[T.R.S.]

Originally Posted by Pentland

You’d think Trump would learn from things like Brexit.

Impossible. He already knows everything. Also, he has absolutely no impulse control. He's all "react, don't think" (though I don't think thinking really works with him so we're f*cked either way).

[mks]

In an increasingly real way, Trump has incanted and invoked, out of his seething cauldron of cruelty and contempt, the darkly fictitious version of America he used to get elected to abhorrent life. His multiple contentions that (“most beautiful”) tariffs could be used 1) as a protectionist measures for US-owned industry, 2) as a means to replace revenue generated by taxes, and 3) as an instrument of national power (among those conceptualized under DIME-FIL) has been thoroughly debunked by economists and demonstrably disproved throughout the history of their employment. However, coming from a man who once recommend bleach to the American public as an elixir for COVID, fetishizes Arnold Palmer’s penis, Putin and “little rocket man,” blathers on inanely about toilets and windmills, and is disconcertingly at ease mocking the disabled, women, and war veterans, no one legitimately wonders at Trump’s “cognitive” capacity never mind his selfless love of humanity in general.

However, I’ll admit, despite the facts, meaningfully contextualized as they are, I may have been looking at this all wrong.

Yes, I suppose I could concede a bit and be willing to alter my perspective.

How’s this…

Given the sundry list of his of impairments, one can indisputably conclude that Trump may be the most exemplary DEI hire we’ve ever had in the White House.

I’ve already commented in this forum extensively about the nature, history, and current use of tariffs.

Edit 5 Feb 25 re: admin warning concerning the posting of “political” material.
Just What is a “Political Post?”
(We need something better than the Casablanca Test.)

I submit in advance that defining what constitutes political content merely for the sake of more easily banning it fails to address the gorilla in the room, i.e., people’s trigger-happy proclivities and trigger-sensitive dispositions. Can we solve that, no, not likely. So, next best thing. I, therefore, concede that for any banning of content to be reasonable, it must be defined. Otherwise, we’re subjecting ourselves to the abyss of the arbitrary and vagaries of the “whatever,” the “unknown unknowns” (thanks, Mr. Rumsfeld). Poor Alice in her wonderland could only be so lucky to find her jam yesterday and tomorrow but never today (thanks, Lewis).

Given the calls for the wholesale elimination of supposed political content, understanding what constitutes “political content” could perhaps use its own thread. That, however, seems undoable given that previous attempt to maintain a “religion and politics” section (what did anyone think would happen with those combustible topics?). Again what or who were the gorillas in that particular room? The subject matter per se or the sudden saliency of people’s “truer” character? So, if not a dedicated section or thread, it nonetheless seems fair and necessary to have a vetted definition of a “political post.” Having no standard risks tacitly condoning the posting of material which will find it and its author subject to arbitrary banning. Folks will test the fence to see just how high the charge is...and keep coming back until the shock finally registers with them. That seems silly.

At least two admins have commented (59,235, 236, 8613) on the surges of ostensibly political speech that becomes threaded within the discussion, dialogue, and discourse of seemingly neutral topics of concern. I would observe that what has appeared here (in this thread and others) has ranged from fact-based, informed (in some cases even cited) speech (generally, civil and productive debate) to something akin to ill-manner heckling. It’s this latter tendency, whereby puerile and captious retorts that present as disgruntled taunts designed only to provoke a fight and actually derail threads, which are the nexus of the problem arising here and in other forums. Yet, even those retorts are not “political speech” but spite rearing its ugly head. For example, I’ve come across a series of dyspeptic sneering centered on the motif of “hurting butts” or being “butthurt”—whichever and others peevishly guised in the cant of “owning the libs.” No one could confuse the petulant tenor of those (rather fixated) remarks with political speech. Uncivil and worthy of forum censure, maybe—but not denotatively political nor even oriented toward the political. Just discernably lacking in comity, decorum, reason, etc.

However, given the genuine concern for informed discussion and debate in this forum, whose members value expertise, don’t immediately discount anecdotal experience or evidence, and prize, therefore, deductively empirical proof, etc., might we at least define what is meant by so-called “political speech” as it occurs in this venue?

