Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Free Trade

Trump's Proposed Tariffs Would Cost Families $1,700 Annually

"The scale of trade barriers proposed by candidate Trump is unprecedented."

Eric Boehm | 5.22.2024 12:15 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
nathan-cima-2JNNpq4nGls-unsplash | Photo by Nathan Cima on Unsplash
(Photo by Nathan Cima on Unsplash)

A set of new tariffs proposed by former President Donald Trump would cost the average American family an estimated $1,700 annually—and lower-income households would be hit relatively harder, a new analysis warns.

Trump has called for a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all imports combined with higher tariffs (potentially as high as 60 percent, he's claimed) aimed specifically at imports from China. Together, those two policies would cost Americans about $500 billion per year, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), a trade-focused think tank.

"The scale of trade barriers proposed by candidate Trump is unprecedented," write PIIE senior fellows Kimberly Clausing and Mary E. Lovely. Thanks to the past several years of higher tariffs under both Trump and President Joe Biden, there is ample empirical evidence about the impact of tariffs, they add.

"Importantly, these studies convincingly find no evidence of terms-of-trade benefits for the United States from these tariffs. Rather, the data show that higher tariffs are fully reflected in higher prices for U.S. buyers."

The PIIE estimate for the cost of Trump's newly proposed tariffs matches what other analyses of the plan have found. Last month, a report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) Action Fund, a left-leaning think tank, estimated that Trump's proposed tariffs would cost the average American household $1,500 annually. That includes "a $90 tax increase on food, a $90 tax increase on prescription drugs, and a $120 tax increase on oil and petroleum products."

Separately, an analysis by the Tax Foundation estimates that Trump's plans would raise taxes on Americans by more than $300 billion, with the higher prices rebounding throughout the economy, translating into higher costs for businesses and consumers, shrinking economic growth, and diminished exports.

"In contrast to Trump's frequent, and mistaken, claims that foreigners bear the impact of tariffs, economists have long understood that tariffs burden domestic purchasers of imported goods," the new PIIE report concludes. Even though tariffs provide some protectionism for domestic industries, the report concludes that the "losses to domestic buyers…exceed the sum of benefits to producers and tariff revenues."

The new PIIE report is also a useful rejoinder to an argument that's recently been pushed by Oren Cass, a former advisor to Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah), who has become one of the leading pro-tariff voices within the nationalist conservative movement. Cass has argued on X (formerly Twitter) that economists are misapplying the term "inflationary" to describe tariffs because other tax increases would not be described that way.

Source: X (https://twitter.com/oren_cass/status/1785306482101170679)
(Source: X (https://twitter.com/oren_cass/status/1785306482101170679))

 

There's plenty of evidence that tariffs are inflationary in addition to being a tax increase, but this is ultimately a somewhat pedantic point.

Let's say Cass is right and it's inaccurate to describe tariffs as inflationary because they are taxes. OK, so then Trump is proposing a massive tax hike on American businesses and families. How is that better?

More to the point, the average consumer likely doesn't care whether they are paying higher prices because of inflation or because of taxes. Cass and the other economic nationalists like to pretend they are more in touch with the working class and real Americans' concerns, but trying to explain to regular folks that "don't worry, your household necessities got more expensive because we decided to hike your taxes, not because of inflation" doesn't seem like a winning message to me. As a general rule, Americans don't love paying higher taxes.

It's also pretty telling that the Trump campaign isn't even trying to engage in Cass-style intellectual gymnastics to justify the former president's plan to hike taxes and prices on Americans.

"American people don't need papers from alleged 'experts' to know that they'll have more money in their pockets with President Trump," a spokesman for the campaign told Marketwatch.

Being a populist means never having to admit you're wrong. And if someone demonstrates that you are, you can always just claim they are bad because they know things.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Louisiana Moves To Make Abortion Pills a Controlled Substance

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

Free TradeDonald TrumpTariffsTrump AdministrationBiden AdministrationEconomic NationalismEconomicsConservatism
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (80)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Don't look at me!   12 months ago

    Expanding the money supply causes inflation.

    1. sCuLLeRcRUsHEr   12 months ago

      I hate when data is presented in false, misleading ways. Sloppy journalism, and highly improbable

      My BS meter hits the red zone when I see “proposed”and “will cost” in the same sentence. The next red flag is an exact number, like “will cost families $1.700 annually”. At face value, this will cost every family, no matter what they purchase, where they live, or size of the family exactly $1,700 per year.

