Tariffs

Trump's Food Tariffs Hit U.S. Consumers Where it Hurts

New tariffs on E.U. goods mean we'll all pay more for tasty cheeses and delicious wines.

|

A new round of food tariffs totaling $7.5 billion—imposed by the Trump administration last week on foods hailing from European Union member countries—is already impacting your wallet, USA Today reports.

Targets of the new tariffs include Scotch, liqueurs, wines, pork products, cheeses, fruits, and seafood.

Those tariffs, paired with others already in place, are hitting American consumers where it hurts most. Even before the latest tariffs, food costs were nearly two percent higher last month than they were a year ago.

"New 25 percent U.S. tariffs on Italian cheese, French wine, Scotch whisky, British biscuits, Spanish olives and thousands of other European food products will lead to higher prices ahead of the holiday season and cost American jobs," Reuters reports.

While awful, these tariffs could have been even worse. The Trump administration, ahead of the WTO ruling, signaled its intent to slap 100 percent tariffs on a host of E.U.-origin foods, including wines, cheeses, and olive oils, Salon reported last month before the WTO ruling.

The negative impact of these tariffs is already apparent.

A policy brief published last month by the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonprofit that focuses on trade issues, found the Trump "administration's tariffs will have cost the average household $1,315 over a two-year period."

The tariffs are sowing uncertainty at home. The Dallas Observer reports U.S. restaurateurs and grocers that sell E.U. goods are unsure who will eat the 25 percent tariffs—them, importers, consumers, or, as seems most likely, all of the above. Regardless, experts say they'll hit U.S. small business particularly hard.

Unsurprisingly, the tariffs are also bad for E.U. food producers.

"French vintners are begging for government aid," ABC News reports. "Italian farmers are scrambling for new export markets."

The WTO's green light for the U.S. to impose tariffs on E.U. goods was meant to punish the E.U. for illegally subsidizing aircraft maker Airbus. But with the WTO yet to rule on a European complaint about American government subsidies for U.S. aircraft maker Boeing, it's likely the E.U. will soon get the green light to impose its own round of retaliatory tariffs on U.S. food producers. 

This tit for tat doesn't have a logical end point. Consider that the E.U. imposed tariffs on some American food products last year in response to U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs.

In addition to the E.U. food producers, the victims of these tariffs include American consumers—who now pay more for European goods—and U.S. producers, who will likely face their own tariffs down the road if the WTO rules, as expected, in the Boeing case.

In 2018, I lamented the fact Trump administration's plans to impose a host of tariffs on Chinese goods—particularly food. Retaliatory Chinese tariffs followed. Tariffs, I wrote, "cost jobs; hurt domestic and foreign producers, consumers, and taxpayers; put the petty interests of government over those of the public; and are prone to spinning out of control."

Then, in a column this summer, I noted that Trump already had doubled down on his anti-China tariffs, hurting U.S. farmers and consumers alike.

I also cautioned that things could get worse on the tariffs front. This month, they've done just that.

To be fair, the E.U. and China are just as wrongheaded to impose tariffs on U.S. foods as the U.S. is to impose tariffs on foods from the E.U. and China. Trade is good for everyone. Trade wars, like most real wars, ultimately don't benefit anyone, save the saber-rattling populists and protectionists who support them.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: October 26, 1774

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trade wars, like most real wars, ultimately don’t benefit anyone

    Yeah other than defeating fascism and communism, abolishing slavery, establishing an independent United States of America, arresting the Islamic conquest of Europe, what the fuck benefit has war ever done?

    1. Well, I hope that your upbeat sentiments about war will help your ghost and my ghost and the ghosts of 7.8 billion other assorted dead humans (plus Government Almighty knows how many animals), as we waft about in the toxic breezes, over the nuclear ashes of a post-WW-III, dead planet.

      1. As soon as Trump is finished abandoning our allies in the middle east he is going to start WWIII amirite Mikey?

        1. No, 2 decades of futile Middle-East wars are quite enough, and The Donald is correct, for once, in at least ATTEMPTING to pull out.

          https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/opinions/syria-kurds-trump-withdrawal-kent/index.html
          Gold star husband: On Syria withdrawal, Trump is right

          In Iraq, by removing Saddam… When the cat’s away, the mice will play… We unleashed ethnic-religious strife. More suicide bombings, less peace, was the result!

