Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

[GRG55]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

For those that think the USA "doesn't make anything any more" and its all about imports. Among other things the USA is a massive exporter of agricultural products worldwide. However, $3 B is small beans in terms of the size of the USA and Chinese economies.

China announces it's imposing new tariffs on 128 US products

China is implementing new tariffs on meat, fruit and other products from the U.S. as retaliation for American duties, heightening fears of a potential trade war between the world's two largest economies.

Beijing's latest move, announced by its finance ministry in a statementdated April 1, is direct retaliation against taxes approved by President Donald Trump on imported steel and aluminum. Chinese officials had been warning over the last few weeks that their country would take action against the U.S.
The tariffs begin on Monday, the finance ministry statement said.

China's Customs Tariff Commission is increasing the tariff rate on pork products and aluminum scrap by 25 percent. It's also imposing a new 15 percent tariff on 120 other imported U.S. commodities, from almonds to apples and berries.


All told, the extra tariffs will hit 128 kinds of U.S. products, multiple outlets reported. The list of new duties matches the proposed list released by the government on March 23, according to Reuters.
At that time, China said the affected U.S. goods had an import value of $3 billion in 2017 and included wine, fresh fruit, dried fruit and nuts, steel pipes, modified ethanol and ginseng...

[touchring]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

For those that think the USA "doesn't make anything any more" and its all about imports. Among other things the USA is a massive exporter of agricultural products worldwide. However, $3 B is small beans in terms of the size of the USA and Chinese economies.

You know tariffs on raw food imports is a huge joke. It's like cutting off one's nose to spike the face.

Let's say I supply you with a free supply of Chinese apples and almonds and dried apricots would you want it? Or rather, should I say, would you dare to eat them?

No one, not even north korea, will sanction raw food imports because by doing so, you drive up domestic food prices, and penalize your own people, especially the lower income earners.

[jk]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

You know tariffs on raw food imports is a huge joke. It's like cutting off one's nose to spike the face.

Let's say I supply you with a free supply of Chinese apples and almonds and dried apricots would you want it? Or rather, should I say, would you dare to eat them?

No one, not even north korea, will sanction raw food imports because by doing so, you drive up domestic food prices, and penalize your own people, especially the lower income earners.

depends on how much other supply there is globally, and how liquid the market is. if they can buy it from brazil instead, what's the difference?

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

depends on how much other supply there is globally, and how liquid the market is. if they can buy it from brazil instead, what's the difference?

I'm not sure how taxing American crops or livestock really hurts the U.S., though. If the farmers need the money, all we have to do is invade one less country and give a fraction of the saved money to the farmers. Meanwhile, are the Brazilians rich enough to buy higher-value (greater profit margin) Chinese goods?

From a U.S. perspective, I have seen nothing yet from this prelude-to-a-tradewar that concerns me.

[shiny!]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

I agree. The Chinese may trim US$ holdings at the margin, but they will not "dump" USTs.

There are lots of pundits who have been calling for the "collapse" of the US$, especially after the Wall St precipitated financial crisis. And many of them make compelling sounding arguments for why that should occur.

But I cannot help but notice that many of the holders of some of the world's other major currencies seem to be losing their ardor. Witness the Italians (an important EU economy participant, unlike poor Cyprus or Greece) and the seemingly growing desire to exit the Euro currency union (or, more to the point, to have Germany exit it so the remainder can undertake an overdue reflation). The Pound, which was already declining, got hammered on the Brexit vote and is slowly trying to struggle back. Large volumes of capital continue to try to exit mainland China, despite the authorities increasingly draconian efforts to stem it. The mighty HKD looks like it is breaking down. Is there anybody holding rubles voluntarily? Anybody checked out the comparative performance of the Canadian $ in the past five years?

If confidence in other major currencies continues to erode it would seem the US$ will remain the safe haven of choice, and that could be what precipitates the next global financial crisis. Not a $ crash, a $ runup. And that is an outcome I don't think the world is expecting or ready for.

This is along the lines of Martin Armstrong's thinking: a crisis in confidence in other currencies and investment capital fleeing Europe to invest in the DOW, leading to an uber-strong US$, that will be the cause of the next financial crisis.

[touchring]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

I'm not sure how taxing American crops or livestock really hurts the U.S., though. If the farmers need the money, all we have to do is invade one less country and give a fraction of the saved money to the farmers. Meanwhile, are the Brazilians rich enough to buy higher-value (greater profit margin) Chinese goods?

