In Canada, where the American national anthem has been booed during hockey matches with US teams, a slew of apps has emerged with names such as “buy beaver”, “maple scan” and “is this Canadian” to allow shoppers to scan QR barcodes and reject US produce from alcohol to pizza toppings.
[…]In Sweden, more than 70,000 users have joined a Facebook group calling for a boycott of US companies – ironically including Facebook itself – which features alternatives to US consumer products.
[…]In Denmark, where there has been widespread anger over Trump’s threat to bring the autonomous territory of Greenland under US control, the largest grocery company, the Salling group, has said it will tag European-made goods with a black star to allow consumers to choose them over products made in the US.
↫ Peter Beaumont at the Guardian
These are just a few of the examples of a growing interest in places like Canada and Europe to boycott American products to the best of one’s ability. It’s impossible to boycott everything coming from a certain country – good luck finding a computer without American software and/or hardware, for instance – but these small acts of disapproval and resistance allow people to vent their anger. It’s clearly already having an effect on Tesla, whose sales have completely collapsed in Europe, so much so that the president of the United States has to do his best Billy Mays impression in front of the White House to help his buddy sell cars.
Very classy.
With the United States threatening war on Canada, Greenland and Denmark, and Panama, it’s only natural for citizens of those countries, as well as those of close friends of those countries, to want do something, and being more mindful or what you spend your money on is a tried and true way to do that. Technology can definitely help here, as we’ve talked about before, and as shown in the linked article. While no tool to determine place of origin of products will ever be perfect, it can certainly help to avoid products you don’t want to buy.
I can only hope this doesn’t get even more out of hand than it already has. The United States started a trade war with the European Union today as well, and of course, the EU retaliated. I doubt the average person has any clue just how intertwined the global economy and supply chains are, and that the only people paying for this are people like you and I. The tech billionaires and career politicians won’t be the ones screwed over by surging prices of basic necessities because of tariffs, and it won’t be the children of the rich and powerful being sent to war with Canada or Panama or whatever.
The very companies that OSNews has reported on for almost 30 years are the ones pushing and enabling most of this vile nonsense, so yes, you will be seeing items about this here, whether you and I like it or not. Only cowards and the privileged have the luxury of ignoring what the United States is doing right now.
As much as I agree with some of those points, I feel obliged to call out that polarisation is not the answer and might even convince more people who were not onboard with said agenda in the first place that they have to follow suit in an us vs them.
The common man (and woman) globally -doesn’t matter which continent or country- will be the victim (yet again) of a pointless powerplay. The only positive thing I do hope it brings is clarity and common sense to everyone around how supply chains actually got to this point in the first place and how to fix it (or at least balance it out more evenly).
I remember when OSnews was about operating systems. /sigh
The thing is, Tech is part of how we got to this moment. So we can’t afford to shy away from our responsibility understand this and to help *solve* this.
Mike Masnick said it best: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/04/why-techdirt-is-now-a-democracy-blog-whether-we-like-it-or-not/
eliyahu — I remember when the US used to have (mostly) sane governments. (yes, I’m that old).
Nixon ? Reagan ? Bush ? Clinton ? Bush ? Obama ? Trump ? Biden ? (strike the insane)
What’s left ?
I understand why these articles are landing here but I don’t think it’s reaching anyone new Thom. The news and social media is drowning in this stuff daily. Many of us share the passion. Would be nice to read tech/OS news not related to Drump at all.
Perhaps you should consider how far-reaching his actions are. Whether you like it or not, this kind of news is a part of the tech sphere.
Already considered, thank you anyway. The argument could be, does Thom publish lots of linked articles (including political), or less articles per week (based on traditional OS News)?
For me, I would be disappointed if this news wasn’t here because 1) OSnews has covered tech corruption well leading up to this implosion now; 2) the boycotts and “doing something” articles are the heartening ones; and 3) I’ve seen sites and podcasts (of various genres) avoid the topic and to me they end up coming across as artificial and almost dishonest. Maybe no escape is just the reality of it.
I’m not surprised at this. This very subject has been on financial news such as CNBC for the past few days. OS News has exposed US corporation shenanigans for at least 10 years.