          WW III is now more and more likely, as an outgrowth of trade wars with China. One doesn’t declare war nearly as easily, when two nations are deeply “wedded at the hip” with economic interdependence… Which Trump is tearing down, right and left!

          But why am I trying to persuade you of anything… Have you EVER changed your mind, due to what you have read here? Do facts matter?

    2. Anyone can cherry pick a few “good” wars over 250 years, especially when TFA actually said, and you actually quoted, “like most real wars”.

      1. Not to mention which, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and about half the country would beg to differ with the idea that we defeated fascism, communism, slavery or Islam. Or that fighting them is even a good idea.

  2. Guess you’ll have to buy old fashioned Wisconsin cheddar cheese to go with your whine from here on out.

    1. Proggies should be loving this – soak the rich on their luxury goods. Who really needs anything better than the green can of sawdust parmesan?

      1. Nobody needs 27 kinds of cheese.

        1. *slaps desk in fit of raucous laughter*

  3. The EU and European nations collectively before that have been protectionist of their agriculture sector for my entire adult life.

    They don’t only do this through tariffs and subsidies, but also through sham regulations. Right now it is GMO bans that purport to protect Europe from the scourge of Franken-foods, but actually are intended to defend against superior US farm productivity in staple goods. They have had a shifting set of reasons, but the result has always been the same – limiting US access to European food markets.

    I’m not sure how you crack that nut, but it would definitely be a good thing for the US to have better access to that market.

    And as to aerospace subsidies…. well, isn’t that all subsidies, all the time?

    Airbus is nothing but a government project – so I don’t even know how they could exist without subsidies. And Boeing? Well, they are champions at suckling at that government teat. They get a chunk of the ULA’s “readiness” fee – a billion dollars a year simply to be available as a launch provider. And they have the lion’s share of the SLS – dubbed the Senate Launch System, it is so pork laden. Even after spending more than $20 billion to develop, that thing is going to ring in at a billion dollars per launch.

    So I’m not sure why we are pretending that the fight is over aerospace. There’s nothing “free trade” in that world.

    But there is a legitimate and winnable fight to be had over Europe’s sham regulatory protectionism schemes.

    1. +100

      A reset of trade policies would do everyone in the World good. It is taking a person like Trump to shake things up. Canada and Mexico lowered some of their trade restrictions to access the US markets. China and the EU are still resisting lowering their trade restrictions but want full access to US markets.

      I wish the World had free trade but it’s not going to happen with nations like Communist China refusing to lower their trade restrictions.

      1. Unilateral disarmament is always a winning strategy in Reasonland.

        1. Trade war, trade war, and MORE trade war, ALWAYS more trade war, is always a winning strategy in TrumpTardLand! But in reality, it is a straight-party-line vote to utter poverty, if followed to the hilt!

          If trade wars are good, every on of the 50 states in the USA should declare trade wars on every other state… And then county on county, city on city, and finally, SQRLSY One’s household should trade with NO ONE… Good jobs ONLY for residents of SQRLSY One’s household!!! No one else DESERVES to trade with me!!! I will do my own iron ore mining, smelting, tool manufacture, food growing, cloth weaving, home dentistry, you name it… It is actually a straight-line ticket to utter poverty!!!

          1. Heres the thing dumbass… you arent actually arguing to end trade wars. You’re arguing to dismantle any retaliation from Americas side while bending over for other countries.

            1. The only way to “win” in cut-off-your-nose -to-spite-your-face contests, is to NOT play! Let the other side do it to their heart’s content!

        2. The media also likes using the term “Trade War” as it allows them to say nonsense that only applies when their Lefties are not in the White House.

          If there really is a war on trade, then its the longest running war in United States history with ZERO DEATHS directly caused by that war.

  4. Drumpf’s tariffs — along with his draconian war on immigration — have directly caused a global recession. Exactly as Paul Krugman predicted. I suspect food tariffs are a big reason why regular people are finding it necessary to work 2 or 3 jobs just to scrape by.

