Tangle - Biden imposes new tariffs on China.

Episode Date: May 16, 2024

Biden's China tariffs. On Tuesday, President Biden announced major new tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, advanced batteries, solar cells, steel, aluminum and medical equipment, covering $18 billion worth of Chinese imports. The largest tariffs are on imports of electric vehicles, quadrupling the proportion of the tax from 25% to 100%.You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can watch our latest video, Isaac's interview with former Congressman Ken Buck (CO-04) ⁠here⁠.Check the next episode of our new podcast series, The Undecideds. In episode 3, our focus shifts from Donald Trump toward President Joe Biden. Much has been made in the media about his age and memory and whether he’s cognitively capable of handling another term. But an unanticipated performance at the State of the Union reignited his base and left many questioning that narrative. And while Donald Trump faces a jury of his peers in court, the court of public opinion continues to weigh in on the effectiveness of Biden’s foreign policies, with an eye to the conflicts between Israel and Palestine, Ukraine and Russia, and our own protracted clash at our southern border.  Our undecided voters share their observations on the current commander in chief and how his decisions on the world stage affect their decision in the voting booth. You can listen to Episode 3 ⁠⁠here.⁠⁠Today’s clickables: A couple of notes (0:56), Quick hits (2:50), Today’s story (5:08), Right’s take (7:54), Left’s take (11:23), Interview with David Dayen (13:57) Isaac’s take (22:59), Listener question (29:23), Under the Radar (32:12), Numbers (32:55), Have a nice day (33:50)You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of the new tariffs? Let us know!Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we are going to be talking about tariffs. That is, President Biden's new tariffs that are pretty significant. This is a big deal, going to impact a lot of American consumers and potentially our trade relationships with China. So we're going to jump in and explain exactly what's happening. Before we do, though, I want to give you a couple quick heads up. First of all, I talked a bit about a YouTube video forthcoming. I'm hoping it's out this weekend. Possible it's going to be early next week. But just want to

remind you to go to our YouTube channel, Tangle News on YouTube, subscribe, press the little bell so you get notifications when our new videos come out. This is going to be our video on the Penn encampments. We're taking our time with it because we want to make sure we do it right, but we also want to get it out to you guys as soon as possible. So just giving you a heads up that that's coming. Also wanted to let you know about two other things. First of all, tomorrow, we're going to be doing something a little different in the newsletter. If you are someone who both reads the newsletter and listens to the podcast, we have a just a different piece of content. I'm trying, I'm going to try to get a recording of this up for the podcast tomorrow, but no promises on that yet. Also, regardless, I do

want to let you know that on Sunday, I am going to be doing our podcast solo plus with a brief interlude with a guest. So Ari is super busy this week and has some other stuff going on that we'll talk about. But I am rocking solo on the Sunday pod and broke down just 10 thoughts, 10 issues I wanted to talk about and did little mini two to three minute segments on each. And I thought it'd be a fun way to format the podcast. Thought you guys might like it. So I want to make sure you know that that's coming. So YouTube channel, make sure you're subscribed. Got a cool video coming tomorrow in the newsletter. A little bit of a different thing, not a little bit, a very different thing coming. And then Sunday, you've got the solo pod with just me. So keep an ear out for that.

All right. With that, I'm going to pass it over to John and I'll be back for my take. John, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Here are today's quick hits. First up, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge on Thursday to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded, one that could have hobbled the agency and cast doubt on its regulations and enforcement actions. Number two, President Biden and former President Trump agreed to hold their first debate on June 27th on CNN. The second debate will be hosted by ABC on September 10th. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will be excluded from the debates because of a requirement that participants must be polling above 15% nationally and appear on ballots in states with at least 270 combined electoral votes.