I’m glad that other countries are boycotting the US. We deserve it for our terrible politics. I’m slowly moving my email and cloud use to ProtonMail and their associated products. I’m on all Apple products at the moment but I keep an old laptop running Linux around in the hopes that it can replace my Mac one day. If Adobe ever makes Linux versions of their products then I could probably switch. If I didn’t have to interact with others, then I could probably move over now.
Hopefully someone in Europe releases a good competitor to YouTube and all the social media platforms. I would switch over to using European products if they were available.
Jasyo,
Many of us in the US are angry too, although most of the media don’t acknowledge that most of us in the US don’t want to be in trade wars either. As Justin Trudeau said in his speech, we’re all going to suffer no matter which side of the border we’re on.
America’s economy died in 2008. This is just the funeral for it. The empire was always going to go down. It’s just accelerating now. Sad, hopefully countries will realise that being dependent on a single source of technology is a really stupid idea and we get more global interoperability standards and a wider ecosystem of products.
Thom Holwerda
“””The United States started a trade war with the European Union today as well, and of course, the EU retaliated. I doubt the average person has any clue just how intertwined the global economy and supply chains are, and that the only people paying for this are people like you and I.””””
Part of the problem here is some of this intertwined global economy need to end.
Yes correct response to Tariff is not apply Tariff as this only hurts your population. Correct response is buy less from the party applying the Tariff because the Tariff effect is normally their goods will get more expensive anyhow so it better to cut your population off from the problem.
oiaohm,
You are calling for people to buy less from a country. but tariffs are the means by which governments get people to buy less from a country – so these two ideas kind of go hand in hand. What other incentive/disincentive would you propose? We can stop trade entirely with a high enough tariff.
The problem is not countries applying retroactive tariffs, but those who did so in the first place. In the end though it’s easy to see trump pull a putin pretending the victim is the aggressor.
oiaohm,
I wanted to add that I agree with your overall disapproval of tariffs. We’re better off with no or minimal tariffs and steering clear of trade wars. But when one party absolutely insists on it as trump does then how do you make a case for letting him tax your exports without consequence (ie reciprocating)?
“””You are calling for people to buy less from a country. but tariffs are the means by which governments get people to buy less from a country – so these two ideas kind of go hand in hand. “”‘
Tariff is a tool but not good one.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-bans-all-u-s-acohol-1.7479629
Like it or not total prohibition of particular products form the country doing the Tariff is better.
Alfman there is a dark downside to a Tariff. Yes this is a competition problem. Think you have put a 25% Tariff on something. Your local producers to get local customers can now sell the production at 20% markup and be cheaper than the import.
Total prohibition does not create competition selling a product at a higher price so allowing your local produces to justify the higher price..
“””But when one party absolutely insists on it as trump does then how do you make a case for letting him tax your exports without consequence (ie reciprocating)?”””
Basically reciprocating with Tariff is not the right answer. Yes running buy from anyone other than the party doing the Tariff good move. Doing like different areas of Canada are using government controlled parties to remove USA imports completely in target areas.
EU and Australia have been working to making as much of the weapon systems they need local. Correct answer to USA import restrictions on Australia is accelerate that program and setup more weapon exports from Australia to EU countries and the like.
Other things Like Australia could stop USA car imports because lets be real USA roads are wider than Australian ones and the USA cars don’t fit. Australian road lane is 3.3-3.5 meters USA lane 12 feet/3.7 meters we have problem. Lot of cases are like this.
Australia has allowed oversized cars in party to keep the USA happy and not put Tariffs on Australia. Now those cars are going to be more expensive because the USA put Tariffs on the metals they are made from..
Alfman basically the smart move when a country applies Tariffs is simple look at what you have been important from that country and work out what you have been allowing to keep the other side happy that you really don’t need that just really problem and do .total prohibition on that as your first steps.
There are a lot of items countries import from other countries that break their countries general rules just to keep the other side happy. They applied Tariff so now you are unhappy there is no reason to keep on doing these things. Maybe when you stop these things completely you find a more dependable supplier who not going to be a jackass.
oiaohm,
I don’t disagree with your opinions here, but at the same time you need to face the reality that our opinions don’t really matter. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat them either. Tariffs are the reality today regardless of the arguments against them. For all the ways you keep insisting they’re bad, you may as well be beating a dead horse.
