This patented device creates bespoke underwater photos. Now it faces Trump's Brazil tariffs
In the terrestrial places where JR deSouza makes a living, the levies enacted last week hit a lot harder.
'It has caused me a lot of lost sleep,' said deSouza, whose company, Outex, makes underwater camera housings, manufactured in plants in Brazil and in Long Beach, San Fernando and Downey.
DeSouza is a married father of two who lives in La Cañada. He had a winning career in product management and marketing with companies like TiVo, Disney and DreamWorks Animation, before he founded Outex 15 years ago.
The 54-year-old grew up in Brazil and came to the U.S. in high school to pursue a swimming career, which led him to the University of Tennessee and the Brazilian Olympic team. On the Rose Bowl masters swim team in Pasadena, he's the amiable teammate who has a kind word for everyone, even the flounderers who swim in his wake.
In creating Outex, deSouza combined his passion for the water (he also surfs and snorkels) and photography, which he picked up from his father.
He told me his company has sold tens of thousands of Outex devices, mostly to professional photographers, but also to serious amateurs, who want to take pictures in and around the water. The devices can even be used with mobile phone cameras. They get strong ratings online for flexibility, durability and picture quality.
Then came Trump and his tariffs, which have thrown entrepreneurs worldwide into a dither. The charges against Brazilian goods are among the highest the president has imposed.
Trump generally asserts that his tariffs hit countries that 'looted' the U.S. with unfair trade practices. But America maintains a trade surplus with Brazil. The president levied the high tariffs, instead, because Brazil's former leader and his ally, Jair Bolsonaro, has been put on house arrest and accused of plotting a coup for attempt to overturn the last presidential election. (Sound familiar?) Trump calls the case against Bolsonaro a 'witch hunt.'
DeSouza doesn't want to get into those politics. He just wants to assure that his business weathers the tempest, knowing that Trump frequently has shifted tariffs, with little warning. The exact levy on Outex housings is hard to calculate, because of the company's complex net of supply and assembly across two nations.
The businessman said it's possible he could shift more of his operation to the U.S., but would take time and considerable planning.
'It's very difficult for businesses, especially ones selling directly to consumers, to absorb a 50% price increase overnight,' deSouza said. He's doing his best 'to absorb some of it with our manufacturing and assembly partners here in the United States and in Brazil,' but ultimately he will have to pass some of the cost on to customers.
'We may have to lay off some workers and cut growth expenses to preserve the business and navigate through it.'
He's feeling forgotten amid the global hubbub, but hoping someone in the government can help small business people like him. 'Big corporations can afford lobbyists and lawyers and, you know, people who are focused on gaming the system,' he said. 'Smaller businesses don't have the same resources. They are just trying to make a product and deliver value.'
DeSouza became an American citizen years ago. 'I want what is best for the United States and for small business,' he said, 'Right now, the ambiguity and complexity is wreaking havoc.'
Today's great photo is from Times photographer Christina House outside a Pasadena hotel where Sydney, a handsome but skittish dog, helps Eaton fire evacuees heal.
Jim Rainey, staff writerDiamy Wang, homepage internIzzy Nunes, audience internKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew Campa, Sunday writerKarim Doumar, head of newsletters
How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tariff rebate checks in 2025? What we know about current legislation
(WJW) – It's not a pandemic stimulus check, but Congress is currently weighing the possibility of sending the American people more money. As part of the American Worker Rebate Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri in July, people would receive hundreds of dollars in tariff rebate checks, which work to counteract the financial burden imposed on families by the Trump administration's tariffs. As the bill stands now, a household would get $600 for every child and adult – meaning a family of four would receive $2,400. Check amounts go down for those U.S. residents who are making more than $150,000 as a family or $75,000 individually. The bill has not been passed by the Senate or the House, and it must overcome multiple obstacles before being brought to President Trump's desk to sign. However, last month, Trump did say he was 'thinking about' approving a rebate. If the revenue from the latest tariff rollout exceeds projections, the bill leaves room for a larger rebate to be sent out to the American people. So far, there has been no word from Congress or the IRS on the possibility of a fourth stimulus check, like those issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A rebate is a refund of something already paid for, while a stimulus is simply money given to pump up the economy. The U.S. Senate is currently on break for the summer and will be back in action on Sept. 2.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Newsom outlines plan to combat Trump, GOP redistricting
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will speak to reporters Thursday afternoon as the mid-decade redistricting battle heats up across the U.S. ahead of the 2026 midterms, a day after announcing the ' Liberation Day ' event. His remarks come as Democrats push back against GOP 'gerrymandering' efforts in Texas that could give Republicans five additional seats in next year's election. Newsom sent a letter to President Trump and red state leaders earlier this week urging them to end the redistricting war. After Trump missed the deadline to respond, the governor said the Golden State would also be redrawing its House maps to counteract attempts to 'rig' the lines in the Lone Star State. The event is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