    Of greater interest to Koch / Reason libertarians, however, is the disastrous effect of tariffs on the planet’s richest people. Take our billionaire benefactor Charles Koch for instance. His net worth has stagnated in the $58,000,000,000 to $60,000,000,000 range for much of Drumpf’s Presidency. Unacceptable!

    #DrumpfRecession
    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

    1. Disappointing. You failed to mention that it was AOC who pointed out the need for prople to work 2 or 3 jobs.

      1. You’re right. I should have given credit to AOC, especially since she’s the best Congressional ally libertarians have right now. Did you know she also has a degree in economics?

        #LibertariansForAOC

        1. International relations and economics.

      2. Is she still bartending part time?

  5. If only reason had complained about all the trade restrictions on US goods entering the EU.

    Trump offered free trade at the G-7 Summit. Our trading partners refused. Since then Canada and Mexico caved and lowered some trade restrictions.

    1. The USMCA is worse on tariffs and non-tariff aspects than NAFTA.

      Don’t ask for cites; you’ve never come through on your promises to show cites, and a simple google will find plenty.

      Go ahead and call me a weak troll, it’s about the best rejoinder you’ve ever done, but it gets repetitive.

      Or fade away.

      That’s about the only three choices you’ve ever used.

      1. Jesus fucking christ. You know you’ve read neither deal in its entirety. You also havent researched any macro data to prove your inference. We wont k ow what is worse until the industries react and settle to new market parameters. Your self assuring knowledge in economics makes you look really dumb.

    2. Poor alphabet troll.

      Will never compare and contrast NAFTA vs. USMCA its claims that one is worse than the other.

      1. I don’t have to; you promised to and never did. To wit:

        loveconstitution1789|12.3.18 @ 10:20AM|#

        Do you need me to link the rules of NAFTA and USCMA so you can compare and contrast the “worseness” for us?

      2. Check out this alphabet troll.

        It cannot even understand Americans English.

        Reality is much stranger than fiction.

  6. The EU would let the UK exit rather than conform to less regulation, etc. I see no reason to believe Trump’s tariffs will persuade them to change more than that, and I don’t see why American consumers should suffer higher prices to benefit American farmers. This is pure political calculation and the area where Trump is most vulnerable to legitimate criticism.

    I will say this, all the B.S. criticism of Trump we see from other writers around here really hurts when it comes to legitimate criticism. With Boehm and ENB crying wolf for no good reason all the time, it makes it really hard for writers like Linnekin when a real wolf comes strolling along.

    I’m not saying that’s the way it should be.

    I’m saying that’s the way it is.

    1. Linnekin is not the kind of writer we need either. he lies through omission.

      According to Linnekin, all the trade stuff is Trump’s fault.

      The current increased trade restrictions by the USA are mostly Trump’s fault. Congress is letting him do it, so they deserve a percentage of the fault.

      The facts are that international trade includes varying degrees of trade restrictions between the USA and trading partners and it has been this way for a long time. Those costs are just forgotten in this trade policy debate because TDS is rampant at reason Writing Central.

      Trump wants to shake things up with trade and under his American First strategy, get the USA lower trade restrictions with our trading partners. The MSM cannot admit that is what his strategy is. So they debate from a position of lies.

      Boehm and ENB lie on nearly everything they write, so an article that fully discusses the actual state of trade policy, strategy, and opinions of those affected would stand out like a giant thumbs up here at reason. Linnekin’s stuff doesnt really stand out because its mostly the same lies via omission to TDS.

      1. You read too much Trumpism into everything you read. Nowhere did this article blame Trump for everything trade-related.

        Your commentary on what Trump “wants” is pretty funny, considering even Trump doesn’t really know what he wants from moment to moment. Maybe you should qualify your explanation of what he wants with a specific date and time.

        1. So now you’re aiming Eric boehm isnt a writer at this site?

      2. “A new round of food tariffs totaling $7.5 billion—imposed by the Trump administration last week on foods hailing from European Union member countries—is already impacting your wallet, USA Today reports.”

        That’s Trump. That’s a bad thing.

        Trump’s criticisms of the EU and NATO member countries are legitimate, but his solutions to those problems are mistakes.