Number three, the Supreme Court allowed a new Louisiana congressional map that will add a second-majority Black district for the 2024 election. Number four, approximately 107,000 people died of drug-related overdoses in the U.S. last year, according to new CDC data. The number is a 3% decline from 2022, the first drop in year-over-year overdoses since 2018. At number five, President Biden asserted executive privilege over the audio of his two-day interview with the special counsel investigating his handling of classified documents. President Biden is taking a hard line on Chinese imports, charging a 100 percent tariff on electric vehicles. And that's just one product the administration is targeting, a move the president says will help U.S. companies

counter the Chinese government's, quote, cheating and anti-competitive practices. With China revving up to sell government-subsidized electric vehicles for as low as $10,000, tonight the Biden administration is slapping higher tariffs on EVs and other Chinese goods to fight what it calls unfair trade practices. The world's two largest economic superpowers are colliding over the future of electric vehicles and other industrial sectors. It comes just about six months before the election, as both President Biden and former President Trump are battling to sell voters on their visions for the economy, manufacturing and jobs. voters on their visions for the economy, manufacturing, and jobs.

On Tuesday, President Biden announced new major tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, advanced batteries, solar cells, steel, aluminum, and medical equipment, covering $18 billion worth of Chinese imports. The largest tariffs are on imports of electric vehicles, quadrupling the proportion of the tax from 25% to 100%. Just a quick reminder, tariffs are a way for governments to influence trade by imposing a tax on the goods imported from another country, raising revenues on those goods, or protecting competitive advantages over those countries. In this case, Biden is raising tariffs because he believes China's government subsidies have ensured their companies, like electric car manufacturers, can operate with competitive advantages in the U.S. market. For example, the price of a small EV from the Chinese

company BYD starts at around $10,000, which is roughly one-third of the price of the Nissan Leaf, the next cheapest electric car being sold in the U.S. American workers can outwork and outcompete anyone as long as the competition is fair, Biden said. But for too long, it hasn't been fair. For years, the Chinese government has poured state money into Chinese companies. It's not competition. It's cheating. Biden's decision is largely similar to policies from President Donald Trump, who emphasized competition with China and regularly slapped tariffs on Chinese imports in an effort to protect American manufacturing. However, Biden criticized Trump in his remarks, accusing the former president of failing to crack down on China's trade abuses when he was in office. Trump's campaign responded by saying

the tariffs were a little weak and futile attempt to distract from Biden's own subsidies for electric cars, which they claimed would be insufficient to prevent layoffs at auto factories. At a campaign rally on Saturday, Trump said that as president, he would put a 200% tariff on Chinese cars assembled in Mexico, as well as a 60% tariff on all Chinese goods. Some automotive and trade experts have said that the tariffs will only delay China's entry into the U.S. EV market, not prevent it. They're going to be here. It's inevitable. It's just a matter of time.

Dan Hirsch, managing director of automotive and industrial practice at consulting firm Alex Partners, told MSNBC. Western automakers, Western suppliers really ought to be upping their game and preparing to take on or play with them. It's one or the other. China, meanwhile, warned that the tariffs could negatively impact bilateral cooperation between the two nations. impact bilateral cooperation between the two nations. Most of the tariffs will be phased in over the next three years, and some won't take effect until 2026 in an attempt to avoid any intermediate inflationary impacts. Today, we're going to break down some of the arguments from the right and the left about the tariffs, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. Hear that?

Believe it or not, summer is just around the corner. Luckily, Armor All, America's most trusted auto appearance brand, has what your car needs to get that perfect summer shine. Plus, now through May 31st, we'll give you $5 for every $20 you spend on Armor All products. That means car wash pods, protectant, tire shine, you name it. Find out how to get your $5 rebate at ArmorAll.com. Armor All, less work, more clean. Terms apply. All right, first up, we're going to start with what the right is saying. The right opposes the tariffs, suggesting that they're little more than a political gambit. Some criticize the protectionist motivations behind the move.

Others say the tariffs aren't targeting the right Chinese imports. National Review's editors called the tariffs nonsensical. The tariffs are the latest example of two trends in the Biden administration, talking tough on China but not following it up with meaningful policy and bending over backward to appease organized labor, the editors wrote. The White House says the tariffs will cover $18 billion worth of combined goods. That's not nothing, but for perspective, $18 billion is equal to 4% of total U.S. imports of goods from China just last year.