By adjusting tariffs governments can cap the number of people who will buy imported products. Extreme tariffs will cap the market at 0%, which has the same affect as government banning imports. So if you don’t like high tariff policy then you shouldn’t like bans either because bans have the same affect as extreme tariffs. Either way, both bans and tariffs get weaponized in trade wars…You can blame victims for taking reciprocal measures, but there’s no good solution when politicians are hell bent on taking a wrecking ball to trade.
“””By adjusting tariffs governments can cap the number of people who will buy imported products. Extreme tariffs will cap the market at 0%, which has the same affect as government banning imports.””””
The problem is its not the same.
You need to understand human purchasing logic. Company made the first microwave did a really good job of it and it would not sell. Solution make a bigger more expensive worse looking worse functionality Microwave to sit on self for customer to compare to.
Yes that highly over priced Microwave turned out to have a market cap of 0% but it caused home microwaves to come a thing. Item with 0% market cap does effect what consumers buy and how high companies think they can price things.
There is a secondary effect to the Tariff that not good. Yes less people buy the product because the price is higher. But that higher price product is on the shelf that make customers accept other competing products being higher as well. Yes this is how using Tariff carelessly can crash your own economy because people end up without enough money to go round.
Alfman if you not need your local manufactures to sell products at higher prices to stay in business don’t apply Tariffs other wise you harm your own economy.
Australia if the Tariff stay on you will see products get banned and Australia will just source those products from elsewhere. Yes balance trade by blocking trade.
Tariff is the tool you use when a product is being imported that your local business cannot compete with. This could be that the product is coming from a country with a low cost of living so Tariff is needing to be applied to level the playing field. A Tariff used for anything else has proven to be economy damaging.
Alfman Tariff is not something you should use as a reciprocal tool. If you have to get into a tradewar with another country and you have have to choose you weapons the first weapon above all else is straight up product import bans Straight out product bans do the least damage to your own countries .economy including your internal trade.
Yes Tariff effect most people don’t understand every time your country applies a Tariff on incoming products the direct effect is your countries cost of living goes up. Banning products imports effect on cost of living is zero effect is over 99.9% of the time. Yes there is a 0.1% chance that you ban some critical import and you break everything. So product banning done with due care is basically economy harmless.
Alfman yes there is a reason why Australia is like USA applying Tariff we don’t give a rats because Australia did only a decade or so back a Tariff war with China both sides in the end had it end up admitting what they did was stupid and changed over to product import ban arguments that turns out less harmful to local population pricing.
Yes Tariff on meat from Australia started to cause run away meat prices in China. That god darn junk Microwave effect.
Smart countries will not reciprocate the tariffs will learn from the Australian China screw up with Tariff and stick to product bans to balance the trade. Yes Australia was shocked how China own Tariff on Australian products starts crashing their local economy due to the increase cost of living they were triggering even when the Australian products market share had dropped to basically 0$ marketshare.,
Tariff are a tool that has a very particular usage and using it outside that will do your country damage. It not if it absolutely will.
Yes the reason Trump has for using Tariff is absolutely stupid when you understand why Tariff are for and the USA people will pay for it with increased cost of living. And even if Trump never applies the Tariff it will still push up USA cost of living caused by companies filling warehouse with items to minimize tariff shock. Yes this warehouse extra logistics and storage costs will have to be paid by consumers so pushing up cost of living.
oiaohm,
I’m not going to respond point by point because you’ve been repeating yourself and I think we’ve already covered all these opinions on tariffs. Unfortunately for those who are against wars and trade wars, they tend to be roped into them regardless because those responsible don’t want peace nor mutually beneficial outcomes. 🙁
“””Unfortunately for those who are against wars and trade wars, they tend to be roped into them regardless because those responsible don’t want peace nor mutually beneficial outcomes. “””
Australia and China are fairly much always in a tradewar with particular products banned from import into each other.
Australia and China has worked out how to make DMZ/Demilitarized Zone form of Tradewar. Australia says something China does not like particular imports are banned for a while then China says something Australia does not like particular exports or imports are banned for a while. Lot of the issues causing this are absolutely not resolved. Yes this back and forth has been going on for decades without effecting each other countries cost of living since the ban products system started.