        The reason our defenses of Trump are credible is because they’re accurate and true. We also gain a lot of personal credibility for being willing to honestly criticize Trump when he’s wrong.

        Remember that time Gillespie was on TV with Rachel Madow? From memory, Madow started making fun of Gillespie for suggesting that she might be a hack. He responded by asking her for evidence that she’d ever disagreed with Obama on anything. Over how ever many years of policy decisions by Obama, she couldn’t think of one thing she disagreed with Obama on. Married people who love each don’t agree that closely–and she can’t even think of one good reason to criticize Barack Obama?!

        People who can’t think of anything they like about President Trump is an excellent reason to suspect someone might have TDS. If someone, for instance, criticizes President Trump for taking the necessary steps to get our of Syria–after that someone spent years arguing to get the U.S. military out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and everywhere else they can think of–then that’s a pretty good indication we’re dealing with a TDS victim. I disagree with President Trump on a number of topics, and I’m happy to point out to people where he’s wrong–and that’s presumably one way to be clear that I’m not a victim of Reverse TDS.

        Being able to criticize Trump honestly is what separates us from the progressives, who never seem to be able to think of anything bad to say about their leaders or their leaders’ policies. Desmond Doss was the first conscientious objector to win the Medal of Honor for bravery on the battlefield. I can’t think of anything bad to say about him. I won’t say anything about soldiers like Pat Tillman, who gave up so much for the honor to defend the Constitution from its enemies.

        Everyone else, going back a couple thousand years anyway, is fair game. I’ve got criticisms for everyone from Ayn Rand to Rand Paul and Ron Paul, and I’ve got criticisms of everyone from from Rothbard to Hayek. Trump is right about an awful lot of things, and from a libertarian perspective, he’s head and shoulders above the authoritarian and socialist competition in the Democratic Party, and I often find myself saying that after I’m done criticizing his trade policy.

        P.S. I may never forgive Rand Paul for voting against a bill that would have cut $772 billion from Medicaid. FYCS is for Rand Paul, too. Politicians are not to be trusted.

        1. Good points Ken.

          I have some real beefs with Trump but I have let some of them become low priority because he is doing so well on many things, including government rollbacks that I would have never thought of.

          He should have vetoed all federal budgets since FY2018, even if they are veto-proof. Trump should have pulled all troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan in 2017. He should not have ordered bump stock bans.

          You and I don’t have enough fingers to count all the good stuff Trump has done (Gorsuch, 2 for 1 EO repeal, tax cut, regulation rollback, federal worker relocation from DC area, federal judge nominations, prison reform…)

          Trade policy is a tough one for me. I want Free Trade but clearly there are 101 obstacles to that happening. I then become pragmatic with leveraging the most desirable US market and getting lower trade restrictions with our trading partners. I was 95%+ with Trump on this strategy from June 2018-June 2019. He was undermined every day, so clearly the EU and Commies in China are now waiting out Election 2020. I now dont see China caving until Trump wins reelection. Its probably the same for the EU. These Socialists actually believe that Trump wont win, so they wont good faith negotiate. They are stalling.

          1. The big lie is that the latest round of tariffs are going to implode the US economy any day now. A market correction will happen but that happening because of tariffs is almost 100% bullshit.

            There are countless trade restrictions that cost Americans and American business trillions each year yet we thrive in spite of those. Obviously there is a tipping point where the restrictions make trade prohibitive and the dominoes topple. The stuff that really hurts American businesses compared to international trade are required employee costs like Social Security, Medicare, and health insurance. These tariffs are like adding a few points on sales tax rates. Businesses are only impacted by tariffs when they deal in tariffed goods and services. All US businesses have to pay those required taxes based on employee salaries not how many and what kind of goods and services are transacted.

            The other lofty goal is to get lower trade restrictions for the long term. Imagine China paying billions to US IP holders to license tech that are included in millions of Chinese products.

            Trump’s strategies overall gave this Republic a bit more time to walk back from the precipice of doom. He only has 8 years and he is only one guy. The fact that Lefties in the USA, China, and the EU hate Trump illustrates to me that he is moving in the correct direction. Its a fucked up World where that is the case. Lefties are that harmful to American’s well-being.