Biden's claims to be protecting American workers and businesses in general with such actions are hard to take seriously. The claim that these tariffs are somehow striking a major blow to a strategic adversary is laughable, the editors added. These tariffs at least make a little more sense when you understand them as political favors to labor unions. Biden is clear that his radical environmental policies, including pushing electric vehicles on a scale that the public does not desire, are all parts of his plan to boost organized labor, constantly touting the union jobs that his environmental schemes will create. He no doubt thinks union voters will be important

to his efforts to win swing states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania in the upcoming election. For the Cato Institute, Clark Packard said the tariffs put politics over good policy. With the Trump campaign promising a 60% tariff on all imports from China, the Biden administration apparently feels compelled to respond with its own tariffs. It's truly a race to the protectionist's bottom, Packard wrote. Today, by many accounts, China is producing some pretty good quality EVs at prices well below those for most EVs in the U.S. market, even with generous IRA subsidies. Effectively banning Chinese EVs will thus give remaining automakers in the United States room

to keep EV prices higher than they'd otherwise be, to American consumers' detriment. The tariffs will thus eliminate potentially important competitive pressures on U.S. automakers, which, other than Tesla, are largely laggards in the EV market, Packard said. Furthermore, by raising the price and thereby stunting the deployment of EVs, the tariffs undermine the Biden administration's stated goal of reducing carbon emissions, continuing the administration's habit of choosing politics and protectionism over their environmental agenda. In town hall, Terry Jeffrey argued the tariffs don't go far enough. During the Biden era, this country has run a trade deficit with China that exceeds $1 trillion.

This year, the Biden White House tried to present the president as a trade hawk who is going to fix this problem, Jeffrey wrote. Do any of these Chinese products Biden is preparing to hit with increased tariffs rank among the top U.S. imports from that country? No. The top U.S. import from China in 2023 was cell phones and other household goods. What about electric vehicles? Trucks, buses, and special-purpose vehicles ranked 57th among U.S. imports from China, Jeffrey said. After the U.S. has imported more than $1.5 trillion in goods from this genocide-committing regime during Biden's time in office, Biden is imposing targeted tariffs that the White House says will impact only $18 billion, or about 4.2% of imports from China.

If Biden were serious, he would impose increased tariffs on 100% of imports from China. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left is mixed on the move, though many worry it amounts to an unearned handout to U.S. automakers. Some say the tariffs are needed to give the EV industry a chance to compete with China. Others say U.S. consumers will bear the brunt of the tariffs. In the New York Times, Gernot Wagner and Conor Walsh wrote, Don't slam the door on inexpensive Chinese electric vehicles. These new tariffs on electric vehicles are little more than a handout to legacy car companies like General Motors and Ford. Middle-class Americans should have access to these cars, and because of these tariffs, they will remain a luxury, mainly

available to the rich, Wagner and Walsh said. Low-cost Chinese models that the lower- and middle-income Americans could afford, like BYD's Seagulls, which run for less than $10,000, aren't currently sold here largely because of tariffs over 25%. The new tariffs of 100% will make it even harder for these cars to compete in the U.S. market. It is clear that American car manufacturers need to catch up to the competition and fast. The problem with using tariffs to protect them from competition is that the companies then have less incentive to invest in new technologies. Chinese companies will continue making huge strides in selling their cars abroad while cutting off opportunities

for American companies to export their products to foreign markets, Wagner and Walsh wrote. The Biden administration ought to be taxing China for its soaring carbon emissions, not for its electric vehicles and solar panels. In the Financial Times, Edward Luce said, America is pulling up the drawbridge. At this rate of bidding, U.S.-China decoupling will be set in bipartisan stone by November. The choice will be between Biden sealing an orderly divorce or Trump doing it in chaotic leaps and bounds, Luce wrote. Either way, America's direction of travel is ominous. At one speed or another, Republicans and Democrats alike are now in favor of pulling up the global drawbridge. Biden's economic and climate change arguments both fail on their own merits. As Biden knew in 2019 but appears to have forgotten,