If peace cannot be achieved lets keep the civilian population cost of living mostly out of the fight and damage controlled. Yes cost of living might be out the fight but person individual employment can absolutely be in the fight with bans. Yes what worse becoming unemployed due to a tariff so now having high cost of living to deal with or becoming unemployed due to a product ban and only having normal cost of living to deal with. Countries population is way better with ban.
Alfman it is possible to have “mutually beneficial outcomes” and still be in a tradewar Australia/China show this. Any country that reached DMZ state in tradewars have stopped using reciprocal tariffs.
Yes reciprocal tariffs in tradewar is like using meat wave tactics and indiscriminate bombing in normal war that end up doing more damage to yourside. Target Product bans are you surgical strikes.
I accept countries will get into trade-wars unfortunately those setting Tariff and product ban do not have the experience. Yes China current leaders were not around when Australia/China did the free trade agreement that wrote in on both side you will not reciprocal tariff each other because it bad for both of us.
There is a repeating failure to learn from history here. History says over and over again you don’t want to harm you own economy in a tradewar. The most common objective of a tradewar is to weaken the other sides economy nothing better at this than shooting yourself in the foot with reciprocal tariffs.
The party that wins most Trade wars is the first party to wake up they should to be using Tariffs.
I agree there are lots of spats going on for decades, but it doesn’t follow these spats haven’t affected the costs of living.
Even with the best political intentions, the civilian population are effected.
Also as I indicated before, a ban is identical to setting tariffs so extreme that nobody can buy the products. Macro-economically they both halt trade. Convincing yourself that bans are good is equivalent to convincing yourself that extremely high tariffs are good. Good or bad, they both have the same effect on the market.
Of course, but when the aggressor fires shots are your economy, your economy is going to hurt regardless. Unfortunately if you choose not to retaliate from foreign aggression, you open yourself to further abuse. We know this from history.
“””Also as I indicated before, a ban is identical to setting tariffs so extreme that nobody can buy the products. “””
Alfman you are ignoring something something critical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect
When people by items there is another effect at play.
“””Macro-economically they both halt trade. “””
But there is a strict difference. Banned product cannot be on shelf so is not part of consumer price Anchoring.
A tariffed product is a item a person could possible buy/order. This product is part of the human price Anchoring maths.
“””but it doesn’t follow these spats haven’t affected the costs of living.”””
Cost of living is more linked to prices that the countries local population are willing to pay. This is driven by Anchoring effects.
“””Of course, but when the aggressor fires shots are your economy, your economy is going to hurt regardless. Unfortunately if you choose not to retaliate from foreign aggression, you open yourself to further abuse. We know this from history.”””
Yes it going to hurt. Please note I have not said not retaliate. Retaliate in ways that you are shooting yourself.
Tariff will effect your countries cost of living even if not one of your citizens can by the product due to the Anchoring effects.
Ban products to retaliate will cause pain but not cost of living pain. A product cannot be used as a consumer price Anchor if the product absolutely cannot be bought.
Yes horrible as it sound Alfman if you Tariff a item to the point that it will cost every bit of currency on earth + 1 dollar so absolutely no one can in fact buy it but the product can be listed for sale that thing will still work as a price Anchor to say these other lower priced products are good deals when they are not. This is just how human purchasing logic works.
Yes large percentage of cost of living control is controlling price Anchoring.
Alfman think of it this way. You retaliation Tariff the effect due to price anchoring is you can now proceed to over pay every party you import from not just the one you were attempting to do relational against. Banning products import or export are truly targeted.
Alfman yes retaliation banning and max Tariff seams the same until you wake up that your population is going to use anchoring to decide how much they will pay for things. This anchoring is what going to drive the cost of living up because it will be a broad effect from using retaliation tariff. Yes retaliation banning you are not causing the anchoring problem so you have a targeted strike that only aimed at the trouble making party..
oiaohm,
oiaohm you are ignoring something something critical. If the tariffs are high enough, zero people are going to buy it. A sufficiently high tariff is identical to a ban.
I really don’t know why you’re fighting me on this because it’s basic supply and demand. Some people don’t really understand this and assume it’s only products under tariff that are effected, but that’s not true. Don’t forget that even domestic products that are not under tariffs will experience price increases as foreign supply is reduced.
To illustrate why this increases the cost of living, assume that 50% of a market is imports, and trade policies cut the imports by half. Well, you’ve just lost 25% of the supply. If there’s less supply with the same demand, everyone’s prices will go up until demand meets supply again. And the opposite is true too.