        2. Ken, the problem with all tariffs are bad delusion or all tariffs are taxes delusion is that it ignore actual data. For 2 years weve heard the economy is collapsing. We hear about the harm to consumers. Yet inflation actually decreased last quarter. Lost in these articles are the existing harms to consumers the existed pre trump, things these articles never touch on. It is dishonest analysis.

          This is the first article to even address inflation and it was 2% inflation from prior to the tariffs it complains about. Again, dishonest analysis.

          1. +1000000000

          2. They play this game every time. Bush Sr. had 4 years of stories about how the economy was in ruins. He had the bad luck of a short recession in his last year. They economy was booming again by the time the election rolled around, but it didn’t get reported in the press until much later.

            They spent all of the Obama administration telling us that 2% growth was the greatest recovery in history, and that 6% unemployment was a miracle in the modern economy.

            5 minutes after Trump gets elected, the mere suspicion that he won’t be as bad as Obama is enough to get business rolling again. Yet we still haven’t heard that drumbeat of stories about the economy.

            All news is apparently propaganda, but news on the economy is the most susceptible of all. I’ve been around long enough for them to have told me that 5% unemployment means that the economy is overheating and that the economy is in recession. They’ve told me that 3% growth is too much, and 5% growth is too little. They’ll claim the news means whatever they want it to mean – and since nobody understands the economic numbers, they can say whatever they want.

            The thing that shocks me is the fact that nobody can remember anything for 5 minutes. I get that nobody knows whether 5% is a good number or a bad number for economic growth. But when they tell me that 3% is a booming economy under Obama, I would expect that everyone else would remember that too when they start telling us that 5% is a harbinger of recession under Trump.

            The nice thing for these prognosticators is that recessions have traditionally rolled around every 4-6 years…. a cycle of 4 good years and two down years. So if you spend the first year of a recovery denying the recovery, then wait a year or year and a half and start predicting the next recession, you’ll always be right within a couple of years. And since nobody can remember anything for more than five minutes, you can spend the entire next cycle reminding everyone how you were right about the last recession.

          3. “For 2 years weve heard the economy is collapsing. We hear about the harm to consumers. Yet inflation actually decreased last quarter.”

            The economy would have been even better if we weren’t arbitrarily forcing consumers and businesses to pay more for the things they want.

            The standard of living increases when consumers can buy more of the things they want for less or can afford to buy things they could afford to buy before. We’re talking about increases in discretionary income. When Trump hits consumers were $100 billion in tariffs, he is artificially inflating the cost of the things consumers want to buy. He’s taking money out of the pockets of American consumers and giving it to the government to squander–which does not improve the standard of living. Even worse, it encourages domestic manufacturers to not bother to improve their efficiency and productivity. They don’t need to make the tough choices necessary to keep their companies profitable because the government is protecting them from foreign competition.

            That’s why the former Soviet Union is uncompetititve in everything but natural resources. For 70 years, the communists protected their industries and workers from foreign competition, and now their industries and workers are so inefficient, they can’t employ people to do much of value on the world market–other than literally dig value out of the ground. The model you’re pursuing is not the path to increases in the standard of living.

            And just because the government can push this stupidity on us for a long time before we finally tip into recession doesn’t mean it isn’t hurting us. We could be better off than we are now, and one of the reasons we aren’t is because of Trump’s tariffs.

            1. Maybe think of it this way. Tariffs are basically a form of rent seeking.

              How can rent seeking be the key to economic growth?

              I don’t know if you’ve ever really investigated the term before. Give it a read if you haven’t.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

              1. “The classic example of rent-seeking, according to Robert Shiller, is that of a feudal lord who installs a chain across a river that flows through his land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee (or rent of the section of the river for a few minutes) to lower the chain. There is nothing productive about the chain or the collector. The lord has made no improvements to the river and is not adding value in any way”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

                How does Trump putting a chain up in the middle of the Atlantic add value to our economy?

                Consumers and businesses used to be able to get the same things for less. Now they have to pay more. Why should American consumers everywhere be forced by the president to sacrifice our standard of living? Is it for the benefit of Boeing workers? What if I don’t care about Boeing workers or climate change? Why should I be forced to sacrifice my standard of living for Boeing or the polar bears?

