What if tariffs?

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Watch design, movement & usability

  • Many note the swapped 3 and 9 markers; the movement is standard quartz and runs clockwise, so at 9 o’clock the hour hand points to the “3”.
  • Some find this visual subversion “brilliant” and amusing; others see it as a trivial gimmick that makes the watch less readable.
  • Jokes and puns around “clockunwise” and “going back in time” surface, but technically reversing the movement would be too complex/expensive for a Swatch.
  • A tangent develops into broader watch-design preferences: some dislike “big honking watches with three subdials” and prefer minimalist or vintage styles; others argue taste is highly subjective.

Availability & pricing

  • The watch is only sold in Switzerland; several commenters are disappointed by the geographic restriction.
  • Priced at 139 CHF, people note it’s inexpensive for a limited, statement piece, and consistent with Swatch’s usual price band.
  • Some suggest it would be funnier if it cost 100 CHF in Switzerland and “139” in the US, with others pointing out the de facto higher USD equivalent already feels like a “punishment”.

Symbolism & intent

  • The “39” is tied to the 39% tariff on Swiss watches entering the US; the piece is widely read as political commentary more than a practical product.
  • Some see it as clever protest art akin to historical subversive movements; others dismiss it as an “ugly marketing stunt”.
  • A few mention it’s part of a broader “WHAT IF?” collection and enjoy the wordplay and side-view crystal.

Who pays tariffs? Economic debate

  • Long subthread on incidence of tariffs:
    • One side insists US importers/consumers always pay, since customs won’t release goods until duties are paid.
    • Others emphasize basic microeconomics: the burden is split between buyers and sellers depending on elasticities of supply and demand; in some cases foreign suppliers cut prices to stay competitive.
  • Several stress tariffs are a tax that makes foreign goods relatively more expensive, ideally supporting domestic production—but note this fails when no viable domestic alternatives exist.
  • Others argue that in practice local producers often raise prices to just under “foreign + tariff”, so consumers pay more overall and governments gain revenue.
  • Some worry manufacturers may spread tariff costs globally (raising prices in non‑US markets), though others counter this is constrained by competition and hasn’t been widespread.

Retaliatory tariffs & trade wars

  • Question: if tariffs hurt domestic buyers, why do other countries retaliate?
    • Answers: to redirect trade toward more stable partners, to signal resolve, and to politically target vulnerable industries in the tariff‑imposing country.
  • Several argue “there are no winners” in trade wars; tariffs introduce inefficiency and deadweight loss, though some defend them as tools to counter “bad faith” producers or to secure critical domestic capabilities.

US politics, lies & institutional trust

  • Strong criticism of the claim that “foreign countries pay” US tariffs; many call it an obvious falsehood that contradicts common sense and basic economics.
  • This leads into broader discussion of political lying:
    • Proposals like a “three proven lies and you’re banned from office” rule appear, met with pushback about defining “truth” and the risk of abuse.
    • Some note impeachment and existing mechanisms are already highly politicized and hard to use.
  • There is sharp condemnation of the current administration, described as authoritarian, deceptive, and increasingly kleptocratic, with predictions that tariff moves are tied to insider trading and oligarchic enrichment.
  • Debate touches on the Second Amendment’s supposed role as a safeguard against tyranny; some say it has proven a “paper tiger,” others argue it was never truly intended as a license to overthrow the government.

Global perception of the US

  • Multiple commenters describe a noticeable drop in respect for the US abroad, contrasting Trump-era behavior with earlier periods (e.g., Bush Jr.), though some see continuity with longer-term trends.
  • Some from Europe and former Eastern bloc countries say admiration for the US has turned into distrust or fear, with talk of “decoupling” and seeing the US more like other destabilizing powers.
  • Others report everyday interactions abroad remain friendly and separate individuals from their governments, even as geopolitical attitudes harden.

Domestic production, security & tariffs

  • A thread argues the US has offshored too much and become strategically dependent on foreign supply chains.
  • Suggested policy: ensure at least partial domestic production and dual-sourcing for critical items (e.g., medicines, infrastructure components), using tariffs or regulation as tools—not in the ad hoc, volatile way tariffs are currently deployed.
  • Some see targeted, stable tariffs as potentially defensible for national security; many still stress that the present broad, shifting tariffs create uncertainty, deter investment, and hurt both US consumers and foreign producers.

Miscellaneous observations

  • Commenters joke that tariffs are “great for business” for companies making anti-tariff or anti‑Trump products like this watch.
  • Several note that tariffs function as regressive taxes: wealthy people won’t notice a higher‑priced luxury watch, but working‑class consumers will feel higher prices on basics and intermediate goods.
  • There are anecdotal reports of waste (containers abandoned due to sudden, uneconomic tariffs) and of small businesses adding “tariff surcharges” as input prices spike.
  • Some remark on the irony that people arguing “corporate taxes get passed to consumers” simultaneously claim tariffs are paid by foreigners.