To dispel the obvious right up front. Whatever the definition admins have employed to date, classifying speech as political might seemingly imply to some that it is, therefore, protected. It is not—if it was, the First Amendment could be used to intercede on behalf of members. Here, the collection of our admins (whom are not elected) wouldn’t even rise to the level of a quasi “government” but, rather, are management—in our metamodern parlance, agentic moderators. In any case, such protected speech is defined, in part, as that which is critical of the government, governmental action, elected officials, and so on, even when such speech should “include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

Full stop: calling someone “butthurt” may be caustic, but it is not political speech per se, just unnecessarily crude. What may be worse is when those leveling such barbs somehow elevate themselves in the face of pushback, claiming people are simply too sensitive and overreacting. They are those whom, in the revelry of their seething schadenfreude, demand their cake and to eat it, too (thanks, OED citation on its 1546 collection of John Heywood). It is, as such, a form of petty gaslighting, blatantly passive-aggressive and, perhaps, the sign of serial deflection and other personal issues. It is also an indication that not only has that person lost the argument, but debate as a whole is ended. Not quite the point of a forum.

>> Resuming our regularly scheduled program, already in progress <<

Note, none of that suggests that launching into “sharp attacks” against other members of the public is promoted speech, merely protected. Indecorous, yes, very often. Perhaps worse but definitely woefully misguided, is the idea that one’s offense instantiates a violation of one’s First Amendment protections. It does not. No more so than being disagreed with or being proven wrong would be considered a violation of one’s First Amendment rights. Being banned on a forum or social media platform is not a violation of one’s free speech. We all get that. So, absent a definition of “political posts,” how do we protect our discussions from the onslaught of arbitrary censure?

Do we know what, denotatively, is a “political post?” Or, again, is our root concern the intent of individuals who continually “test the fence” because, in part, we have no definition of political material? So, some take advantage and enjoy their de facto immunity. In either case, you kinda have to accomplish the first no matter what. Addressing intent, motive, etc., is perhaps a step beyond necessity or capacity in a car forum. I get that, too.

So agreed, then. If members can be banned for posting allegedly political content, then it follows that we ought to have a vetted definition of what it constitutes. For example, does everything I’ve written above to remark on the nature of political speech itself constitute political speech? I don’t think any reasonable argument could be made to that effect. Yet, I’ve little doubt some would find my remarks politically motivated and, therefore, worthy of censure or, as likely the target of caustic derision of those whom are, ironically, more (over)-ruled by their feelings vice reason and are too easily themselves triggered by all things that vex them—even if they can’t reasonable articulate why. Without a definition of political content, conceivably, any post runs the risk of being censored and its author banned (and/or bullied by detractors).

We’re not the Matrix, no matter what pill you swallow once or every day. Reality is not optional. The truth is there is a spoon. Admitted conundrum: defining it probably shouldn't mean we automatically ban all “political” content—which is not the problem or shouldn’t be in a room of adults. People’s trigger-happy and trigger-sensitive emotions are the “content” with which we should (also) be concerned. However, employing a definition at least lets everyone know that not only is the fence on, it shocks, so test at your peril (or convenience—just let your natural affinities be your guide).

This isn’t so much a challenge per se to the admins but to all members participating in this marketplace to find the accord that should accompany well moderated, informed, and civil debate when the subject matter arises—as it clearly has in this forum.

For what I’ve written, I would rather the admins delete entirely my profile rather than just delete this post or impose a ban. Who wants to belong to a club that would have them as a member (thanks, Groucho)? This is not to be extreme--just the opposite. If we are what we say, that is, mature, thoughtful, respectful adults and “citizens” of this forum, why would I subject myself to such arbitrary rules of censorship or the hostilities of those easily triggered individuals with no impulse control? This is a discussion forum, not a cage match. Rather than threaten bans and banishment for a violation of something we have not even defined, perhaps a call for dignity and respect should be first and foremost our endeavor.

That said, at the risk of being banished, but apropos of the very subject of this thread, titled, “Trump Tariffs,” one cannot overlook Trump’s patently harmful use of tariffs in his last go as POTUS in any of the capacities I mentioned above. None need take my word; rather, one needs only to avail themselves of the numerous reports from our own government, think tanks, and research firm to discern what was (and likely will be) discernably evident in the economy, international relations, national unity, and so on as the metrics go.
----------------------------------------------
Here is a partial (revised) list of fact-based, vetted, peer-reviewed sources for consideration and edification:

CBP: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-impo...25%20or%20free
PIIE: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-...mps-trade-deal
PIIE: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-...it-large-flows
PIIE: https://www.piie.com/search?search_api_fulltext=Tariffs
CFR: https://www.cfr.org/blog/92-percent-...-angry-farmers
CFR: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-are-tariffs
CRS: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11030
CRS: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11387
TF: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/tarif...e-food-prices/
TF: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/tariffs/
TF: https://taxfoundation.org/research/a...ffs-trade-war/
TF: https://taxfoundation.org/research/a...ffs-trade-war/
EWG: https://farm.ewg.org/
EWG: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps...der-trump/map/ (Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage Map)
WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/ch...ugher-8e9e3e21
WSJ:

Atlantic Council: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...ect-this-time/
BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43512098
CATO: https://www.cato.org/publications/pr...934#conclusion
CATO: https://www.cato.org/blog/seven-char...-auto-industry
SPG: https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en...US%20as%20well

Re: the USMCA Automotive Rules of Origin:
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub5443.pdf

Further historical evidence of the failure of dangerously nostalgic tariff advocates to realize that modernity has long surpassed the relevance and utility of such import duties in relation to revenue, restriction, and reciprocity (thanks, Professor Irwin). A ton more can be found in overabundance across the spectrum of sources: trade and jobs, US-China, manufacturing, FRED analysis, toasters and steel cost more (American steel company took advantage by raising their prices to “compete” with tariff’ed imports), China, what could be strategically beneficial great power cooperation, Trump turned into a great power competition that he lost, WSJ posits the Trump’s woeful lack of understanding of tariffs, Forbes get real about Trump and tariff folly, Wharton School’s own PWBM analysis and commentary, say again, “manufacturing jobs" (research estimate of impacts of the famous washing machine fiasco and job cost). In general, there are wheelbarrows full of conclusive postmortem studies that cite the tariff-inspired trade war Trump started (and lost on our behalf) in his first term (and which he appears ready to renew in 2025) produced near- and long-term net negative distributive impacts on nearly all aspects of the US economy. Given the evidence, are we declaring that it's "political" merely to say so?

[Malthusian]

Folks, I implore you... let's not devolve into political discourse. There are plenty of forums to spout our personal beliefs... (this is a car enthusiast forum, after all).

Trying to get this back to the effect of TODAY'S tariffs on our production... TRS mentioned hearing from an SA that it would not affect cars already in production. Is that BMWUSA's official position? Not sure how that could be the case due to the tariff being assessed at Customs. But I'm hopeful that BMW will eat it, hoping for the tariff to be reversed at some point.

Ironically my car started production on January 20th, and is currently waiting for a ship to USA. The anxiety is killing me. Timing is everything.

[mks]

Originally Posted by Malthusian

Folks, I implore you... let's not devolve into political discourse. There are plenty of forums to spout our personal beliefs... (this is a car enthusiast forum, after all).

Concur...mostly. Hard not to agree with the call to limit overtly caustic discourse; however, despite a tinge of attitude, I don’t pick up on that vibe here—certainly not in comparison to the mean-spirited, often ill-informed, rebarbative vitriol some believe passes for debate on social media and the odd podcast.

However, given the current climate, subject matter of this nature and the title of this thread, “Trump Tariffs,” invites the very discourse a mere “car forum” may wish to avoid. One might argue, given the subject matter, that the two aspects of this ostensibly singular theme are inextricably linked. Much in the same way that “tariffs” are at once the concern of economics and, more and more blatantly, politics. Tariffs are in fact a tool of both concerns. In this case, the title doesn’t say “How will tariffs impact vehicles already in production?” It set the course of the discussion in advance by titling the thread, “Trump Tariffs.” It asks for the very level and tenor of discourse on display here. Perhpas it didn't mean too...but there it is.

I don’t view the combination of the two concerns as counterproductive and I also don’t mind listening to other points of view—particularly those that may run counter to my own. I could always learn something and often do. The question is can one accept it…that is a struggle but one of which I’m aware and not afraid. Forums are precisely those spaces for public discussion that informs the larger marketplace of ideas. And we should be talking to each other.

Beyond all that, the impact of tariffs will affect more than one's car order--which can always be canceled. One can't quite cancel groceries. However, the level of concern here means that people (all of us here in this forum) are efforting to find answers among all the BS. That's a good thing and why I keep participating.

And so it begins: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...a-mexico-china

[mencio]

Talked to my SA and he also said that right now they don’t have any information from BMW NA and are waiting to hear more.

But he did says he had an allocation for an M3 and so I did order one precautionary in case we do see a price increase. I guess I now have both an M2 and M3 in production, both manual cars. As if waiting wasn’t hard enough I now am going to punder which one to get lol

[angermgmt20]

IF the tariffs happen and I read this correctly, it sounds like if it was already on a ship as of 02/01/25 then no tariff. This was also about Canada tariffs, the date may not apply to Mexico. I'm not an expert and could have got the wrong info so take that with a grain of salt.