  2. Chumby   12 months ago

    Reason simping hard to be recognized as the food truck ass sex wing of the DNC.

    1. Vernon Depner   12 months ago

      You forgot weed.

    2. Vernon Depner   12 months ago

      He's a food truck, ass-fucking man
      He's the head of La Voz de Aztlán....

      That's all I've got so far...

  3. Bertram Guilfoyle   12 months ago

    Sarc strawman to be posted soon.

    1. Spiritus Mundi   12 months ago

      7 mins to be exact.

  4. Longtobefree   12 months ago

    Of course, if you already buy as little from Communist China as possible, your mileage will vary.

  5. sarcasmic   12 months ago

    The case for tariffs is not economic. It’s fairness. It’s not fair that China stole our factories. It’s not fair that there aren’t as many manufacturing jobs as there used to be. It’s not fair that China doesn’t have the same environmental protections and other laws that jack up the cost of production here. It’s not fair that China has tariffs at all, and that alone requires that we must have tariffs on their goods. So fucking what if it costs Americans money. So what if it costs American jobs. So what if it lowers economic productivity. It’s not about any of that. It’s about being fair.

    1. Don't look at me!   12 months ago

      Poor sarc

    2. Kyle T   12 months ago

      Not sure of your point.

      Multi-national corporations moved factories to China and elsewhere, China, Vietnam, India, etc. didn't "steal" them. Yes, lower wages and little environmental concerns were driving factors. Apple can make design changes in days instead of months because Foxconn will accommodate. Other advantages are available as well by producing overseas.

      Cheap stuff from China, Levi's from Vietnam, clothing assembled in Bangladesh and the Philippines provide cheaper products in the US.

      Manufacturing in the US is at record highs. With automation, more manufacturing stays at home, competing with the overseas production.

      Tariffs and government subsidies are not about being fair, they are to create advantages, which then influence the opposing politicians to retaliate in the name of "fairness."

      1. sarcasmic   12 months ago

        I support free trade, even if it is unilateral. I was pointing out the childish absurdity of the protectionists.

        1. JesseAz   12 months ago

          Your free trade apparently includes massive theft. I guess thats a type of free to the ignorant.

          And it isnt free trade when it is unilateral idiot. Thats advantaged trade. No different than if the company granted waivers to favored companies.

      2. JesseAz   12 months ago

        The theft isn’t companies moving. It is the corporate and IP theft that imposes costs on domestic industry here. China directly supports this corporate theft.

        Tariffs and government subsidies are not about being fair, they are to create advantages, which then influence the opposing politicians to retaliate in the name of “fairness.”

        You know what else causes advantages? Regulstory deltas between manufacturing bases.

        1. mad.casual   12 months ago

          Also, as usual, it should be kept in mind that all of the “Moving jobs overseas because of regulations isn’t theft.” may make some metaphorical sense on a macroeconomic level. However, when your President bans your industry, promises your replacement to be green energy sourced from China and Chinese labor, and essentially tells you “Learn to code.” which the media parrots, the ‘It’s not theft!’ message is very much a defense of command-style economics over individual liberty. Even to the point of actual theft if the President pockets a bunch of cash in the “MUH PRIVUT!” decision to shift the jobs.

          To wit, the argument of “with automation, manufacturing stays at home” quite reasonably contains the similarly command-style notion that “1 robot to dig the hole + 1 robot to fill it in = Value”, ignores the fact that the only way domestic automation makes sense is if it’s still exploiting and exporting a domestic resource, and can/does effectively boil down to (as I indicate above) “We’re better at disregarding our citizen-slaves than they are!”

          1. sarcasmic   12 months ago

            Regulations are just another comparative advantage. You have as much control over foreign regulatory climates as you do their weather. Take advantage of it.

      3. m1shu   12 months ago

        It's not free trade. China's manufacturing is propped up by massive subsidies. Reason and its simps are perfectly fine with foreign governments subsidizing industry but not the US. Cheap stuff overrules principle.

        1. sarcasmic   12 months ago

          Chinese taxpayers make things less expensive for you, so rather than thanking them you demand your government raise taxes on those goods?

