245% tariff goes into effect today so this should resolve: https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/china-to-now-pay-up-to-245-tariffs-on-imports-to-us-trumps-latest-move-trade-war-101744789093597.html

@NeoMalthusian We just have a fact sheet says China "faces" ... 245% tariff. AFAICS We don't yet know when the implementation date of the extra 75% to 100% will be and if Trump makes some other arrangement before it is implemented I suggest this question might still resolve no.

@ChristopherRandles The fact sheet isn’t announcing new announcing a new 245% reciprocal tariff. It’s just fact checking the first collections for goods facing the full 245% tariff would have occurred on or shortly after April 10, 2025, for imports cleared by U.S. Customs that are subject to all three tariff categories, like electrical vehicles. So according to the White House there’s already been goods subject to a maximum 245% levy, so this market should’ve been resolved a few days ago. https://www.newsweek.com/china-245-trump-tariff-2060295

I will wait for more clarity before resolving either way. I will say that the newsweek article you posted makes it look more like the Trump admin is using creative accounting rather that actually doing anything to escalate the trade war by adding tariffs which is what this market was intended to be about.

@Odoacre @NeoMalthusian

"Electric vehicles, for example, have outstanding Section 301 tariffs of 100 percent dating back to the Biden Administration, meaning these products would face a 245 percent rate in total."

That was new to me. Seems like already in place? (Which would mean the previously reported 145% total rate was understated?) Creative accounting? Are you suggesting the infrastructure for the 75-100% tariff was in place but trump is potentially bringing it into effect at some point?
Waiting for further clarity seems sensible.
.

>"by adding tariffs which is what this market was intended to be about."

That may have been the intention to be about "adding tariffs" but the resolution criteria seems quite clear.

Resolution Criteria

This market resolves to YES if the United States imposes tariffs on Chinese goods that exceed 150% at any point.

@Odoacre So are you waiting to resolve if only the reciprocal tariff increases past 150% not any combinations on tariffs.

@NeoMalthusian Either that or some additional new tariff gets added would be a clear yes.

You are right that the criteria may be poorly written as is now, I apologize for that, however I'm not convinced this 245% number is even real.

A White House official told Newsweek the calculation reflects the maximum potential rate some Chinese goods could face, combining the reciprocal tariff, the fentanyl tariff, and existing Section 301 tariffs that go up to 100 percent.

"potential" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

@Odoacre What about something like April 2 change to empty aluminium cans and canned beer. That is shortly before claim creation but is clearly in Trump presidency.

Steel and aluminum tariffs On March 12, 2025, the US imposed 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports, aiming to strengthen domestic production. On April 2, 2025, aluminum tariffs expanded to include empty aluminum cans and canned beer.

Re stacking tariffs
Grok seems to think NY times supports this
Steel and Aluminum Products: Steel and aluminum imports face 25% to 100% Section 301 tariffs, plus the 125% reciprocal tariff and 20% fentanyl tariff. Products with significant steel or aluminum content (e.g., metal furniture or machinery) could exceed 150%, though exemptions for certain aluminum products may lower rates in some cases.

Groks NYtimes ref is
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/12/business/economy/china-tariff-product-costs.html

@ChristopherRandles That (the aluminum tariff) does not look like an escalation of the trade war. It's not a china specific tariff measure.
Re: Grok's - I'm not a fan of using LLMs to interpret articles and I can't read the original since it's behind a paywall, but I will note that if this is the correct way to implement the tariffs then I'd be inclined to just NA the market, since it was already supposed to resolve YES as soon as I created it

@Odoacre My reaction is that you are changing the meaning and interpretation of the question a bit.

"China is daring Trump to go ahead and increase the tariffs above the current 145% level
will he go for it?"
is not under the resolution criteria. So I think it should be interpreted as background information and/or reason for question creation.

The Resolution Criteria says

This market resolves to YES if the United States imposes tariffs on Chinese goods that exceed 150% at any point.

The "at any point" isn't completely literal if it was true 100 years ago then that shouldn't be enough to cause the question to resolve true. So I am fine with interpreting this as at any point from claim creation to close date. I don't really see enough to support saying it has to be specific to China or an escalation of tariff trade war with China after claim creation date but maybe that is just me misinterpreting how the question has been written.


>"inclined to just NA the market, since it was already supposed to resolve YES as soon as I created it"
This seems fair enough, particularly if people are interpreting question differently.

However I am still wondering if there was another change similar to April 2 change but after claim creation date, does the claim then resolve yes or is it still N/A'd?

@ChristopherRandles I've already admitted I'm not happy with the way I worded the resolution criteria.

I don't really see enough to support saying it has to be specific to China or an escalation of tariff trade war with China after claim creation date

that was definitely the intention, and the resolution criteria dos make special reference to Chinese goods.

I'm not sure I am understanding your question right, but if you're asking if an extra tariff on a limited type of import such as aluminum cans or canned beer would count, then I would say no it does not, unless it was specific to beer cans from China (and as I write that it feels pretty dumb since it's such a small an limited category, but i feel like the criteria is so poorly written I'd have to say yes)

In summary I regret not thinking more about the criteria before creating the market, I am still of a mind to maybe NA the whole thing, but I don't see myself resolving yes in the scenario you described. Hope that helps, and am happy to listen to alternatives.

@Odoacre Sorry if I am repeatedly covering same ground. There was perhaps some ambiguity in that you could regret the wording and then make a decision of whether to follow the wording or follow the intention. I think you have made clear enough now that you intend to follow the intention not the wording. How far that goes towards adjusting to the intention might still be a little uncertain.

Then you added happy to listen to alternatives so

>"the resolution criteria does make special reference to Chinese goods."

I would say it clearly references "the tariff on Chinese goods" which I would presume to be the total maximum rate on any class of goods from China.

What is not mentioned in the resolution criteria is any indication that the tariff pushing it over 150% total has to completely apply to goods specifically from China as opposed to some small part of total tariff rate applying to imports from lots of different countries or that it has in some way to be escalation of trade war with China.

This ruling out of some small part of total tariff rate applying to imports from lots of different countries might give an appearance that it seems you are making up the exact rules as you go along to prevent a yes judgement. If you had given the resolution criteria more thought would you really have excluded this? Maybe you would have preferred to clearly write this into the resolution criteria or maybe you might have balked at the complexity and made it simpler?

Also should we have been betting on our guesses of your intentions or on what it actually said?

To avoid that appearance you could regret the wording but decide to more closely stick with the wording rather than your intentions. But if you really think this is justified I should stop carping on about it. My exposure is extremely small and so I am not bothered about the mana, just find the detail and how things are sorted out interesting.

@ChristopherRandles I think it's pretty clear this was about the trade tension between China and the US with China saying they would not take extra tariffs seriously therefore goading the US to go ahead and call their bluff.

If you are referring to my position in the market, it's also very small and I don't think it makes me more likely to make strange excuses to avoid a yes result. (Actually I am holding YES, so if anything I should be incentivized to agree with your reading)

@Odoacre Yeah I’d prefer NAing the market given the additional errata after the fact

FWIW Grok now seems to think that paywalled NY Times article is in error.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/72CoumQbQvuL0yDDtgxmc6vXr

Form the white house fact sheet: China now faces up to a 245% tariff on imports to the United States as a result of its retaliatory actions