the cost of tariffs are borne by consumers, not by importers. Biden's main targets are Chinese solar panels, batteries, and EVs. These are capital incentive goods. Manufacturing employment is declining across the world, including China itself. For the symbolic gain of a handful of muscular jobs, Biden is imposing a broad tax on the middle class and undermining U.S. competitiveness, Luce said. Then there is the hit to his climate change policy. The Biden effect will be to raise the U.S. domestic price of EVs, solar panels, and other green inputs and delay America's energy transition. In The American Prospect, David Dayen argued tariffs give U.S. automakers a fleeting chance. Isaac got a chance to sit down and talk with David about his article.

David Dayen, thank you so much for coming on the show. I appreciate it. Thanks for having me. So first of all, I'd like to maybe just get the kind of two-minute Thanks for having me. Yeah. I mean, I think there are, maybe for environmental reasons, the idea that, look, cheaper technologies that could expand the transition to electric vehicles could be a good thing. But if you're looking at it from the standpoint of the Biden administration, we just invested hundreds of billions of dollars into creating a homegrown domestic electric vehicle industry. And the idea that you would essentially throw that all in the garbage because China has created a cheaper way to manufacture this in the short term, I think would be really short-sighted. The whole idea here is to create an environment where you can have more industrial capacity. You're not reliant on other countries. You create good jobs, in many cases, unionized jobs, and you create the conditions for wide take-up of electric vehicles. And I think we're at the beginning stages of that in the United States, but it is moving

at a pretty rapid pace. The manufacturing construction numbers are through the roof. We are building the ecosystem, which is really what you have to build to create this sort of economy of scale. We're creating the ecosystem of having vehicles, having minerals made here, produced here, having batteries made here, and having final assembly here. And so I think from an economic standpoint and to be crass from a political standpoint, you want to maintain this iconic industry of U.S. autos and protect this giant investment we made in it.

So is your kind of, I guess, read on this situation that in the long term, you know, the U.S. automaking industry is going to be able to bring the prices of these electrical vehicles down, these electric vehicles down. We're going to be able to compete with countries like China just on the merits. But the fact that we're not there now is no reason to just kind of let them in and allow them to dominate the market. It sounds like what you're saying is from a long-term perspective, we want to give this industry we just invested so much in a chance to flourish. And if we let these markets, we let these cars into the market right now, there's just zero chance that happens, basically. Yeah, I think that's right. I mean. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu,

a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu.

It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at fluselvax.ca. The way that you're going to bring electric vehicle prices down for U.S.-made electric vehicles is through creating this homegrown ecosystem. So you don't have to go to another country to bring in the

lithium, to bring in the various other rare earth minerals and other special minerals that you need to create the batteries, that you don't have to get the batteries from another country, that you're building them here on site, that all the parts and all of the new technologies that are being done are brought here in the United States. And some of that, by the way, is going to be in conjunction with China. Ford has created its battery facility using the technology that it's licensing from a Chinese company called CATL. GM is doing a similar thing with a Korean company called SK

on for its battery plant in, in Tennessee. Uh, there's, there's no reason why there can't be collaboration here. Um, we saw this in the 1980s when the fear was that Japan was going to take over the, the over the automobile market. There ended up being a lot of joint ventures and companies borrowing from one another in terms of know-how and knowledge. And that ended up working. And there's no reason why it can't work today. We do need to give that space,

the sort of bridge to a stronger future for the electric vehicle market in the U.S. What's your read on the threat of a trade war breaking out in the wake of the Biden administration making this decision? How do you weigh that calculation into this? Because obviously China has enough economic leverage, it could respond in certain ways that are painful for US consumers. And they're certainly acting like that's their plan. Whether they will follow through or not, I guess, is an open question. Well, this was an investigation into $300 billion in Chinese imports. And ultimately, the tariffs were put on only eighteen billion dollars. So it's a relative fly speck in the grand scheme of U.S.-China trade.