From a U.S. perspective, I have seen nothing yet from this prelude-to-a-tradewar that concerns me.

This is just a face saving move by Xi.

It appears to me that Trump's goal might be to make it more expensive for America companies to bring in goods into the US from China, encouraging them to move some production out of China into the US. For example, assembly might be done in the US or Mexico instead of China.

This is along the lines of Martin Armstrong's thinking: a crisis in confidence in other currencies and investment capital fleeing Europe to invest in the DOW, leading to an uber-strong US$, that will be the cause of the next financial crisis.

Europe has already bottomed, hard to imagine what else could cause a new crisis in Europe?

Anyway, I don't think Trump wants a strong US$. He wants Americans to buy less imported crap. A strong US$ will not help.

Here is the full list of food items that are subject to additional tariffs.

1	Dried coconut	15%
2	Coconut without inner shell	15%
3	Other coconut	15%
4	Unhulled Brazilian nuts	15%
5	Shelled Brazilian nuts	15%
6	Unshelled cashews	15%
7	Shelled cashew	15%
8	Unshelled almonds	15%
9	Shelled almonds	15%
10	Hazelnuts	15%
11	Unshelled hazelnuts	15%
12	Unshelled walnuts	15%
13	Walnut kernels	15%
14	Unhulled chestnut	15%
15	Other shelled chestnuts	15%
16	Unhulled pistachio fruit	15%
17	Hulled pistacchio nut	15%
18	Other unhulled macadamia nuts	15%
19	Roasted macadamia nuts	15%
20	Betel nut fruit	15%
21	Pine nuts	15%
22	Other fresh or dried nuts	15%
23	Fresh or dried plantain	15%
24	Other fresh or dried bananas, except for plantains	15%
25	Fresh or dried dates	15%
26	Fresh or dried figs	15%
27	Fresh or dried pineapple	15%
28	Fresh or dried avocado	15%
29	Fresh or dried guava	15%
30	Fresh or dried mango	15%
31	Fresh or dried mangosteen	15%
32	Fresh or dried orange	15%
33	Other citrus (including mandarin orange and satsuma orange)	15%
34	Clementine orange	15%
35	Virgin orange and similar hybrid citrus	15%
36	Grapefruit, including pomelo	15%
37	Lemons and limes	15%
38	Unlisted citrus fruits	15%
39	Fresh grapes	15%
40	Raisins	15%
41	Fresh watermelon	15%
42	Fresh cantaloupe	15%
43	Papaya	15%
44	Fresh apples	15%
45	Fresh pears and pears	15%
46	Other fresh pears	15%
47	Fresh sour cherries	15%
48	Other fresh cherries	15%
49	Peaches, including nectarines	15%
50	Fresh plum and prunes	15%
51	Fresh strawberries	15%
52	Fresh raspberry, blackberry, mulberry and loganberry	15%
53	Fresh cranberry and cowberry	15%
54	Kiwi	15%
55	Fresh durian	15%
56	Persimmon	15%
57	Fresh lychee	15%
58	Fresh longan	15%
59	Rambutan	15%
60	Fresh sweet lychee	15%
61	Fresh carambola	15%
62	Fresh lotus fog	15%
63	Fresh pitaya	15%
64	Fruits not listed	15%
65	Frozen strawberries	15%
66	Frozen raspberries, blackberries, mulberries, rose hips, currant and gooseberries	15%
67	Frozen fruits and nuts, not listed	15%
68	Temporarily preserved cherries	15%
69	Other temporarily preserved fruits and nuts	15%
70	Dried apricots	15%
71	Mei qiang and li gan	15%
72	Dried apples	15%
73	Dried longan and pulp	15%
74	Dried persimmons	15%
75	Red dates	15%
76	Dried lychee	15%
77	Unlisted dried fruit	15%
78	Assorted nuts or dried fruits	15%
	Wine
79	Sparkling wine	15%
80	Other fresh brewed wines packed in containers of two liters or less, or brewed with alcohol inhibiting fermentation of grape juice	15%
81	Wines brewed with other fresh grapes packed in two-litre containers, but not more than 10 litres, or containing alcohol brewed from fermented grape juice	15%
82	Wines made from other fresh grapes packed in containers of 10 liters or more, or brewed with alcohol, which inhibits grape juice fermentation	15%
83	Other items from grape juice wine	15%
	Modified ethanol
84	Modified ethanol and other alcohols of any concentration	15%
