, a period capped by China's joining the World Trade Organization in 2001. Trump's broader imposition of tariffs during his 2017-2021 presidency kicked off a tariff war with China.

As part of the long-awaited tariff update, Biden will increase tariffs this year under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 from 25% to 100% on EVs, bringing total duties to 102.5%, from 7.5% to 25% on lithium-ion EV batteries and other battery parts and from 25% to 50% on photovoltaic cells used to make solar panels. Some critical minerals will have their tariffs raised from nothing to 25%.

The tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes will rise to 25% from zero, those on syringes and needles will rise to 50% from nothing now and some personal protective equipment (PPE) used in medical facilities will rise to 25% from as little as 0% now. Shortages in PPE made largely in China hampered the United States' COVID-19 response.

More tariffs will follow in 2025 and 2026 on semiconductors, as well as lithium-ion batteries that are not used in electric vehicles, graphite and permanent magnets as well as rubber medical and surgical gloves.

A step Biden previously announced to raise tariffs on some steel and aluminum products will take effect this year, the White House said.

A number of lawmakers have called for massive hikes on Chinese vehicle tariffs or an outright ban over data privacy concerns. There are relatively few Chinese-made light-duty vehicles being imported now.

The United Auto Workers, a politically important union that endorsed Biden, said the tariff moves would ensure that "the transition to electric vehicles is a just transition."

 
An interesting compare and contrast with tariff policies invoked by Trump, as well as forward looking policies. Useful to look at policy changes and results so far:
* Both are pursuing a “tough on China“ approach
* Trump has taken a broad shotgun approach - tariffs across all China imports, while Biden‘s approach is more targeted on select industries where he believes the US needs strategic capacity - semiconductors and clean energy top the list.
* Trump also raised tariffs on many close allies, while Biden is focused on China, encouraging allies to do similarly, instead of alienating them.
* The "historical trade deal" that Trump hammered out with China, leveraging the tariffs didn’t work. In the end, China bought only 58 percent of the US exports it had committed to purchase under the agreement, not even enough to reach its import levels from before the trade war.[1] Put differently, China bought none of the additional $200 billion of exports Trump's deal had promised.
* Biden hasn’t rolled back any of the Trump-era tariffs that remained after Trump lifted select tariffs negotiated as part of that deal.

How Biden’s Trade War With China Differs From Trump’s​

 
Putting to one side the USA/China disputes, the one certainty I can see is that this - as well as many other policies (and yes, that includes the CHIPS Act) - will create more inflation in the US. Which will inevitably spread to other countries. Quite how Biden got his name onto an "Inflation Reduction Act" when he actually pursues inflationary policies baffles me ... <end semi-political rant>
 
We are witnessing the end of globalization in real time.
I don't think so. What I think we are witnessing is accelerated decoupling from China in G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States). Perhaps most of the EU could be included in the decoupling.
 
Putting to one side the USA/China disputes, the one certainty I can see is that this - as well as many other policies (and yes, that includes the CHIPS Act) - will create more inflation in the US. Which will inevitably spread to other countries. Quite how Biden got his name onto an "Inflation Reduction Act" when he actually pursues inflationary policies baffles me ... <end semi-political rant>
I'm with you in spirit, but the US GDP in 2023 was $27.36T. The entire value of imports from China was $427B, so even a 10% across the board tariff would only burden the US economy by $43B, which is pretty small in context. It's not even an especially big tax increase, though it would be quite regressive, in that it would affect those with lower income and wealth most.

As for Trump's "proposals", it seems impossible to tell when he is stating an actual plan, or it's simply blather to publicize a negotiating position. I think it's more likely the latter, but who knows with that guy.
 
Putting to one side the USA/China disputes, the one certainty I can see is that this - as well as many other policies (and yes, that includes the CHIPS Act) - will create more inflation in the US. Which will inevitably spread to other countries. Quite how Biden got his name onto an "Inflation Reduction Act" when he actually pursues inflationary policies baffles me ... <end semi-political rant>
My take is that the Trump and subsequent Biden tariffs and other uncoupling (or onshoring of strategic supply chains) incentives have precipitated some of our inflation, though as @blueone highlights, increased tariffs burdens on Chinese exports already happening are relatively small relative to our GDP, though regressive. The previous Trump and increased Biden tariffs are likely boosting the inflation numbers a little disproportionately, because affected products are mostly concentrated in product areas embedded in the CPI, though the biggest inflation lifters recently have been housing and services, areas relatively independent from import inputs.