          That’s seems rather foolish.

          1. VinniUSMC   12 months ago

            If you were any more short-sighted, you'd be legally blind.

    3. JesseAz   12 months ago

      Yes. Chinas estimated thefts of 100B annually is not fair. Sure it is domestic corporations and customers of those products that assume the costs. But they don't matter. Sure those costs dwarf the estimated tariffs on Chinese products. But those are far worse.

      https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-much-have-chinese-actually-taken

      Also let's continue to ignore the regulatory costs of the US domestic production industry at over 200B a year. Sure it again gets passed onto domestic consumers. But only tariffs matter. That's what your bumper sticker said.

  6. Kyle T   12 months ago

    As these are proposed threats, not all, if any, would be implemented. Negotiations with China and others to reduce their tariffs or government subsidies would negate the need for US retribution. Trump negotiates. Not all of his prior proposed tariffs came to fruition, and Biden has even expanded on some that did.

    Hopefully some pushback will negotiate into better agreements.

    No tariffs from all sides would benefit the consumer, but governments bureaucrats don't care.

    Imagine the trade benefits if no tariffs on autos shipped to Europe was reciprocated with no tariffs on autos shipped to the US. Everyone would benefit on both sides of the pond.

    1. sarcasmic   12 months ago

      Imagine the benefits of unilateral free trade. Even if Europe taxed autos shipped from the US, Americans would still benefit from access to cheaper goods from Europe. But that won't happen because it's not fair.

      1. Kyle T   12 months ago

        Not quite sure you understand the meaning of "fair."

        1. DesigNate   12 months ago

          He’s sarcastically posting what he thinks the pro (or at least ambivalent) tariff commenters position is. He’s very much in the no-tariffs ever camp.

          1. sarcasmic   12 months ago

            He’s very much in the no-tariffs ever camp.

            That's not true.

            I oppose protectionary tariffs. Tariffs for revenue are a totally different matter.

            Many proponents of protectionism equate the two. They'll say "Well the federal government used tariffs for revenue for a century" and that's true.
            Before they shifted to income tax and the major source of revenue. So now tariffs are not for revenue.
            They are to insulate politically connected businesses from competition using concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Seen benefits and unseen costs are great politics.

            http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

            1. DesigNate   12 months ago

              Ahh, my mistake.

              1. sarcasmic   12 months ago

                Bastiat wrote that a century and a half ago, so that makes it kind of difficult to read. But it’s worth it. The world looks different when you think like an economist.

                1. DesigNate   12 months ago

                  I’m familiar with Bastiat.

                  I would argue that some of our tariffs seem to be more retaliatory/an attempt to get the trade partner to do what we want. But it’s definitely a mixed bag.

      2. JesseAz   12 months ago

        Do you not know what unilateral means?

        Of one government is advantaging themselves through action in a market they are not free market actors. They seek advantages trade dummy.

        Covid was just 5 years ago. Did you miss the entire cost from supply chain disruptions?

        The fact is the policies you promote add far more to domestic costs than you save from unilateral disadvantaged trade paradigms. Youre just too dumb to realize it.

        This is why this magazine seems to have completely ignored domestic regulatory costs. Because Trump was decent there. Costs far more burdensome than tariffs on China.

  7. chemjeff radical individualist   12 months ago

    "American people don't need papers from alleged 'experts' to know that they'll have more money in their pockets with President Trump," a spokesman for the campaign told Marketwatch.

    Of course. Just like "we all intuitively know" illegal immigrants vote in federal elections.

    1. Dillinger   12 months ago

      now explain to everyone your understanding of how their effect on the census affects the electoral college

    2. Minadin   12 months ago

      https://www.justfacts.com/news_non-citizen_voter_registration

      Some highlights:

      - “roughly one quarter of non-citizens” in the U.S. “were likely registered to vote.”
      - “6.4% of non-citizens actually voted.”
      - 81.8% of them “reported voting for Barack Obama.”
      - illegal votes cast by non-citizens “likely” changed “important election outcomes” in favor of Democrats, “including Electoral College votes” and a “pivotal” U.S. Senate race that enabled Democrats to pass Obamacare.