	Ginseng
85	American ginseng	15%
86	Other fresh ginseng	15%
87	Unlisted ginseng	15%
	Stainless steel pipes
88	Stainless steel oil and gas pipeline pipe, 215.9mm ≤ outside diameter ≤ 406.4mm	15%
89	Stainless steel oil and gas pipeline pipe, 114.3mm < outside diameter < 215.9mm	15%
90	Stainless steel oil and gas pipeline pipe, outside diameter ≤114.3mm	15%
91	Stainless steel oil and gas pipeline pipe, outside diameter > 406.4mm	15%
92	Other steel oil and gas pipeline pipes, 215.9mm ≤ outside diamteter ≤ 406.4mm	15%
93	Pipes for other steel, oil and gas pipelines, 114.3mm < outside diameter <215.9mm	15%
94	Pipes, other steel, petroleum and natural gas, outside diameter ≤ 114.3mm	15%
95	Other steel oil and gas seamless pipe, external diameter > 406.4mm	15%
96	Oil and gas drilling pipes made of stainless steel, outside diameter ≤ 168.3mm	15%
97	Oil and gas drilling pipes made of stainless steel, outside diameter>168.3mm	15%
98	Other steel drilling oil and gas drilling pipes, outside diameter ≤ 168.3mm	15%
99	Other steel drilled oil and gas drilling pipes, external diameter>168.3mm	15%
100	Seamless casing and conduits for drilled petroleum or natural gas made of stainless steel	15%
101	Other seamless steel casings for oil and gas drilling with a yield strength of less than 552 MPa catheter	15%
102	Other steel drilling oils with a yield strength of 552 MPa or more but less than 758 MPa and seamless casing and conduits for natural gas	15%
103	Seamless sets for oil and gas drilling of other steels with a yield strength of 758 MPa or more Tubes, catheters	15%
104	Seamless boiler tubes for cold drawn or cold rolled iron or ordinary steel	15%
105	Seamless or cold-rolled iron or common steel seamless geologic drill pipe, casing	15%
106	Undrawn or cold-rolled iron or plain steel seamless circular cross-section tubes	15%
107	Non-cold drawn or cold rolled iron or ordinary steel seamless boiler tubes	15%
108	Non-cold-drawn or cold-rolled iron or ordinary steel seamless geologic drill pipe, casing	15%
109	Non-cold drawn or cold-rolled iron or plain steel seamless circular cross-section tubes, not elsewhere specified	15%
110	Cold drawn or cold rolled stainless steel seamless boiler tubes	15%
111	Undrawn or cold-rolled stainless steel seamless circular cross-section tubes	15%
112	Non-cold drawn or cold rolled stainless steel seamless boiler tubes	15%
113	Non-cold drawn or cold rolled stainless steel seamless circular cross-section tubes	15%
114	Cold-drawn or cold-rolled other alloy steel seamless boiler tubes	15%
115	Seamless steel alloys, cold drawn or cold rolled	15%
116	Unalloyed cold-drawn or cold-rolled alloy steel seamless circular cross-section tubes	15%
117	Other alloy steel seamless boiler tubes, not drawn or cold-rolled	15%
118	Non-cold-drawn or cold-rolled seamless steel tubes and casings for other alloy steels	15%
119	Non-cold drawn or cold rolled alloy steel seamless circular cross-section tubes	15%
120	Other seamless steel tubes and hollow profiles (except cast iron)	15%
	Pork products
121	Fresh or cold boned pig forelegs, hindquarters and their meat	25%
122	Other fresh or cold pork	25%
123	Other frozen whole head and half pork	25%
124	Frozen bone forelegs, pigs’ legs and their meat	25%
125	Other frozen pork	25%
126	Frozen pork liver	25%
127	Other frozen pork chops	25%
	Scrap aluminum
128	Aluminum scrap	25%

https://qz.com/1242652/china-tariffs...lass-of-goods/

[DSpencer]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

But I bet it's nowhere near all vehicle traffic in 10 or 20 years. I bet it's a much smaller minority than people think. And vehicle margins are already thin. It's a weird play for so many players to be hoisting untold billions at.

Roy Amara:
"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run."

