Which it doesn’t begin to do. That may be a rationalization, but it’s not the reason.
1 Like
What’s continued to be bizarre is that there are two reasons for tariffs - raising revenue and protecting domestic industry. But the objective here seems to vacillate back and forth such that neither is achieved.
With respect to wine - take your pick: there’s a domestic industry that could be protected and also a revenue raising opportunity . . .
A lot of CA wineries believe tariffs have hurt their business.
-Al
1 Like
As a lay person (non-economist) I get the idea of targeted tariffs, to protect a product or industry. These blanket tariffs appear to me to be a “wet blanket” on economic activity. It’s not just groceries and cars (and as above energy, who knew?) and wine but raw materials and labor and…maybe easier to identify what is NOT affected?
I hate to hear of people boycotting our wines because of spite, or damping en primeur purchases (who knows how much more they will cost?) or crazy price increases or importers just walking away from brands because they can’t sell them at the higher prices. Yes, cash will flow into the government for whatever purposes, but the long term effects of ill will and lost consumer base will not be overcome in the short term I fear.
1 Like
And they are correct as most of their Canada exports dried up.
So if I ship wines from Europe to the U.S. now, is it simply that I’ll have to pay additional 15% of the declared total amount?
1 Like
Essentially. Unless an importer or merchant “eats” some of the tariffs.
FYI - country/country group tariff tracker:
Apologies if this was already posted, but Wine.com just sent me this futures email. I didn’t expect it from WDC, honestly, but I’m okay with it for the time being. I’m not sure what exactly they think is going to improve, though, in the next many years.
We are contacting you with an update regarding your Bordeaux Futures with Wine.com.
As you are likely aware, beginning August 1st 2025, goods from the European Union became subject to a 15% import tariff. As this tariff would be imposed on top of the original purchase price, Wine.com has chosen to protect your investment by electing to delay importation of any Bordeaux Futures that would be subject to the 15% tariff. We assure you that your wine remains safely secured in temperature-controlled storage in France and that the pricing remains unchanged from what you originally paid.
2 Likes
Was just coming to post this as I also got the email. Relieved to not have to shell out additional money but we will see how long they plan on holding the wine.
Yeah, I worry it will be more than 15%. I’d almost rather just pay it and get it out of the way unless they plan on waiting many years.
I don’t see any reason why it would be more than that. I worry about the shipping costs since they are kind of forcing their club membership for “free” sheipping but these won’t ship and now I will have to renew that cost to prevent paying for shipping each order.
I don’t work for WDC, but I don’t think this is the case. If you were Stewardship when you placed the order, they should ship for free regardless of when they ship. Check with them at the time, of course.
2 Likes
Thanks Dave. I will reach out to them. I dont want to pay the fee every year waiting for something that should be covered.
1 Like
I don’t envy the position any retailer is in, but I’m not interested in having a futures order from two years ago dangling over my head until the next presidential administration. Does WDC have cancellation penalties?
1 Like
LOL. We’ll just have to agree we have differing impressions of what is going on.
As for shipping costs… your original invoice includes a charge for shipping that was covered at the time of purchase by your Stewardship membership. I’ve received all shipments post-cancellation, and I don’t expect they will try to pull a fast one, but there is a record that you already pre-paid shipping.
At the time of purchase for me:
Cancellations may be subject to a fee equal to 20% of the wine.
1 Like
A little Econ 101 - Amicus Brief of Economists in the IEEPA case at the SCt.
I expect the court to say “doesn’t matter if the president is right or wrong, he has the power to do whatever he wants”.
The justices are sounding extremely skeptical of the presidential tariff power during oral arguments today.
1 Like
*Justices not named Clarence Thomas