Political Funny Pictures Thread, pt. 2

[Route 45]

 

[printcraft]

 

[Dr.Midnight]

 

[BugI02]

Well, let’s see now . . .
According to the Aluminum Association, an empty 12 ounce/375 ml aluminum beverage can weighs just under 15 grams.
A metric ton (tonne) of aluminum (1000 kg) could produce (1000 E+03/15.0) = 66,667 cans.
The current LME cash price for aluminum appears to be $2200/tonne
The cost of the pure aluminum in each can would be ($2200/66667) = $0.033
For a six-pack, the pure aluminum would cost 6*.$.033 = $0.198
For a twelve-pack, the pure aluminum would cost $0.396
For a 24-can case, the pure aluminum would cost $0.792

If a 10% tariff is applied to PRC metal, let’s say that the price for a tonne of aluminum would increase from $2200 to $2440.
The price for the pure aluminum in each can would be ($2420/66667) = $0.0363
For a six-pack, the pure aluminum would cost 6*$.0363 = $0.2178
For a twelve-pack, the pure aluminum would cost $0.4356
For a 24-can case, the pure aluminum would cost $0.8712

It costs no more to ship, melt, alloy, purify, cast, roll, cut to length/width, coat, pack, and ship can sheet made from $2440/tonne aluminum than it does for $2200/tonne aluminum.

Since recycled aluminum would be immune from the tariffs, it should even encourage recycling because of the economic advantage it holds. Greens should love it, too

 

[BugI02]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taranu...d-for-brewers-and-beer-drinkers/#2c7335823646
Trump aluminum tariff, trade restrictions: Could beer price go higher? - Business Insider

"A tariff or quota will immediately disadvantage these domestic businesses since foreign competitors would have the advantage of not paying an artificially inflated raw cost," the letter read. "We estimate a tariff of 10% on this aluminum would cost beer and beverage producers $256.3 million."

A quick search turned up numbers from 2014

Alcoholic Beverage Market*Overview*In The United States

The U.S. beverage market is a $354.2bn industry with alcoholic beverages making 60% of the revenues with $211.6bn in sales

So all beverages, using your number for cost increase due to the tariffs

$256.3 million/$354.2 billion = 0.000723602, or a 0.072 percent increase in cost (that's 7 one hundredths of one percent)


With respect to direct to consumer cost, with 100% pass through, jbombelli would be correct - it is insignificant

If we're primarily only concerned about our beer

$256.3 million/$211.6 billion = 0.001211247, or a 0.121 percent increase in cost (that's 12 one hundredths of one percent)

ETA: With the unwarranted assumptions that A) 100% of the projected increase would be applied solely to alcoholic beverages B) Alcoholic beverages not packaged in aluminum would still be included in both numbers:

The increase in a $10 purchase of beer would be 1.2 cents

 

[Mikey1911]

The Aluminum Association, which consists of the American aluminum industry, which would stand to gain from such tariffs? Is that the source you want to believe when they say "it's not a big deal?"

Did not expect an argumentum ad hominem there.

Nowhere in my post was any reference to any position taken by the Aluminum Association about whether the 10% tariff was “not a big deal” (your quotation, not mine).

I could have used my memory of the average empty can weights in the late 1970s, where the number was 24 cans per pound, or (453.6 grams/24 cans) = 18.9 grams/can; but I was seeking a reference for a more recent figure for can empty weight because beverage packagers have been demanding reduced unit weights since the development of the aluminum can in the 1960s.

An empty weight 15 grams per can translates to about 30 cans per pound, or a yield of 25% more cans per pound of aluminum than was common 40 years ago.

We could discuss the reasons for the decline of the primary aluminum smelting industry at length on another day, but it’s unlikely to interest the majority of the members.

One significant factor is that during the last smelting construction boom in the 1960s and 1970s, the manufacturers contracted with either investor-owned utilities or governmental agencies such as BPA and TVA for the consumption of what was then surplus generating capacity for thirty to forty year timespans. Once those contracts concluded in the 1990s and early 2000s, the power producers were not going to renew the contracts to supply energy at perhaps 20% of the price they could get for it on the open market. That’s why in BPA country there were once ten primary smelters, and now there are only two (of which only one is operating, at less than full capacity).

 

[OutdoorDad]

For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that the effect is zero. Not close to zero. Actually zero.

Why would you expend the energy to implement a program to collect and redistribute zero?

So in the interest of reducing governmental inefficiency, let’s NOT implement a program that has a cost to administer with zero economic effect.


Are we all in agreement?

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

Shiny boots and brown shirts sold separately.

 

[GrinderCB]

At last, I've found something to spend my tax refund on.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Shiny boots and brown shirts sold separately.

 

[Route 45]

 

[KittySlayer]

And of course there is a DACA version for the dreamer children (and babies).

 

[HoughMade]

Did not expect an argumentum ad hominem there....

Welcome to INGO.

 

[d.kaufman]

At last, I've found something to spend my tax refund on.

Can i get it with a bumpstock