There may be retaliation. We'll have to sort of wait and see. But it's important to note that there were there were bilateral meetings that were held just before this announcement. So I think it was well telegraphed and that the Chinese government knew what was coming. And there was probably work done to say, look, we're doing this for reasons X, Y, and Z. It doesn't mean we don't want to continue to engage. X, Y, and Z. It doesn't mean we don't want to continue to engage. And indeed, there were meetings just last week about joint approaches to climate between the US and China. So, I mean, I think there are a lot of reasons why I'm skeptical that this will be a full-blown trade war. trade war. It's saying there are certain critical industries that we need to have the confidence that we can create our own supply, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a role for US-China

trade. Before we let you go, I guess I have one last question, which is just sort of, I guess, stress test the kind of politics of this a little bit. I mean, I think the counter argument that resonates for me is we let these electric vehicles into the market. And the result of that is, you know, as you mentioned at the top, we're addressing some of the emission stuff a lot faster, which is something a lot of folks on the left care about. We want cheap, clean energy. If you're a consumer in the U.S., all of a sudden you can save $20,000 buying an electric vehicle.

And, you know, if you're the Democratic base and you're looking to Biden to address some of these issues, you care about climate change, you care about the rising costs of things like cars, this seems like something he could kind of leverage as a win. I guess I'm wondering how to weigh that against some of the other political questions that you're talking about that you're worried about. If you're the Biden administration and you think you need to win Michigan in order to win reelection, the idea that you're going to abandon the auto industry in that state is going to be a very precarious scenario. Most of the investments, particularly in the electric vehicle space, are in either purple

states like Michigan or even just red states, places like Georgia, which has a Hyundai EV factory coming in, or Tennessee, which has a GM factory coming in. This is key, I think, to the future of the Democratic Party, this idea of using industrial policy to bring back critical industries and bring them back all over the country, not just in the preferred kind of blue areas, but to broaden prosperity outside of big cities. And I think that's a core project of the party. And we're more than consumers, we're producers, we're workers. And we need to be mindful. All right. David is the executive editor of The American Prospect. You can find his work on prospect.org. David, thanks so much for coming on the show. I appreciate it.

Thanks for having me on. All right, that is it for what the right and the left are saying, which brings us to my take. So tariff imposition is a policy question that I really struggle with, in part because I both want to see the U.S. manufacturing industry win and because as a consumer, I want cheaper quality products. Chinese companies have undeniable institutional advantages over U.S. companies in labor-intensive production of large goods like electric cars, and I don't think it's a given that we should just let them have that advantage. It would be one thing if Chinese companies had found innovative ways to produce cars more cheaply or if they were selling them only in the Chinese market. But in reality, their advantage is born out of heavily subsidized production, reliant on incredibly cheap

labor, so much so there is little chance anyone in the global market can compete. China knows what it's doing, and it knows how the world is going to react. Undercutting the market with artificially deflated prices is part of China's economic policy, and it expects other markets like the U.S. and European Union to counter them to protect their own workers. But China also has put itself in a jam. The country has invested so heavily in its own auto industry that it now produces far more cars than even its 1.4 billion person country wants. So the only way the Chinese government can benefit from its massive investment now is to dominate the global market. So I understand the impulse to want to balance the scales and give U.S. automakers a chance to compete on electric vehicles. At the same time,

all my political instincts are directionally toward free markets, free trade, and free enterprise. I'm an American consumer who would love the option to buy a brand new $10,000 car, and at every basic level, I don't want my government preventing me from doing that. Yes, I want to protect American auto workers and manufacturing jobs, but if every American who wants an electric car could save $20,000 buying one, wouldn't that help the economy and other sectors? Why are we picking American automakers to protect and not addressing, say, the 25% of U.S. apparel that comes from China? And China isn't the only country tampering with their auto industry. The Biden administration