      The study’s voter registration rate was estimated with data from two key sources:

      1. A national survey in which 14.8% of non-citizens admitted that they were registered to vote.

      2. A database of registered voters that reveals what portion of the surveyed non-citizens “were in fact registered” even though “they claimed not to be registered.”

      By combining these data, the author’s “best” estimate was that 25.1% of non-citizens were illegally registered to vote.

      In reality, the study plainly states that non-citizens gave Biden an “extra” “51,081 ± 17,689” votes in Arizona. This equals 33,000 to 69,000—not 18,000.

      In presidential elections, roughly half of non-citizens who are registered turn out to vote. Given that about 10% to 27% of them are currently registered, this means about 5% to 13% of them will illegally vote in the 2024 presidential and congressional elections.

      The U.S. Census recorded a population of 19.7 million voting-age non-citizens in the U.S. during 2022. This is an absolute minimum because the Census doesn’t count masses of non-citizens who falsely claim to be citizens or don’t fill out Census surveys.

      Also, the figure of 19.7 million doesn’t include multitudes of non-citizens who’ve entered since 2022. This includes people who legally immigrated, crossed the border illegally, or were allowed into the country under the Biden administration’s parole policies.

      Based on the data above, roughly 1.0 million to 2.7 million non-citizens will illegally vote in the 2024 presidential and congressional elections unless stronger election integrity measures are implemented.

  8. Spiritus Mundi   12 months ago

    Good thing Obamacare saved families $2500 annually.

    1. Chumby   12 months ago

      Bidenomics reported to cost American families $11,000 annually. Guess not all have switched to Sam’s Club cheesy poofs yet.

      1. Don't look at me!   12 months ago

        You just have to give up that nasty spittin terbacky habit.

        1. Chumby   12 months ago

          Obamacare cost my household $4600/year out of our pockets. The plan forced on us proved less medical coverage and higher copays.

          1. Spiritus Mundi   12 months ago

            Same

          2. Minadin   12 months ago

            For me, it was only about $1500. My healthcare plan went from 'Free, Provided by Employer' to 'Employee Pays 20%'. And the benefits went down to avoid the 'Cadillac Plan' tax / penalty. And the deductible went up.

          3. DesigNate   12 months ago

            Ditto.

            Plus I had to pay the government a couple of years because the “subsidy” I took for the silver plan was too generous (I had a couple of good years with my side hustle which led to a slight bump in my income). Mind you, that silver plan was worse than the private plan we had before Obamacare.

          4. sarcasmic   12 months ago

            Something similar here. Insurance went from something that paid for stuff to something with a UGE deductible. Same amount taken out of my paycheck though. So to pay for stuff I put money into an HSA. Because I'm paying I ask about prices. Never get answers.

            1. Minadin   12 months ago

              We recently moved from a FSA plan, which takes your money if you don't spend it, to an HSA, and I think that's the better option, but the deductible is higher. At least I'm not losing money for being generally healthy - it rolls over and accumulates from year-to-year.

              1. sarcasmic   12 months ago

                Use it or lose it is a rip off.

                1. Minadin   12 months ago

                  I couldn't even get a definitive answer about who the money went back to. The insurance company? The government? Do they split it? It just 'disappears'.

                  1. H. Farnham   12 months ago

                    FSA isn't too bad though if your employer doesn't offer an HSA. There were a couple of years that I had a few hundred bucks left in December. I was able to get it all spent stocking up on otc meds, bandages, lady products for the wife, etc. All stuff I would have had to buy anyway, but income tax free this way.

      2. Minadin   12 months ago

        If you take his proposed baseline budget of 7.1 trillion dollars and divide it by approximately 150 million taxpayers, , it's nearly $50k per capita.

        1. Chumby   12 months ago

          The millions (and millions) that aren’t paying into a system that they are using is a big part of the problem.

  9. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   12 months ago

    Donnie picked my pockets last night pre-flight
    Zero hour 9:00 a.m.
    And I’m gonna be broke
    As a bum by then
    I miss liberty so much I miss my life
    It’s lonely without Nancy Mace
    On such a worthless flight
    And I think it’s gonna be a long, long time
    ‘Til Tariff Man brings me ’round again to find
    I’m not the rich man they think I am at home
    Oh, no, no, no
    I’m not a MAGA man
    Tariff Man, burning up my cash up here alone

    1. Chumby   12 months ago

      Why is there a 2 after your name?