                Incidentally, this is also one of the big reasons why I oppose the Green New Deal. Being subjected to Trump’s misguided tariffs is better than being subjected to the Green New Deal, but that’s not saying much. A root canal is better than being subjected to the Green New Deal, too.

                1. Who decides what is productive on private property and what is not, and how do they enforce it? A new market will automatically emerge for ways around that river.

                  The EU has the strickest GMO laws in the world, U.S. ag was placed out of those markets long before Trump.

                  “A root canal”? I believe the Hong Kongers are writing their death letters rather than statism.

                  1. “Who decides what is productive on private property and what is not, and how do they enforce it?”

                    Any objective person can see that there is no value added by charging people to cross a barrier that doesn’t serve any useful purpose. In exchange for bearing the cost of having the chain raised, consumers receive no value that they wouldn’t have if that barrier were not there. The only function of the barrier is to raise the cost of products to consumers.

                    The difference between that and buying a cheeseburger locally is that when consumers buy a cheeseburger, they get a cheeseburger. This is different from Donald Trump’s chain across the Atlantic because in exchange for the costs added to goods that cross Donald Trump’s chain, American consumers get absolutely nothing. It’s an empty expense with no associated value to them.

                    You’ve raised my costs by 20% with a tariff, so what do I get for the added cost?

                    Do I get 20% more?

                    No. Consumers get nothing of value for the added cost.

                    When you take away people’s discretionary income without adding value, you hurt their standard of living. When people can buy the same things for less, their standard of living improves. It frees up more discretionary income, which also lets them buy things they couldn’t afford before.

                    To the extent that the UAW, the United Steel Workers, or other unions or the companies they work for push such tariffs, they do so by depriving American consumers of the means by which their standard of living improves. It is an empty expense on consumers and the economy and it comes with no associated value. You’re making American consumers pay extra for nothing.

                    The idea that the economy would grow more and living standards for working Americans would improve–if only American consumers were forced to pay more for the same things they buy now–is fucking retarded. There is no good reason to believe that is true. Living standards improve when more Americans can buy the same things for less.

                    Meanwhile if other countries, like those in the EU, want to hurt their own consumers’ standard of living by slapping tariffs on American made goods, then why should we shoot ourselves in the foot, too?

                    “A new market will automatically emerge for ways around that river.”

                    You mean the black market?

                    We have one of those with narcotics. Importing things through the black market, where they don’t pay tariffs, bring all sorts of other problems to civil society. Jacking tariffs up so high that criminal enterprises like the cartels and the mafia grow in influence isn’t the road to prosperity for working Americans either.

    2. You sound like a commie. If other countries are going to punch themselves in the nuts with trade barriers, we must punch ourselves in the nuts twice as hard or there will be a nut-punch deficit, and nobody wants that. If Americans have to suffer in order to make America great, well, all true patriots should be cheerfully willing to sacrifice for the greater glory of the State. Unless they’re a commie.

      Now if you want to argue that trade wars are better than shooting wars with our enemies and a necessary part of the contest, let’s be clear that this is exactly what we’re doing. None of this bullshit little bitch whining about how unfair all the mean girls are being by picking on us, none of this bullshit ignorant-ass bullshit about how trade wars are great and easy to win and how we’re all so much better off paying tariffs because trade is a zero-sum game and if we’re trading little pieces of paper for shiploads of merchandise we’re somehow getting fucked in the ass. If we’re at war with the rest of the world, if everybody hates us and everybody is the enemy, let’s be clear that we are at war. Make the case for why everybody who’s not an American should be punished for not being an American.

      1. “None of this bullshit little bitch whining about how unfair all the mean girls are being by picking on us”

        Boeing is struggling to compete with Airbus because Airbus has been the beneficiary of subsidies that are not allowed by the rules of the WTO. Meanwhile, the same governments that are subsidizing Airbus are also subsidizing European carriers, which may do as much as anything to explain why the fleets of European carriers are dominated by Airbus. Again, the problems President Trump is addressing are real–regardless of whether his “solutions” are undesirable.