There are no good options. Your proposition has the same economic impact as raising tariffs to unaffordable levels. People will be forced to buy domestic of course, but it’s absolutely foolish to think consumer prices won’t go up unless we’re talking about an insignificant amount of imports.
“””oiaohm you are ignoring something something critical. If the tariffs are high enough, zero people are going to buy it. A sufficiently high tariff is identical to a ban.”””
This you keeping on ignoring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect
You don’t need people to buy the product for it have a effect. First commercial Microwave no body was buying it because every one had nothing to Anchor it against. So the company made a second Microwave. Worst features all round bigger box priced higher made enough to be display stock. Number of sales of the second commerical Microwave is exactly zero.
Alfman what you don’t want to get Anchoring effects on market have nothing todo with number of units sold. Its the simple presence in the market.
Yes as a retailer if I can put a highly expensive item on the shelf for my customers to Anchor against even if I will never sell that item to a customer this normally allows that retailer to get away with higher markups. Thank you Anchoring.
Alfman for cost of living you need to lose the concept of it just being the products people buy. Its also the products customers compare their purchases against to work out if they will spend the money.
Tariff good objective even if the item has a Tariff that high that none of your population will buy it other than maybe retail stored(for Anchoring) the goal here is to create a Anchoring that the local product can be sold to local consumers at higher price.
Tariff by design is to increase cost of living by making the imported product be a Anchoring above the locally produced product so making the population willing to spend more buying the local production. It also means population will spend more on other imported products as well due to their cost of living being higher so what would have been written of as something too expensive to by comes into acceptable perchance vs cost of living.
The other thing if your local alternative or alternative country sourced is already acceptable priced you don’t apply a Tariff because you don’t need to be using Anchoring to get consumers to accept a higher purchase price.
Alfman only are only looking at half what a Tariff is meant to-do.
I will make it simple.
Lets say we have import that costs $10 but it only locally can be made for $15 so of course majority looks at the local $15 dollar product goes that too expensive and I getting a good deal buying the $10 dollar product due to Anchoring. Now you as a country decide that is being dumped and apply 100% Tariff so the $10 imported product comes $20 dollars now what price does the local made product become the answer it does not stay at $15 since there is now a Anchor at $20 dollars the most likely price of the local made product comes $18 dollars so they can now have a profit above the selling at basically cost the company was doing. So cost of living effect of that Tariff $8.
Now lets proceed that instead of applying Tariff you ban the product being dumped. Yes you start with $10 dollars since it banned its not a Anchor. Local product stays $15 because consumers don’t have a Anchor to justify them spending more. Ban cost is $5.
Yes that worse case that the alternative in the market is more expensive than what you are putting Tariff on or banning. Now lets say they are the same price you put a 25% tariff on a product this puts a 20% upwards price pressure on local supply prices due to Anchoring. Banning product puts no upwards pressure as long as there is not a supply problem.
Anchoring is what makes using Tariff highly dangerous to cost of living.
Alfman like it or not banning and tariff are not the same thing when it comes to cost of living as in the product prices inside a country.
oiaohm,
You keep ignoring that I said, arbitrarily high tariffs to a level where they’re not imported at all. Stores won’t stock them and end as supplies run out customers won’t even see them on shelves. So even though you are trying to convince yourself a ban is somehow a better result, you’re deceiving yourself. In actuality it’s the same macroeconomic result.
It’s a lever between zero manipulation and a full ban. You’re talking about the range in the middle where products are still imported but more expensive. This is not the case at the extreme though.
“””You keep ignoring that I said, arbitrarily high tariffs to a level where they’re not imported at all. Stores won’t stock them and end as supplies run out customers won’t even see them on shelves. “””
Alfman what you wrote is true and not true at the same time.. How does someone price Anchor when they cannot afford to have the product in Retail. The answer simple paper launch. Yes a A4 bit of paper with picture product with the price tag with words out of stock or order on demand or what every else your country allows you to get away with for out of stock item that you may not be able to order.
Yes to Price Anchor the consumer does not need to see the real product in person. A photo with price is good enough.
Product banned you cannot do even a paper launch with it.
The horrible in the USA if the paper launch will allow you to increase the sales price of the product by 3 to 5% the retail shelf space for a bit of A4 displaying the product that too expensive to have is profitable.
