Posted on 07/10/2025 7:44:54 AM PDT by LibertyFound
On Tuesday, President Trump told reporters he plans to raise tariffs on copper to 50 percent. Copper futures surged by 17 percent shortly afterwards—the largest intraday gain since at least 1988.
Many will make—or lose—a small fortune on Wall Steet in the coming days and weeks. No doubt, the winners will gas-up the Presidency for protecting America’s economy: tariffs are good! Meanwhile, the losers will accuse him of economic illiteracy: tariffs are bad! Which is it? Are tariffs good or bad?
The answer: both.
Tariffs are good when they promote economic growth or economic self-sufficiency. If not, then tariffs are just another useless tax.
Tariffs on copper accomplishes neither of these objectives. In fact, tariffs on copper—like tariffs on any other raw or exotic material—hurts the economy and makes America less safe in the long run. That is not to say that maintaining supplies of copper is not important—it is—but tariffs are not the most efficient way to solve this problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at substack.com ...
1. Reduce regulations & green light more copper mines/recycling facilities.
2. Expand the National Stockpile program.
3. Subsidize copper mines to expand supply (cheaper than tariffing all the copper).
Google AI:
AI Overview
Several organizations and experts have highlighted the strategic importance of copper, particularly in the context of global trends towards clean energy and advanced technologies.
Arguments for declaring copper a strategic resource include:
Essential for Critical Technologies:
Copper is vital for applications like electric vehicles (EVs), renewable energy (solar panels and wind turbines), advanced electronics, and defense systems.
National Security and Economic Stability:
Ensuring a stable supply of copper is crucial for a nation’s security and economic strength, given its use in defense applications, infrastructure, and emerging technologies.
Supply Chain Vulnerability:
The United States faces vulnerabilities in the copper supply chain, with increasing reliance on foreign sources for mined, smelted, and refined copper. This vulnerability poses a direct threat to national security and economic stability.
Growing Demand and Potential Shortages:
Demand for copper is projected to rise significantly in the coming decades, fueled by electrification and technological advancements, creating a potential supply crisis.
Domestic Production Potential:
Despite reliance on imports, the U.S. has considerable copper reserves and the potential to expand domestic production with appropriate policy and investment.
Declaring copper a strategic resource could lead to various benefits, including:
Prioritizing Domestic Production:
Encourage investment and streamline permitting for domestic copper mining and processing projects.
Strengthening Supply Chains:
Incentivize the development of domestic smelting and refining capacity to reduce reliance on foreign sources, particularly from countries that may pose geopolitical risks.
Facilitating Research and Development:
Promote initiatives to find alternative materials or substitute for copper, and improve recycling processes.
Strategic Stockpiling:
Potentially establish stockpiles of refined copper to mitigate the impact of supply disruptions.
Enhanced Economic Development:
Support the growth of a domestic copper industry, creating jobs and stimulating economic activity.
However, there are also economic implications to consider:
Potential for Price Volatility:
Classifying copper as strategic could influence its market price and potentially lead to increased costs for industries that rely on it.
Trade Policy Implications:
The potential for tariffs or restrictions on copper imports could impact international trade relations and potentially lead to retaliatory measures.
Environmental Concerns:
Increased domestic mining and processing activities may raise environmental concerns related to land use, water consumption, and pollution.
Ultimately, the decision to declare copper a strategic resource involves weighing the benefits of securing a reliable and resilient domestic supply against the potential economic and environmental consequences.
It would appear that someone is on the wrong side of a copper futures contract.
No subsidies! They never end.
Mainstream projections underestimate copper demand for the Green New Deal's rapid decarbonization. Higher-end estimates suggest:
Supply lags (6–20 Mt shortfall by 2035) and mining's environmental toll challenge feasibility, exposing green industry optimism bias.
I am not interested in providing subsidies for something like copper.
I am interested in making copper mining and production both legal and profitable.
That involves reducing the amount of mining licensing and associated environmental regulatory red tape to allow it to happen.
If people can make a profit out of of something and not destroy the environment in the exploitation of our natural resources, we should encourage them to do so, but we don’t need subsidies to do it.
Agree, but that is a longstanding problem…
Developing a copper mine in the United States typically takes nearly 29 years on average from discovery to production, making it one of the longest timelines globally—only Zambia has a longer average at 34 years.
This extended timeframe is largely due to lengthy permitting processes, complex regulatory requirements, and investment uncertainties.
Tariffs are by fiat.
Solving the existing problems are now worthwhile.
Until they are solved, it was easier to go anywhere in the world and mine copper.
One of the stated goals of the Trump Administration is to remove large amounts of the bureaucratic red tape on drilling, mining, nuclear plant construction, and so on to foster domestic sources.
They want to decrease that from years or months to days. I approve wholly of that.
The weakness is, even if we farm it out to other countries who can do it cheaper, even with slave labor, and the environmental burden is place on them so we can keep our environment clean, we are at risk because of that.
We no longer have control over the whole process, and in a political or warfare disruption, we are vulnerable. As we are, right now.
Tariffs are an obvious component. Copper produced in another country by near slave-labor makes our domestically produced copper unaffordable. A tariff may help with that.
The U.S. has more than 48 trillion tons of copper reserves in states like Arizona, Nevada, Minnesota and Utah. Companies like Freeport-McMoRan, Rio Tinto and Hudbay Minerals are already producing copper domestically and stand ready to expand operations if given the chance.
Those relying too much on foreign copper need to become investors in expanding U.s. copper mining.
They finally shut down the last mines in the area not because the mines are played out but because it became so hard to get state permission to continue and they were tired of being sued.
Some subsidies have to persist when there are too few suppliers in the supply chain. E.g., rare metals. Yeah, the NAmerican continent has everything. But, lots of stuff are difficult to get to, especially since the treehuggers control so much and make Luddites seem tame.
“Some subsidies have to persist when there are too few suppliers in the supply chain.”
Nope. If there is a market there will be supply. Screwing around with supply & demand, picking winners and losers, is why there are shortages. Government has no place in commerce.
All domestic supply issues are temporary.
The tariff does not restrict importation of copper. It’s not an embargo.
Capitalist pig dogs are going to mine copper in the USA with a built in 50 percent profit. You betcha.
I realize this, but it creates breathing room as we solve our huge problems here.
I love that he does these completely useless tariffs to keep the liberals guessing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.