        This is classic Jane Fonda syndrome. Because we don’t like the solution some people are proposing (The Vietnam War), doesn’t mean we need to pretend that the North Vietnamese never tortured American POWs. If you don’t like the Vietnam War or Trump’s tariffs, find a way to criticize them that avoids the pitfall of being delusional about the very real nature of the problem that’s being addressed. If you can’t think of a way to oppose Trump imposing tariffs on U.S. consumers without pretending that EU countries are subsidizing Airbus in violation of WTO rules, then you’re just hurting the argument against those tariffs by making the position seem delusional.

        It is perfectly consistent with the facts to both acknowledge that the EU is breaking the rules and oppose tariffs that hurt American consumers anyway.

      2. The fact that you fail to realize game theory is an integral part of economics makes you look fucking stupid.

  7. Well, I need to get cheese out of my diet anyway.

    1. Don’t believe the hype. Dairy is good for you, unless you’re actually lactose intolerant.

  8. Thank god this article doesn’t include the stupid remark that costs pushes forward like tariff costs be labeled as taxes

  9. “Even before the latest tariffs, food costs were nearly two percent higher last month than they were a year ago.”

    So… we now use normal, and actually fairly low, inflationary data from before tariffs took effect to prove tariffs are bad…

    Is this site being tutored by Krugman?

    1. My first thought, too. So food inflation is about…2%? Prices rise over time. Whod’a thunk?

      And I’m pretty sure that the average American isn’t going to notice higher prices on Italian cheese and French wine. But it will certainly hit those people in Fairfax and Prince George Counties pretty hard.

      It’s in articles like these where the Reason staff unwittingly reveal their Acela Corridor elitism for all the world to see.

      1. Yes! It is a wonderful illustration on the complete disconnection between those who would govern, and the governed = And I’m pretty sure that the average American isn’t going to notice higher prices on Italian cheese and French wine. But it will certainly hit those people in Fairfax and Prince George Counties pretty hard.

    2. Everyone knows the US at industry is so verify of production that we need to rely on the overregulated and protected EU Ag industry to feed our people. Oh, what was that, European ag products are a fraction of a percentage of us foods. Well, I’m sure that will drive food inflation. SMH.

  10. Trump “administration’s tariffs will have cost the average household $1,315 over a two-year period.”

    Since the average US household spends exactly $0 on Italian cheese, French wine, single-malt Scotch, and kippers, I’m sure that’s not true. This is a highly progressive tax that targets only the affluent. Don’t expect regular Americans to care.

    1. Stop analyzing these claims. Just take them at face value.

      I mean, nobody could possibly buy their Parmesan cheese from Wisconsin. According to this site there are only 39 specialty cheeses made in the state of Wisconsin. Well, they only sell 39 specialty cheeses made in Wisconsin. But you get the idea. If they don’t have it on their website, it must be really hard to get.

      Plus, California wines tend to be really bold and flavorful. You have to go to European wines for a good table wine that you can just drink with dinner.

      1. Or, just open another Bud. Goes great with Kraft Mac’n’Cheese.

      2. The Columbia basin produces some great wines, and cheaper than California wines. I recommend 14 Hands, they do some great economically priced reds. Oregon and Idaho cheeses are also pretty decent. Most “Spanish” olives eaten in the US are grown in California and nearby states. Outside of a few products, mainly lamb and goat, the US surpasses the rest of the world I’m quality and quantity.

    2. Now, now. It also taxes Spanish olives. That might add entire dollars to my budget.

      1. Except most “Spanish” olives sold in the US come from California.

    3. Well, depends. If it causes real Canadian maple syrup to rise in price, then we’re going to have problems.

      1. Another thing average Americans don’t buy, because it’s already too expensive for them even without a punitive tariff.

        1. Or because they can get perfectly equal quality for lower costs from American products.

    4. “Don’t expect regular Americans to care.”

      We don’t. And that’s the purpose of this Trump bashing article; the author is desperate to convince us that these tariffs are bad because they create a tiny increase in the cost of imported luxury foods that we don’t even buy.