[Iggy23]

Originally Posted by angermgmt20

IF the tariffs happen and I read this correctly, it sounds like if it was already on a ship as of 02/01/25 then no tariff. I'm not an expert and could have got the wrong info so take that with a grain of salt.

I believe the tariff is imposed at the port of entry of the arriving country when it arrives.

[mks]

Originally Posted by Iggy23

I believe the tariff is imposed at the port of entry of the arriving country when it arrives.

Correct. Duty is collected at entry by Customs and Border Protection.

[mks]

It's on now: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...a-mexico-china

NR: https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/...-tariff-folly/

[Iggy23]

Originally Posted by Baldilocks73

You believe what you’re saying? Who’s weak policies have brought the world to the brink of global conflict? That’s right, it wasn’t orange man.

He’s what this country needs and I hope Vance will keep the ball rolling for another 8 years.

I’ll gladly pay the tariffs. Like i said before. I’ll put my money where my vote is. What’s another $3500 in the grand scheme of things? I’ll just forgo the M performance exhaust. 😜

How did you get $3500. Isn’t it +25% of the MSRP?

[Baldilocks73]

Originally Posted by Iggy23

How did you get $3500. Isn’t it +25% of the MSRP?

No.

[angermgmt20]

Well, Canada struck back with 25% tariffs and Mexico said it was going to do the same but haven't heard what percentage, yet.

[kudos]

I guess I'll start using ECO mode until this blows over. That's like 1.5 or 2 weeks between filling up. With a 10% price increase it won't be that bad. Groceries I buy local and I live rather minimalist as it is.

[Iggy23]

Originally Posted by Baldilocks73

No.

You didn’t explain how you came up with only $3,500 of extra cost but the tariff is indeed 25 percent of the value of the car. So a $60,000 MSRP car from Mexico will have a tariff added of $15,000 bringing its total to $75,000. The tariff is paid by the OEM and how much of that amount will be passed on to the consumer is up for debate. Here is a good explanation of how the tariffs will work for those that have ordered cars still in the delivery pipeline and are interested.

https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en...US%20as%20well.

[G-Mann]

Originally Posted by Iggy23

You didn’t explain how you came up with only $3,500 of extra cost but the tariff is indeed 25 percent of the value of the car. So a $60,000 MSRP car from Mexico will have a tariff added of $15,000 bringing its total to $75,000. The tariff is paid by the OEM and how much of that amount will be passed on to the consumer is up for debate.

15k would postpone my plans or cause me to pivot to something else, I don't want a 4 series, the CLE 450 Coupe is the only other car I find interesting.

Edit: The M2 I find interesting as well, slippery slope when the price starts to creep.

[Randyg]

The true pain will start when Project 2025 clicks in and porn is banned. 🫤

[M2M3M3]

Originally Posted by G-Mann

15k would postpone my plans or cause me to pivot to something else, I don't want a 4 series, the CLE 450 Coupe is the only other car I find interesting.

Edit: The M2 I find interesting as well, slippery slope when the price starts to creep.

You do realize the M2 is also made in MX and will be taxed?

[kudos]

Originally Posted by Randyg

The true pain will start when Project 2025 clicks in and porn is banned. ��

Luckily that has already gone to the supreme court and lost. Something I didn't know until last night, the author of Project 2025 just got a job leading OMB.

[Gilles79]

According to Chat AI:

The 25% tariff on automobiles proposed by the Trump administration is calculated based on the import value of the vehicle, not the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). The import value typically refers to the transaction value, which is the price paid or payable for the vehicle when sold for export to the U.S., excluding domestic taxes but including costs like transportation and insurance up to the port of entry.

[bmwizgoat]

I wonder what the response will be from BMW. Assuming the price will not increase in Canada.

[Pentland]

Originally Posted by bmwizgoat

I wonder what the response will be from BMW. Assuming the price will not increase in Canada.

Why would you think BMW will take the hit? They will pass to the customer. Same happened with Brexit.

Cost to Canadian buyers shouldn’t change though. It’s a US tax.

[kudos]

Originally Posted by Pentland

Why would you think BMW will take the hit? They will pass to the customer. Same happened with Brexit.

Cost to Canadian buyers shouldn’t change though. It’s a US tax.

Except for those SUV sales.

According to recent data, the best-selling BMW model in Canada is the BMW X3; it consistently ranks as the top selling BMW in the country, surpassing even the popular 3 Series sedan which is considered the best-selling BMW globally.