On the flip side, I’m betting that a 12K high-quality sedan would really be a boon to auto price competition and deflationary influence in the US, but I’m not sure we’re willing to bear the long term employment and strategic downside of such an import.


The China model of industrial policy based subsidies, scale, mercantilism/dumping, and relatively low cost factors of production (labor, energy, land, regulatory) certainly works to bring down costs and wring out maximal production efficiency. But it comes at costs for the rest of the world as well.

 
So the tariffs are paid by the customer. the importer. correct? long term this discourages buying from Chinese. Short term it hurts people in the US buying tech, correct?
 
So the tariffs are paid by the customer. the importer. correct? long term this discourages buying from Chinese. Short term it hurts people in the US buying tech, correct?

Probably wouldn't matter that much, importer or exporter. If levied on exporter, they will have to pass down the extra cost to the buyers/consumers eventually.
 
So the tariffs are paid by the customer. the importer. correct? long term this discourages buying from Chinese. Short term it hurts people in the US buying tech, correct?
That's correct; tariffs are paid by the importer. Tariffs do hurt consumers, but benefit domestic businesses competing with businesses in the targeted countries accused of "dumping" or being national adversaries. In some cases, like the US tariffs on foreign made pickup trucks, it encouraged the foreign manufacturers to open US-based factories, which created jobs and is thought to have benefited the US economy overall.
 
So the tariffs are paid by the customer. the importer. correct? long term this discourages buying from Chinese. Short term it hurts people in the US buying tech, correct?

The posted headline dialed in on chips, but the actual news releases focuses on the more dramatic tariffs on EVs, solar panels, and batteries, so different folks “hurt”. But lets look at a likely converse outcomes without the tariff - BYD offers a well-made $12-14K EV with good range in the US. Who does that hurt and who does that help ?
 
But lets look at a likely converse outcomes without the tariff - BYD offers a well-made $12-14K EV with good range in the US. Who does that hurt and who does that help ?
It hurts EV producers who manufacture in the US, it hurts autoworkers who work in the US-based factories, by reducing the need for their jobs and their unions. Making BYD EVs available without tariffs helps consumers who can't afford, say, $30K for a typical US, Euro, Japanese, or Korean new car and are willing to buy an EV.
 
That's correct; tariffs are paid by the importer. Tariffs do hurt consumers, but benefit domestic businesses competing with businesses in the targeted countries accused of "dumping" or being national adversaries. In some cases, like the US tariffs on foreign made pickup trucks, it encouraged the foreign manufacturers to open US-based factories, which created jobs and is thought to have benefited the US economy overall.
Who else can ultimately pay other than the US consumer ? No imports = no tariffs = no US customers.

For sure, it can only hurt the US consumer by reducing choice and competition and reducing pressure to lower prices. The fact that Telsa has dramatically lowered prices (almost unheard of in auto retail) and still reports itself as profitable tells you how high their margins were.

Ultimately, it's a trade-off between whether everyone (everyone's a consumer) pays less or everyone pays more in order to protect a smaller group of producers. If there's genuinely dumping and agreed trade rules are being violated, there's a case for retaliatory measures by the US (I'm sure the WTO rules are specific on this). But it's not clear that this is the sole, or even main, driver for these tariffs or that these measures follow the WTO guidelines (happy to be corrected if mistaken here).

Intellectually, I thought we'd established the basic free trade principle in the UK in 1846 with the Repeal of the Corn Laws - the fundamental decision that cheap food for everyone was more important than protecting a special interest group (rich landowners in that particular case). Cheaper food means more resources are available for other things - in those days more competitive manufacturing. As would cheaper cars or solar panels help the economy across the board today.
 