All vehicle traffic in 10 years is basically unthinkable. I don't know of anyone making that prediction at this time, although I'm sure someone could be found. 20 years is long enough to be interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if over 50% of vehicle traffic was autonomous at that point.

I agree with your thoughts that there are many reasons why having human drivers is good and maybe "underrated". Humans have adaptability and problem solving abilities that manage the exceptions far better than today's autonomous vehicles. I just had my first experience in my new Honda where the collision avoidance system because nonfunctional because the sensors were covered with snow/ice/salt.

That being said, I don't see the situation as a solution in search of a problem. One basic criteria that will have to be met before widespread adoption is that AVs will have to demonstrate they are AT LEAST as safe and probably far safer than human drivers. You said somewhere in this thread about people not liking to die in fiery plane crashes and the same is true of cars.

It's silly to criticize AVs for "killing people" without comparison to the alternative. Roughly 100 people a day are killed in the US in traffic fatalities. I don't think sufficient data exists to reasonably compare safety yet, but at some point that data should exist. If AVs can't show a significant improvement in safety, they are in deep trouble.

As for other motivations, they might be less compelling but certainly exist. It's hard to do much while driving. You can't sleep, most people can't work, you shouldn't watch TV or play video games, you shouldn't drink or get high. Imagine taking a road trip where most of the driving is done while you're asleep or playing cards with your friends/family or drinking a few beers. I would probably take my car over flying to anywhere within about a 10-12 hour drive if I could do it overnight and sleep most of it.

I know there's a lot of people reluctant to give up control and the joy of driving. I totally get that because sometimes driving is a pleasure. However, even on my relatively short daily commute, the joy is pretty close to nonexistent already. Just avoiding the stress of dealing with other drivers would be a welcome change.

[GRG55]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

Roy Amara:
"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run."

All vehicle traffic in 10 years is basically unthinkable. I don't know of anyone making that prediction at this time, although I'm sure someone could be found. 20 years is long enough to be interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if over 50% of vehicle traffic was autonomous at that point.

I agree with your thoughts that there are many reasons why having human drivers is good and maybe "underrated". Humans have adaptability and problem solving abilities that manage the exceptions far better than today's autonomous vehicles. I just had my first experience in my new Honda where the collision avoidance system because nonfunctional because the sensors were covered with snow/ice/salt.

That being said, I don't see the situation as a solution in search of a problem. One basic criteria that will have to be met before widespread adoption is that AVs will have to demonstrate they are AT LEAST as safe and probably far safer than human drivers. You said somewhere in this thread about people not liking to die in fiery plane crashes and the same is true of cars.

It's silly to criticize AVs for "killing people" without comparison to the alternative. Roughly 100 people a day are killed in the US in traffic fatalities. I don't think sufficient data exists to reasonably compare safety yet, but at some point that data should exist. If AVs can't show a significant improvement in safety, they are in deep trouble.

As for other motivations, they might be less compelling but certainly exist. It's hard to do much while driving. You can't sleep, most people can't work, you shouldn't watch TV or play video games, you shouldn't drink or get high. Imagine taking a road trip where most of the driving is done while you're asleep or playing cards with your friends/family or drinking a few beers. I would probably take my car over flying to anywhere within about a 10-12 hour drive if I could do it overnight and sleep most of it.

I know there's a lot of people reluctant to give up control and the joy of driving. I totally get that because sometimes driving is a pleasure. However, even on my relatively short daily commute, the joy is pretty close to nonexistent already. Just avoiding the stress of dealing with other drivers would be a welcome change.

It typically takes either legislation or an economic case to see any reasonably rapid adoption of a technology. My prediction is the area where we will first see adoption of AV technology on public roads will be long haul trucking. There is a major shortage of drivers now. It will get worse as the Canadian and USA economy continue to grow. It is not seen as an attractive career for young people so it is becoming difficult to attract new qualified entrants as drivers age and retire. Even driving a truck for a living takes a certain, shall we say "unique" kind of personality (I have to deal with truckers daily in my business, so I am speaking from first hand experience). Human drivers can only drive a maximum of 14 hours in a day, and there are other safety related rest criteria that result in the truck being off the road for many hours during a weekly cycle. I think the autonomous highway tractor powered by LNG, if not electric, is not far off.