  10. n00bdragon   12 months ago

    It's okay. Trump never means what he says, unless it's something I agree with, then he's the only honest voice in the room.

    1. JesseAz   12 months ago

      This is retarded when sarc or Jeff say it too.

      1. n00bdragon   12 months ago

        Do enlighten me on what exactly is wrong with it. Is Trump a man to be taken at his word or should people ignore everything that falls out of his mouth? If it's somewhere in between how is anyone to tell the difference? We know he lies to his wife. Why should anyone trust a single thing he says?

        1. sarcasmic   12 months ago

          If it’s somewhere in between how is anyone to tell the difference?

          I'm almost curious enough to see his answer to unmute him. Almost.

        2. mad.casual   12 months ago

          Were you under the impression that Kennedy or Clinton were perfectly truthful with their wives and/or enacted no tariffs or did this onset of "OMG! How can we trust what any candidate says ever?" suddenly come on with Trump just now?

          Do you think Abraham Lincoln was to be taken at his word?

          Or is this sudden crisis of honesty in politics and free trade an observance of China's long and strongly-held tradition of honesty and non-interventionism?

          Because, any way about it, the "OMG! Trump!" only avoids being uniquely retarded by virtue of its vocal abundance.

          1. n00bdragon   12 months ago

            I didn't vote for Kennedy or Clinton so I don't see how that's relevant. I distinctly DO remember a number of people being shocked and appalled at Clinton's extramarital antics and vowing that they would never support him again. Of course, that was 1997 when it was too late to against him again.

            If anything, I find the sudden lack of a crisis of morality the most appalling thing. How is not a scandal now?

        3. VinniUSMC   12 months ago

          Do enlighten me on what exactly is wrong with it. Is Trump a man to be taken at his word or should people ignore everything that falls out of his mouth? If it’s somewhere in between how is anyone to tell the difference? We know he lies to his wife. Why should anyone trust a single thing he says?

          Pretend Biden said it, and if your "understanding" goes from TrumpBAD to BidenGOOD, then maybe your bias is the issue.

          1. n00bdragon   12 months ago

            Nope. If Biden said, it would still be statist economic nonsense, but I would be slightly be inclined to take Biden at his word that he meant to do economic harm and expect him to actually follow through with that, as awful as it might be.

            The particular thing we are discussing here is Trump propensity for lying and his fans' peculiar habit of writing off all the insane statist nonsense that comes out of him as the idle words of a serial fabulist, not to be taken literally. Whenever Trump puts his own foot in his mouth, we must give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't mean it, because everyone knows he is a natural born liar. But like the boy who cried wolf, the moment he says anything right... he suddenly becomes exalted as the one man in Washington willing to speak the truth.

            It's telling that your first assumption for anyone who criticizes Trump must be batting for Biden. I have never supported anything to do with Joe Biden. I never voted for Biden, let alone Obama, and I will not ever vote for him. The man is a corrupt machine Democrat, at least when he can remember what day it is, with his pecker in so many cookie jars auctioning off American interests to the highest bidder that it is frankly disgusting.

    2. sarcasmic   12 months ago

      lol

  11. Sometimes a Great Notion   12 months ago

    No Taxation without Representation! Trump and Biden should be tarred and feathered, the Sons of Liberty way.

  12. Dillinger   12 months ago

    ya bro T is gonna be a net cost over B lol

  13. Diane Merriam   12 months ago

    If you use the word "inflationary" in the classical economic sense, an increase in the money supply, then neither type of tax is inflationary. If you mean the more common definition, a general increase in prices, then both are inflationary. The tariff is merely a more obvious and easily trackable cause for the price increases.

  14. Homer Thompson   12 months ago

    biden's proposed labor and energy regulations would cost taxpayers an order of magnitude more than these stupid tariffs

    1. Moderation4ever   12 months ago

      No

  15. Moderation4ever   12 months ago

    The American people fired Donald Trump in 2020 because they recognized that he lacked the skill set for the Presidency. Anyone listening as he throws out proposals on subjects like tariff, deportation, or birth control will realize his skill set has not expanded or improved. A second Trump administration like the first will end in a recession and wonderment about how the American people could get fooled into electing him a second time.

