Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 136K
  • Politics 
Why does it matter where the pills you pour into bottles are made? Quality is the important thing, not location. Pill mfg is not a high margin business, which is why much of it (though not all!) moved abroad.
I think there’s a sound argument for diversification of production locations as a hedge against supply chain disruption caused by natural disasters, local political/economic instability, armed conflict, etc. I’d rather that be incentivized through tax policy but that’s a different conversation.
 
I think there’s a sound argument for diversification of production locations as a hedge against supply chain disruption caused by natural disasters, local political/economic instability, armed conflict, etc. I’d rather that be incentivized through tax policy but that’s a different conversation.
Right, but we already have diversification of production, right? Drugs are made everywhere.
 
I was a retail pharmacist for 27 years. Over that time it went from 90% domestically produced medications to around 5%
If we can all agree the world is getting dangerous I would think this an issue of national security
 
Why does it matter where the pills you pour into bottles are made? Quality is the important thing, not location. Pill mfg is not a high margin business, which is why much of it (though not all!) moved abroad.
Because of situations like Covid. China turned off all supply of masks and equipment they made to keep it for them wives. That’s not a way to have a supply chain.
 
What is the status of these tariffs legally? I think there was a nationwide injunction against them, IIRC, but then the Supreme Court said no nationwide injunctions -- so would the tariffs continue to apply to all non-parties, or is this a case where complete relief requires nationwide relief. If there's a plaintiff that isn't an importer but rather a downstream buyer, it could argue that any tariffs that increase the price they pay would injure them, thus they would have standing.

But maybe the supreme court stayed the injunction. I can't even keep track any more.
 
Because of situations like Covid. China turned off all supply of masks and equipment they made to keep it for them wives. That’s not a way to have a supply chain.
1. But pharma is manufactured everywhere, not just China. I suppose if we piss off everyone in the world, maybe nobody would want to help us but hey, maybe avoid that.

2. We still manufacture pharma here. Why does it ALL need to be here.

3. It's much easier and cheaper to buy a stockpile than to spend godawful amount of resources on duplicative manufacturing.

4. I don't think you understand the benefits of trade.
 
1. But pharma is manufactured everywhere, not just China. I suppose if we piss off everyone in the world, maybe nobody would want to help us but hey, maybe avoid that.

2. We still manufacture pharma here. Why does it ALL need to be here.

3. It's much easier and cheaper to buy a stockpile than to spend godawful amount of resources on duplicative manufacturing.

4. I don't think you understand the benefits of trade.
You wouldn’t want to move all of it here. You’d want a majority here and solid second and third source elsewherez
 
What is the status of these tariffs legally? I think there was a nationwide injunction against them, IIRC, but then the Supreme Court said no nationwide injunctions -- so would the tariffs continue to apply to all non-parties, or is this a case where complete relief requires nationwide relief. If there's a plaintiff that isn't an importer but rather a downstream buyer, it could argue that any tariffs that increase the price they pay would injure them, thus they would have standing.

But maybe the supreme court stayed the injunction. I can't even keep track any more.
Pretty sure it was stayed by circuit court or supreme court (or maybe even district court). I think there was some period of time before the order was supposed to go into effect.
 
Back
Top