My company is actively involved with LNG mine haul vehicles. Driverless, autonomous mine haul trucks have been in use on mine sites for more than decade. In Australia the supervision is remote from Perth, hundreds of miles away from the mine sites where the trucks are working. I think Rio Tinto just announced a short time ago in Australia that over 10 years it had moved 1 billion tons of ore using remotely supervised autonomous trucks without a single safety incident. That's pretty impressive. Although mine sites are controlled, closed loop environments, it does show what is already possible.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

Roy Amara:
"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run."

All vehicle traffic in 10 years is basically unthinkable. I don't know of anyone making that prediction at this time, although I'm sure someone could be found. 20 years is long enough to be interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if over 50% of vehicle traffic was autonomous at that point.

I agree with your thoughts that there are many reasons why having human drivers is good and maybe "underrated". Humans have adaptability and problem solving abilities that manage the exceptions far better than today's autonomous vehicles. I just had my first experience in my new Honda where the collision avoidance system because nonfunctional because the sensors were covered with snow/ice/salt.

That being said, I don't see the situation as a solution in search of a problem. One basic criteria that will have to be met before widespread adoption is that AVs will have to demonstrate they are AT LEAST as safe and probably far safer than human drivers. You said somewhere in this thread about people not liking to die in fiery plane crashes and the same is true of cars.

It's silly to criticize AVs for "killing people" without comparison to the alternative. Roughly 100 people a day are killed in the US in traffic fatalities. I don't think sufficient data exists to reasonably compare safety yet, but at some point that data should exist. If AVs can't show a significant improvement in safety, they are in deep trouble.

As for other motivations, they might be less compelling but certainly exist. It's hard to do much while driving. You can't sleep, most people can't work, you shouldn't watch TV or play video games, you shouldn't drink or get high. Imagine taking a road trip where most of the driving is done while you're asleep or playing cards with your friends/family or drinking a few beers. I would probably take my car over flying to anywhere within about a 10-12 hour drive if I could do it overnight and sleep most of it.

I know there's a lot of people reluctant to give up control and the joy of driving. I totally get that because sometimes driving is a pleasure. However, even on my relatively short daily commute, the joy is pretty close to nonexistent already. Just avoiding the stress of dealing with other drivers would be a welcome change.

Might just be an artifact of living in the BOS-WASH corridor, but I take Amtrak fairly regularly. I just don't see what the vacation idea really adds over taking the train today. In a sleeper car, you can get more room. Hell, if you want to splurge you can have your own shower. You have a cafe car for hot meals and booze if that's what you're after, and bathrooms and wifi and electricity. Communal areas to meet new people if you want--your own space to cloister off if you don't. Plus more space and actual beds for the overnight. Or, if you want to go cheaper, just get a regular seat and recline it back and sleep in that, same as you would an autocar I figure. You can watch TV or play video games, drink, play cards with friends and family, whatever. Little harder to get high depending on what exactly that means to you, but creative passengers who want to bad enough I'm sure will find a way. Ditto for the regular commute and busses or commuter trains.

The people who don't use existing public transit have various reasons for not doing so--much of which might be a last-mile problem, but park and rides solve most of that in my experience, and a cheap bare bones compact ought to be enough for the few minutes it takes to get from the house to a park and ride--the added cost of radar and cameras and lidar and computing systems probably doesn't justify the upgrade there. But I'm guessing a lot of people--probably most--who don't already take public transit for their commuting are actually really attached to having the car as "their space." And if I'm at all right about that, the zip-car-style subscription model of autocar is not going to be quite as popular as so many seem to believe. On the other side, like I said, even if prices come way down to a $4k option, that's adding a lot to the price of say a $13k Chevy Spark or Toyota Yaris. It's even quite a bit to a $20k Malibu or Camry. Some people will splurge. But I suspect most will not. Unless you force them to by law.

I see it being a luxury option over the short-mid term. Maybe near the 20 year mark things could change. Another thing to consider--and I know we're the minority--but is us cash buyers. One of my daily drivers is already 20 years old, the other is 14. When I replace the older one in two or three years, I'll get a fairly late-model bare bones sucker with as few bells and whistles as possible, prioritizing reliability and ease/cheapness of maintenance. I fully expect that whatever it is I'll probably keep it for 15-20 years unless some unforeseen event happens. For those who don't care about impressing our buddies at the office or the golf course, the car replacement timeline can get pretty long.