Overseas products were paper launched in the USA great depression after the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act
Yes this made the great depression worse.
The cost to-do a paper launch in physical retail is about 15USD dollars per store in signage/advertisement items. Cost in digital retail is about 1USD in the list yes having to enter all the product information. The most expensive bit in Retail is the shelf space itself different supplies pay to have their products on different shelves. Of course a supplier can decide to pay store to have paper launch there so they can just increase the price of their products..
Yes Business to Business price Anchoring also works with the product high priced Anchor product never being imported. Yes lot of Business to Business price Anchoring is paper launches that just list possible price
Product being imported or not has nothing todo if the product can be used for price Anchoring. A product can be used for price Anchoring as long as the possibility of it being imported exists.
Alfman you are not looking at how you perform Price Anchoring so you have not notice that Price Anchoring does not require you to in fact stock or import the item. Yes the fact price anchoring works with just the possibility of the item being stocked and filled by order on demand that well and truly makes using Tariff dangerous. No matter how high you set a Tariff the tariff product is going to be a local price Anchor even if it set that high that no party is in fact importing it due to paper launches allow that product Anchor price to be in the market.
Anything that a price anchor effects cost of living. Yes it does not matter if the product imported or not.
Product Banned you cannot paper launch this. The product cannot be a price anchor.
.
oiaohm,
I respectfully have to disagree, The reason people consider paying more is because they perceive better quality or value. The anchoring effect would not carry the same impact if it’s just the same cheap products at insanely unaffordable prices, which is exactly the scenario that happens with tariffs. I can list my crap on ebay for a trillion dollars, but it does not automatically follow that everyone’s going to agree to pay more across the board because I did that. Supply and demand is still the law of the land, and more fundamental than the anchoring effect that you are invoking.
https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/consumer-insights/anchoring-influence-daily-decisions
Alfman Anchoring is a well studied effect. You can have Supply without Anchoring. But you don’t have demand without Anchoring for most products.
“”The anchoring effect would not carry the same impact if it’s just the same cheap products at insanely unaffordable prices, “”
great depression tariff effects yes it does. Only difference is how fast the effect happens.
“””I can list my crap on ebay for a trillion dollars, but it does not automatically follow that everyone’s going to agree to pay more across the board because I did that.”””
Anchoring has requirements to work. Single location will be a classed as a outlier.
Is what you wrote here a paper product launch the answer is no. You need multi parties to agree on paper product listing for their own profit for the price to have public credibility. You need consumers to believe the price is real seeing the overseas price + the tariff makes the price believable..
Alfman just listing on ebay will not do anchoring these days. Paying for shelf space in retail stores and multi different online stores is required these days to get the anchor believed as real. Great depression the paper launches to force up prices on basic items was done with most stores in a region to get over the same belief that the high anchor value was real.
Alfman anchoring is critical to human calculating value since this is the case its been highly studied and documented how you mess with it. Tariff on a product is explainable reason why the price is high and it should be believed. Once you believe the price even if it insanely wrong you are sunk because you will use that belief to calculate if the other products of the same type are good price or not.
Yes how you willing buy a over valued non tariff product by Tariff product caused sucker punch to your human brain value logic because you have what you believe as a valid anchor and over time as more people fall for it this stack up moving the normal price up.
Alfman I guess you were not thinking that Anchoring and Demand are linked.
Supply is simple what is is. Demard is in fact many different items one of those is value and value comes like it or not from price anchoring. Remember supplier has to work out what they are going to value the products they are going to sell.
Yes great depression tariff events tell us that tariff effecting anchoring can push sell expected value up of products to the point it kills demand. Welcome to a possible local economy death spiral triggered just because you applied tariffs.
oiaohm,
While it’s an interesting idea, it applies to a different situation. It would be one thing if you have a product that’s perceived to be better. to rationalize a higher price But that’s explicitly not the case here when products are only more expensive because of tariffs, which BTW is crystal clear to the importers who pay them because it’s a freakin’ line item for them, They can see that money is just a tax and not paying for better goods. This is not at all the same “anchoring effect” situation and you’re wrong to apply it like that. The domestic market will experience higher prices because of supply and demand and for better or worse your outright bans have the same macroeconomic impact as extreme tariffs.