is subsidizing our electric vehicle industry too. So why is it fine here but not there? As Cato writer Clark Packard pointed out under what the right is saying, we already had a 27.5% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles, and China's current share of the U.S. electric vehicle market sits at just 1%. As with steel, Biden isn't just trying to limit Chinese products from the market, he's effectively prohibiting them from entering. When you consider those proportions and effects, these tariffs seem a lot like a political play, one designed to boost Biden's image with unions and automakers in 2024, not one actually devised to generate a needed economic or geopolitical impact.

The political motivations are clear as day. Biden needs Michigan to win the 2024 election, and he can't just let the auto industry get fed to the wolves. If you're a voter who cares about long-term investment in clean energy, then perhaps a short-term cost of more expensive EVs and solar energy is worth the long-term benefit of getting Biden a second term. That seems like the calculation Biden is hoping many swing state voters will make. But that's just the political effects. The economic ones are even more complex. To illustrate just how complicated this issue is, consider the fact that both supporters and critics of these tariffs cite the same historical event to justify

their position, the tariffs Reagan used in the 1980s to counter Japan's ascendancy in the U.S. auto market. Packard, who opposes the tariffs, wrote this, quote, Research shows that those restrictions raise the price of Japanese automobiles in the United States by an average of about $3,700 in 2022. But by restricting lower price suppliers access to the U.S. market, the import restrictions also allowed domestic automakers to raise prices by an estimated $2,138 to $2,850 per car. Again, that's in 2022. And European automakers raised their U.S. prices even more. Overall, the restrictions on Japanese cars cost American consumers more than $16 billion

per year throughout much of the 1980s. Meanwhile, David Dan, who supports the tariffs, wrote under what the left is saying for the American prospect that, in the 1980s, the government created breathing room for the big three automakers to 1980s, the government created breathing room for the big three automakers to fight off competition with Japan. They spent the time engaging in joint ventures, becoming more efficient companies, and making better cars. With even more pressure from within now, that exact spirit must animate the industry or the government won't be able to stop them from failing. Same policy, two different arguments about the impact it had. I'm not fully convinced by that argument, but I do think Dan makes the best case for supporting the tariffs. His argument acknowledges that protectionism isn't always good,

but emphasizes that this move isn't protectionism for the sake of keeping some dying industry on life support. It's for the sake of protecting a massive investment that our economy has made in electric vehicles and clean energy. The EV tariffs are protectionism to help build a burgeoning industry right here in the U.S. that could create thousands of jobs and also ensure our auto industry isn't reliant on a global adversary like China. And the tariffs on solar cells and steel production would protect our nascent clean energy industry too. To be frank, I'm not entirely sure where I land here. I understand the rationale behind these tariffs, and Biden may not have had much choice considering how far he has already gone to invest in a domestic EV and clean energy industry. But I just can't overcome my general position

that tariffs are almost always bad for American consumers in the long term, or my concern about an all-out trade war when more China begins punishing us in other spaces with tariffs of their own. This could spin out quickly, especially since both Biden and Trump and Democrats and Republicans seem hell-bent on going this route. We'll be right back after this quick break all right that is it for my take which brings us to your questions answered this one's from brian in chicago illinois brian said how does tangle estimate reading time on your emails i'm a teacher and an avid reader, but I almost never get through your emails in the time estimated. Maybe it's because I try to read

actively, click on relevant hyperlinks, engage in the polls and questions, etc. But back to the question, are the estimated times based on the quickest surface level read through? And if so, does that implicitly encourage readers not to dig deeper and engage more with the content? Okay, so actually, I've gotten this question a few times. I think I answered it a couple times maybe in the last five years, but it's been a while. So it's based on a couple of factors. Primarily, it is a function of word count. I've typically used a website called Capitalize My Gazette or something like that to estimate the read time, which calculates it based on a speed of 300 words per minute. Other places suggest the average reading speed for an educated adult is somewhere between 200 and 300 words per minute. I could take the