Just note, I'm not saying the tech's impossible...just that the market is probably not as fertile as the cheerleaders believe. Niche areas, sure. Luxury cars for certain--they are already pretty much there. I can definitely see a self-driving zip car style service for select yuppies and college kids. Maybe some specific industrial applications. Could replace some--not all, and probably not most--long haul trucking. Maybe some public transit. Occasional last-mile stuff for tourists. Time will tell. But I seriously doubt you'll see anywhere even near 50% of the vehicles on the road self-driving in 20 years. People are just too poor. They don't even have the money to insulate their houses. Never mind put solar panels on them. Never mind spring for leather seats and self-turning steering wheels. And that's for the middle and upper middle quintiles that even have houses. Computers and cell phones became must-have social devices that working citizens are expected to own and are now in every workplace and classroom, bar very few. This feels more like a luxury that there's no social component to that adds pressure to adopt. The boss might insist you be on e-mail and cell phone alert 24/7. But she can't insist you don't turn the steering wheel yourself...

[jk]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

another article about [not by] maj gen. qiao liang about economic/financial warfare:

Chinese General Says ‘Contain the United States’ by Attacking Its Finances

[touchring]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

another article about [not by] maj gen. qiao liang about economic/financial warfare:

Chinese General Says ‘Contain the United States’ by Attacking Its Finances

The US could easily counter this by withdrawing from the Middle East and let other powers fight it out.

I can foresee that China will launch a financial attack on the US within 10 years, so no matter what you do, tariffs or no tariffs, the party is going to end really soon.

Better end it sooner while the US could still fight a financial war. If not, it would become a real war which your grandkids will need to fight.

[DSpencer]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

It typically takes either legislation or an economic case to see any reasonably rapid adoption of a technology. My prediction is the area where we will first see adoption of AV technology on public roads will be long haul trucking. There is a major shortage of drivers now. It will get worse as the Canadian and USA economy continue to grow. It is not seen as an attractive career for young people so it is becoming difficult to attract new qualified entrants as drivers age and retire. Even driving a truck for a living takes a certain, shall we say "unique" kind of personality (I have to deal with truckers daily in my business, so I am speaking from first hand experience). Human drivers can only drive a maximum of 14 hours in a day, and there are other safety related rest criteria that result in the truck being off the road for many hours during a weekly cycle. I think the autonomous highway tractor powered by LNG, if not electric, is not far off.

My company is actively involved with LNG mine haul vehicles. Driverless, autonomous mine haul trucks have been in use on mine sites for more than decade. In Australia the supervision is remote from Perth, hundreds of miles away from the mine sites where the trucks are working. I think Rio Tinto just announced a short time ago in Australia that over 10 years it had moved 1 billion tons of ore using remotely supervised autonomous trucks without a single safety incident. That's pretty impressive. Although mine sites are controlled, closed loop environments, it does show what is already possible.

There are definitely some advantages for that application. Long highway stretches are probably where AV does best because there's not as many outlier situations like pedestrians, cyclists, etc that cause problems. The routes can be known in advance and could even have remote human monitoring for first and last mile situations if that were advantageous.

There are also companies working on things like self driving construction vehicles which are similar in concept to the mine haul trucks. It's a closed environment with some tasks that are very repetitive. In a situation where noise was not a concern, you could even have machines working throughout the night.

[DSpencer]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

Might just be an artifact of living in the BOS-WASH corridor, but I take Amtrak fairly regularly. I just don't see what the vacation idea really adds over taking the train today. In a sleeper car, you can get more room. Hell, if you want to splurge you can have your own shower. You have a cafe car for hot meals and booze if that's what you're after, and bathrooms and wifi and electricity. Communal areas to meet new people if you want--your own space to cloister off if you don't. Plus more space and actual beds for the overnight. Or, if you want to go cheaper, just get a regular seat and recline it back and sleep in that, same as you would an autocar I figure. You can watch TV or play video games, drink, play cards with friends and family, whatever. Little harder to get high depending on what exactly that means to you, but creative passengers who want to bad enough I'm sure will find a way. Ditto for the regular commute and busses or commuter trains.