    1. Homer Thompson   12 months ago

      more inflation, crime, wokeness and forever wars please

      1. Moderation4ever   12 months ago

        Well, a second Trump recession will likely solve that nasty inflation problem. Or maybe by raising the tariff tax Trump can engineer another bout of stagflation. Something we haven't seen since the seventies.

  16. Brandybuck   12 months ago

    Do you remember when Republicans used to be against tax increases? Pepperidge Farms remembers!

    Look, if you don't want to buy Chinese products, just don't buy Chinese products! Problem solved. Stop acting like Leftists!

    1. sarcasmic   12 months ago

      Remember when conservatives were economically literate? Those were the days.

      1. VinniUSMC   12 months ago

        Sarc calling anyone *fill-in-the-blank* illiterate is hilarious.

    2. Homer Thompson   12 months ago

      remember when the inflation reduction act reduced inflation

    3. m1shu   12 months ago

      You like feeding the CCP's subsidies?

    4. mad.casual   12 months ago

      Look, if you don’t want to buy Chinese products, just don’t buy Chinese products! Problem solved. Stop acting like Leftists!

      Yeah! And build your own internet while you're at it. All you backwards anti-globalist deplorables!

    5. Moderation4ever   12 months ago

      The problem is that people still need or want Chinese products so they will just have to pay more. What we learned from Trump's last try at tariffs is that the Chinese don't really can because they can buy what they need from another country. People need to remember the Trump farmer welfare program.

      https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/14/donald-trump-coronavirus-farmer-bailouts-359932

  17. DesigNate   12 months ago

    How the fuck is something that increases (however slightly) fed.gov revenue in any way inflationary?

    1. sarcasmic   12 months ago

      Is that a serious question?

      Inflation means that prices are rising. Causes are almost always monetary. Increase the supply of money relative to the supply of goods and services, and prices go up. Basic math.
      Tariffs also cause prices to go up. That’s the entire point of a protectionary tariff. Ideally such a tariff will result in people not buying the imported product at all, because the purpose is to change behavior not bring in money. And yes, that does contribute to inflation because it increases prices.

      Not sure what income to the federal government has to do with anything in this context.

      1. Moderation4ever   12 months ago

        Good summary, DesiNate doesn't really seem to be an econ major.

        1. TJJ2000   12 months ago

          LOL... Wow u2 are dumb.

          The only price increase is on imports therefore the 'general price' of everything is NOT affected. If you cared to address 'general price' with Trumps Tax-Cuts you'd see inflation never did come until Biden spent the nation bankrupt.

          Inflation - When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services; consequently, inflation corresponds to a reduction in the purchasing power of money.

          1. sarcasmic   12 months ago

            Do you find yourself drowning when you look up for too long in a rainstorm?

        2. sarcasmic   12 months ago

          DN, unlike so many here, is not a close minded douche. He can learn if he wants.

      2. DesigNate   12 months ago

        See, here I was thinking of the classical definition of an increase in the money supply (especially in relation to an uncommensurate increase in goods). Saying that any price increase is also inflation, in my mind at least, renders the word basically useless.

        I brought up income because, theoretically, the more revenue the fed.gov generates through taxation, the less it has to print out of thin air, thus increasing the money supply and reducing its purchasing power. I thought that was commonly understood, but perhaps I’m wrong. (Also, that theory is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the age of 6 and 7 trillion dollar budgets.)

  18. TJJ2000   12 months ago

    What's unprecedented is the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ already spent.
    Don't like paying the bill? STOP politicians from voting for MORE spending.
    This should be 1st grader logic.
    Course; self-entitled greed turns logic on its head.

    Like pretending the 'National Defense' department should be funded entirely by those not dealing internationally while those who deal internationally should get a free-ride.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Federal Court Scraps Rule That Gagged Tennessee Civil Rights Attorney From Criticizing a Private Prison

C.J. Ciaramella | 5.19.2025 1:13 PM

Texas Could Blow Its Shot at Leading the AI Revolution

Devin McCormick | 5.19.2025 11:30 AM

Men Caught In Prostitution Sting Aren't Sex Traffickers, Massachusetts High Court Says

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 5.19.2025 11:15 AM

Trump Threatens Walmart Not To React to His Tariffs

Joe Lancaster | 5.19.2025 10:39 AM

Biden's Cancer

Liz Wolfe | 5.19.2025 9:37 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!