average speed of 250 words per minute or the suggestion of 238 for nonfiction writing and assume everybody is reading the whole newsletter very thoroughly. But based on the results of reader surveys, I know that people tend to skim through some sections of the newsletter or skip them entirely, so that's why I settled on using 300 words per minute to calculate the reading time. Since we keep our standard length at 4,000 words, that means I calculate our average newsletter at about a 13-minute read. Then, based on if we're a little under or a little over, I'll ballpark it by adding or subtracting a minute or two. So the process is based on something, but in the end, it is not very scientific. It is an estimate. I definitely want everybody to read what I write, so there's a good argument that I should assume a slower read

rate. However, that's balanced out by the fact that many people don't want to read an article all the way to the end. And if I introduce an article with a longer estimated read time, that will turn many people off from reading it at all. If I assumed a read rate of 200 words per minute, our standard read time would be 20 minutes. I'm sure for many of you, that's the minimum amount of time

you spend reading Tangled because you go through it thoroughly and take the time to follow some of our sources as you do. But for readers who don't have a lot of time, the ones who are most likely to skim and also the most likely to decide whether or not to read based on the time estimates, I think it's not only preferable to use the faster words per minute, but probably more accurate too. I hope that all sounds pretty honest and fair. All right, that is it for today's reader question. I'm going to throw it back to John. And a quick reminder, if you do hear from us tomorrow, it'll be something a little different.

And if you don't see a new podcast up, feel free to go check out our newsletter, which you can find on readtangle.com. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your Under the Radar story for today. Seven weeks after the Dali cargo ship crashed into Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge, nearly two dozen sailors from its crew remained trapped inside. On Monday, the sailors braced as a controlled demolition took down remaining parts of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, the first step toward freeing the crew members. But their situation won't be fully resolved once they are able to leave the boat. The crew includes 20 Indians and a Sri Lankan national who can't disembark in part because

of visa restrictions, a lack of required shore passes, and an investigation by the FBI and National Transportation Safety Board. The BBC has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The U.S. trade deficit with China in Q1 2024 was negative $60.8 billion, according to U.S. census data. The approximate amount spent by the Chinese government on EV subsidies and tax breaks between 2009 and 2022 was $28 billion. The approximate amount of EV sold in in China in 2022 was 6 million, roughly half of all sales globally that year. The approximate number of EV charging outlets in China is 8.6 million. The approximate number of EV charging outlets in the U.S. is 168,300.

The percentage of new auto registrations in the U.S. that were EVs in 2023 is 8.5%. The percentage of Americans who say they are very or somewhat likely to consider an EV for their next vehicle purchase is 38%, according to a 2023 Pew survey. All right, and last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Researchers from the University of Manchester are developing a system that can significantly advance medical treatment and smart materials. The novel technique uses a type of interlocked molecule called rotaxane to trigger the release of functional molecules under the influence of mechanical force.

The technique could be used to release medication at the site of a tumor or develop materials that can repair themselves when damaged. Although this is only a proof-of-concept design, we believe that our rotaxane-based approach holds immense potential with far-reaching applications. We're on the brink of some truly remarkable advancements in healthcare and technology, Guillaume Desbaux, professor of organic chemistry at the University of Manchester, said. Science Daily has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. of Manchester said. Science Daily has this story and there's a link in today's episode description.

All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you want to support our work, you can go to readtangle.com and sign up for a membership. We are working hard on some new content for you, including a Penn campus protest video that I'm currently editing. a Penn Campus protest video that I'm currently editing. Isaac and Will got to go down to campus and interview some of the protesters just before the encampment was taken down. Stay tuned for that, and we will see you back here on Monday. For Isaac and the rest of the crew,

this is John Law signing off. Have a great weekend, everybody. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by John Law. The script is edited by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman, Will Kedak, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bokova, who is also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website.

We'll see you next time. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average

of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.