The people who don't use existing public transit have various reasons for not doing so--much of which might be a last-mile problem, but park and rides solve most of that in my experience, and a cheap bare bones compact ought to be enough for the few minutes it takes to get from the house to a park and ride--the added cost of radar and cameras and lidar and computing systems probably doesn't justify the upgrade there. But I'm guessing a lot of people--probably most--who don't already take public transit for their commuting are actually really attached to having the car as "their space." And if I'm at all right about that, the zip-car-style subscription model of autocar is not going to be quite as popular as so many seem to believe. On the other side, like I said, even if prices come way down to a $4k option, that's adding a lot to the price of say a $13k Chevy Spark or Toyota Yaris. It's even quite a bit to a $20k Malibu or Camry. Some people will splurge. But I suspect most will not. Unless you force them to by law.

I see it being a luxury option over the short-mid term. Maybe near the 20 year mark things could change. Another thing to consider--and I know we're the minority--but is us cash buyers. One of my daily drivers is already 20 years old, the other is 14. When I replace the older one in two or three years, I'll get a fairly late-model bare bones sucker with as few bells and whistles as possible, prioritizing reliability and ease/cheapness of maintenance. I fully expect that whatever it is I'll probably keep it for 15-20 years unless some unforeseen event happens. For those who don't care about impressing our buddies at the office or the golf course, the car replacement timeline can get pretty long.

Just note, I'm not saying the tech's impossible...just that the market is probably not as fertile as the cheerleaders believe. Niche areas, sure. Luxury cars for certain--they are already pretty much there. I can definitely see a self-driving zip car style service for select yuppies and college kids. Maybe some specific industrial applications. Could replace some--not all, and probably not most--long haul trucking. Maybe some public transit. Occasional last-mile stuff for tourists. Time will tell. But I seriously doubt you'll see anywhere even near 50% of the vehicles on the road self-driving in 20 years. People are just too poor. They don't even have the money to insulate their houses. Never mind put solar panels on them. Never mind spring for leather seats and self-turning steering wheels. And that's for the middle and upper middle quintiles that even have houses. Computers and cell phones became must-have social devices that working citizens are expected to own and are now in every workplace and classroom, bar very few. This feels more like a luxury that there's no social component to that adds pressure to adopt. The boss might insist you be on e-mail and cell phone alert 24/7. But she can't insist you don't turn the steering wheel yourself...

I think the Amtrak alternative is definitely location specific. I've spent roughly 99% of my life in the US, but ridden 90-99% of my train miles in Europe or Australia even counting subways as trains. I'm in Ohio and I never even hear about people taking the train anywhere. I think it's basically not even considered by the vast majority of people as an option.

It's interesting you think people won't be willing/able to afford self driving as an option. I spend my life in awe of how much people choose to spend on their vehicles. I'm surrounded by couples and families of 3 driving an SUV with 3 rows of seats. Urban/Suburban dwellers driving $45k pickup trucks. People making $50k/year driving $50k Cadillacs. Anecdotes are a flawed way of understanding the world, but even hard stats say that people are buying huge numbers of SUVs and pickup trucks. How many of them can truly justify the extra upfront cost and gas money?

I agree that the transition will take a long time because even IF the technology works and everyone wants it, it will take a long time to replace the huge numbers of existing vehicles. The average vehicle age is 11.6 years, (I can't find the median easily but I assume it's close). So even if it became a government mandated feature on new cars in 10 years it might take another decade for half the cars to have it. The reality is more complex because it will likely be phased in gradually.

Again I think it mostly comes down to: what can this technology do for safety? If they are so safe that your insurance premium goes down by 50% then feature might pay for itself. If they are so much safer that the government mandates their use like airbags and seat belts then obviously it will happen very rapidly. If on the other hand they are even 10% more dangerous than human drivers, they are probably dead on arrival.

[vt]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

I feel self driving vehicles can be made very safe, so that may not be a future issue.

I see more rapid adoption. The aging and rebellious baby boom generation will not want to give up any freedom of movement even though they may not have reaction time, vision acuity, or desire to drive interstate racetracks. I envision very rapid adoption by this large generation. I also see the millennial generation adopting self driving vehicles based on costs, convenience, and parking fees in cities.

Parents of teenagers stressed by looming high college costs will not want to assume high insurance costs and an extra car if the alternative of self driving vehicles is available. Of course they then would have the worry of daughters making out with dates instead of the date having to drive:-)

[jk]

Re: Fed Raises and Now Tariffs? Have we been in ka--- for ten years?

The US could easily counter this by withdrawing from the Middle East and let other powers fight it out.

what do you think "contain" means?