Who else can ultimately pay other than the US consumer ? No imports = no tariffs = no US customers.
You're mostly correct, but the question was who actually paid the tariff to the government. I said "mostly" because the importing firm, which has gross margins itself, sometimes decides to offset the tariff by reducing their margins to keep demand from collapsing. In the case of the proposed Chinese EV tariffs, that won't work because the tariffs will be draconian, but it sometimes does for other imports.
For sure, it can only hurt the US consumer by reducing choice and competition and reducing pressure to lower prices. The fact that Telsa has dramatically lowered prices (almost unheard of in auto retail) and still reports itself as profitable tells you how high their margins were.
Agreed. All businesses in capitalism price by value, not by a target margin.
Ultimately, it's a trade-off between whether everyone (everyone's a consumer) pays less or everyone pays more in order to protect a smaller group of producers.
In the case of Chinese EVs, the auto unions are a significant political factor too.
If there's genuinely dumping and agreed trade rules are being violated, there's a case for retaliatory measures by the US (I'm sure the WTO rules are specific on this). But it's not clear that this is the sole, or even main, driver for these tariffs or that these measures follow the WTO guidelines (happy to be corrected if mistaken here).
The WTO has truly become a toothless tiger lately, IMO mostly due to China's behavior. Individual countries now take matters into their own hands.
Intellectually, I thought we'd established the basic free trade principle in the UK in 1846 with the Repeal of the Corn Laws - the fundamental decision that cheap food for everyone was more important than protecting a special interest group (rich landowners in that particular case). Cheaper food means more resources are available for other things - in those days more competitive manufacturing. As would cheaper cars or solar panels help the economy across the board today.
Good point, but when some players don't play by the rules, the established principles go out the window.
 
Looks like a great article, but behind a pay wall.
I have a free login that gives me a few articles per month. Key highlights from this one:

“A utilisation rate of 76-80 per cent is considered normal for most industries,” Zhong Zhengsheng, chief economist at Shenzhen-based Ping An Securities, said in a recent report.
NBS data also revealed that automobile and new-energy equipment manufacturing were among the sectors grappling with deep drops in capacity utilisation during the quarter.

In 2023, just 20 of China’s 77 automakers reported above-60 per cent utilisation levels that are deemed to be in the normal range, a report by Shanghai-based consultancy Gasgoo revealed. Less than half of last year’s car-production capacity of 55 million was used. “Declines in prices and capacity utilisation, relative to their recent highs, suggest that the current round of overcapacity covers many industries,” the report said.

Using 2019 and 2021 capacity-utilisation ratios as benchmarks, Nanjing-based Huatai Securities also flagged electronics, pharmaceuticals, building materials, and food and beverage as sectors bedevilled by low utilisation. Notwithstanding the speed and scale of China’s EV adoption and the tech self-sufficiency crusade fuelled by geopolitics and tech disputes, Lu raised concerns about some initial “signs of structural excess output” in the chip sector and lurking risks in the EV bonanza. China’s chip-production capacity will grow by 13 per cent with 18 new projects in 2024, despite the capacity-utilisation ratio of the computer and electronic-equipment sector hitting a historical low of 75.6 per cent last year, according to estimates by American semiconductor industry group SEMI.
 
I have a free login that gives me a few articles per month. Key highlights from this one:

“A utilisation rate of 76-80 per cent is considered normal for most industries,” Zhong Zhengsheng, chief economist at Shenzhen-based Ping An Securities, said in a recent report.
NBS data also revealed that automobile and new-energy equipment manufacturing were among the sectors grappling with deep drops in capacity utilisation during the quarter.

In 2023, just 20 of China’s 77 automakers reported above-60 per cent utilisation levels that are deemed to be in the normal range, a report by Shanghai-based consultancy Gasgoo revealed. Less than half of last year’s car-production capacity of 55 million was used. “Declines in prices and capacity utilisation, relative to their recent highs, suggest that the current round of overcapacity covers many industries,” the report said.

Using 2019 and 2021 capacity-utilisation ratios as benchmarks, Nanjing-based Huatai Securities also flagged electronics, pharmaceuticals, building materials, and food and beverage as sectors bedevilled by low utilisation. Notwithstanding the speed and scale of China’s EV adoption and the tech self-sufficiency crusade fuelled by geopolitics and tech disputes, Lu raised concerns about some initial “signs of structural excess output” in the chip sector and lurking risks in the EV bonanza. China’s chip-production capacity will grow by 13 per cent with 18 new projects in 2024, despite the capacity-utilisation ratio of the computer and electronic-equipment sector hitting a historical low of 75.6 per cent last year, according to estimates by American semiconductor industry group SEMI.
How long til the Govt ask a few of these guys to closedown?
 
Back
Top