      $1,315 over a two-year period is $1.80 a day, that’s less than what we pay to use our phone for one day or buy a small coffee. And it’s not like we don’t have access to the vast amounts of food produced in the US; the nation with the world’s largest agricultural output.

      Linnekin is just going to have to settle for domestic luxury foods. Or get a better paying job.

    5. I thought the same thing, but instead, I think the journo who wrote this is just being lazy. The $1,315 probably includes Chinese tariffs on things like appliances that actual middle-class people buy. This is more like a Trump troll tax. He’s trolling the libs because he knows that most of his supporters do not buy these products, or at least, they would not admit to buying these products. Lazy journalists who pump out the $1,315 stat in this context are just doing Trump’s bidding. He knows it will create a backlash so that we will forget the Chinese tariffs.

  11. Why doesn’t Congress put a stop to this illegal tariff nonsense? I’m sure they have the power.

    1. Look, Congress is helpless — helpless — against the onslaught of the Evil Orange Man, and must resort to unprecedented procedures like secret hearings and administrative subterfuge to remove him from office.

      But since Congress can’t actually vote on anything like impeachment, or trade policy, or immigration, or federal spending, or taxes, it’s up to the courts and the unelected federal bureaucracy to save America.

  12. What was Trump asking from these nations not to impose these tariffs? Did any of these nations offer any alternatives? If not then either they expected Trump to fold which Trump will not do or were bluffing. These same nations have enjoyed the US’s protection every since WWll and have not had to pay full price.
    Now the US could withdraw form Europe and allow them to find their own defense if they desire. That for me would be the best for the world at large. This would allow the US to form bilateral trade agreements with individual bases which would be better for the US anyway.

  13. Maybe our population obesity rate will take a hit as well…. 🙂

    1. Nah, you’ve got it backwards. It’s CHEAP food that makes you fat. That’s why we have an obesity problem among people who survive on SNAP, food pantries, and school lunches.

  14. Totally O/T, but behold the stupid:

    The hang tag left on my front door from 3 candidates for SCHOOL BOARD. 3 paragraphs. 2 major grammatical errors. Gotta love this one:

    “This program will all for Tuition based students which will help save ALL MONROE TAXPAYERS!!!!!!”

    That’s verbatim including the cap T on tuition.

  15. In other news, CNN bravely reports on US troop movements in a war zone, because fuck Trump, I guess.

    The Pentagon declined to give an official comment on troop movements, citing security reasons.

    I guess the Pentagon doesn’t hate Trump as much as CNN does.

    1. It’s stuff like this that will guarantee a Trump victory next year.

      If the Media (including Reason) were willing to report the news in an unbiased fashion free from emotion, hyperbole, and distortion, Trump’s popularity would be in the low teens right now.

      But because the Media are collectively acting like a spoiled 13 year-old when it comes to Trump, and constantly screech out a stream of ORANGE MAN BAD!! invective, it causes most Americans to tune out and ignore them, or actively despise them.

      Corporate Media, as it has existed for the past century and a half, is dead; their hysterical hatred of Trump caused them to commit professional suicide. No matter who wins in 2020, the real loser will be the members of the press.

    2. News outlets are beginning to report the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of ISIS, in a special ops raid. Newsweek is reporting that he blew himself up.

      October surprise!

      1. You’ll have to convince me that Baghdadi actually existed before I can believe he’s dead.

        1. You’ll have to show me how you attained anticausailty by replying before I commented.

  16. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
    pop over to this website …….. Read More

  17. The tariffs are fine. Trump told me that China is paying for it. No worries. Terrific.

  18. Cheese and wine? Sounds to me like politicians and elites hardest hit

    1. LOL wtf? I can buy a great European wine for less than $8 . Am I “elite” lol . Just cause I don’t drink bud because it’s piss water?

  19. Trump is a better president in my opinion and I especially love his immediate decisions on anything. You can check out the kroger feedback at https://www.krogerfeedback.red/

  20. Just buy Chilean instead

    1. Or Californian,Oregonin, Idahoahan, Wisconsinite, New Mexican etc.

  21. I won’t, I’ll just buy more American spirits and cheeses. American cheese is as good as anything from Europe, we just don’t have as much variety.

Please to post comments