Trump's Proposed Tariffs Would Add Nearly $250 to the Price of New Gaming Consoles
Similar price hikes would hit smartphones, laptops, tablets, and televisions.

Economist Mark Perry has been tracking the prices of various goods and services since the start of the 21st century. His so-called "Chart of the Century" neatly summarizes which products have become more expensive and which have become more affordable relative to overall inflation:
Updated "Chart of the Century" with data through June 2023. Note: Since 2000, College Tuition increased 184% which is 2.4X greater than overall inflation of 76% & 1.7X greater than the 110% increase in average wages. No wonder there's $1.8T in student loan debt @stevenfhayward pic.twitter.com/m1IkiS2PQ4
— Mark J. Perry (@Mark_J_Perry) August 2, 2023
Even after the recent high inflation run, the trends are clear. Categories that have high levels of government intervention (health care, college tuition, housing) have seen prices rise faster than categories where the market has been more free (home goods, clothes, TVs). The lowest line on the chart shows the price of televisions, which are 97 percent more affordable today than in 2000 even after accounting for inflation—a remarkable decline that's been made possible by a combination of technological progress and free trade.
There is no line on Perry's chart for video game consoles, but it would be near the bottom too. When adjusted for inflation, the price of an original PlayStation or Xbox would be significantly higher than the price of the newest version of those game systems. Relative to inflation, video game consoles have become more affordable—and have gotten a lot more advanced at the same time.
Former President Donald Trump wants to inject a little more government intervention into that market. Guess what will happen if he does.
The Republican presidential nominee's threat to impose new tariffs on nearly all imports into the United States would make video game consoles 40 percent more expensive, according to an analysis published this month by the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), an industry group best known for its annual Las Vegas conference showcasing the latest tech for home and personal use.
The report assumes that Trump can carry out his threat to hit all imports from China with a 60 percent tariff, along with a baseline tariff of 10 percent or 20 percent on all other imports. (Trump has been unclear about which level he'd prefer, and recently suggested a "thousand percent tariff.")
If that happens, the retail price of video game consoles will increase by nearly $250, according to the CTA. Retail price would also grow for laptops (up $357), tablets (up $201), smartphones (up $213), and televisions (up $48).
"At their core, these proposals are tools for the U.S. government to grab as much tax revenue as possible from the American people," writes CTA chief Gary Shapiro in the report's foreword. "The proposed tariffs will not create more employment or manufacturing in the U.S. In fact, the opposite may happen where our productivity decreases and jobs may be lost over time when workers and businesses have less affordable access to technology."
Video game consoles are a $24 billion global industry, and the United States is by far the biggest consumer in that market. Most video game consoles are currently assembled in China, but the components and technological know-how come from every corner of the globe.
The theory behind Trump's push for more tariffs is that making imports more expensive will spur more domestic manufacturing. Instead of importing Xboxes and PlayStations from China, those products would be made in the United States, his supporters claim.
But hold on. If Trump's tariffs are sufficient to drive consumer technology manufacturing out of China, those jobs won't all shift to the United States—they'll go to other countries instead. If that happens, consumers in the U.S. will still bear the cost of the universal tariffs on their game consoles and smartphones.
CTA does project a 31 percent increase in domestic production of video game consoles—but that would not be enough to offset the other consequences. Ultimately, the group comcludes, the economy would shrink by an estimated $4.9 billion, due to the combination of higher costs and lower consumer spending power.
The vastly increased availability and affordability of tech like TVs and video game systems shows what free trade can achieve. Americans should be cautious about taking it for granted.
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.
Please
to post comments
Cue up the attacks.
Why do you ignore regulations!
Why do you ignore IP!
Why do you ignore Biden's tariffs!
Cue up the economic fallacies.
Tariffs are protectionist and revenue generating at the same time!
Protectionism and mercantilism is how nations prosper!
Manufacturing is measure in jobs, not output!
*tosses a bag of popcorn into the microwave*
Once again; You're a Nazi-Empire late to be calling WOLF now.
Unless you have some brilliant plan to pay a $35T debt without any taxes?
Once again, your willful ignorance of economics makes you look stupid.
I can find rocks more knowledgeable about economics than you, Sarc.
I have offered him links to authors like Bastiat, Hayek and Hazlitt, but he said he wasn't going to pollute his mind with what he feels is leftist mumbo-jumbo.
Have you read a single book by any of those authors?
He would, but he gets blackout drunk before he can read anything.
He had to just look up the names now, so I’ll be interested if Sarckles can give us a brief rundown of those author’s stances that won’t appear in a search if we google it after.
I have a saved link where he tried citing one of their essays and completely didn't understand what they were saying. Will post if he takes the bait.
Search through your extensive archive of my comments and you’ll find me quoting and referencing all three of them for many years.
You don’t bookmark those comments? Only things you can misconstrue and take out of context?
Oh well.
Without having read their essays. Lol. Want me to post your thoughts on morality?
Post where he tried citing one of their essays and didn’t understand what they were saying, too.
Unrelated, but this on exemplifies Sarckles on these kinds of topics:
sarcasmic
February.7.2021 at 2:27 pm
So there’s a difference between law (what society deems to be wrong) and legislation (rules backed with government force)?
No way!
https://reason.com/2021/02/07/the-mushroom-moment-manifesto/#comment-8747992
Yeah, that’s wasn't the definition of “law”, Sarckles, that was the definition of immorality.
The definition of law is roughly what you gave for legislation (which you also got wrong). To quote:
“Law is a system of rules created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior,[2][3][4][5]… It has been variously described as a science[6][7] and the art of justice.”
Read some Hayek. He better explained emergent order and how it applies to law, vs legislation that is imposed by force.
Hitting Ctrl-c, ctrl-v doesn't mean you have read any of their works.
Yes Sarc, just hand waive it all away. Thats what you do when you start a fight you can’t finish.
You post their quotes. You don’t read nor process their essays. You twist their quotes into your own a priori assumptions. Like with morality.
Want the link sarc? I have proof of this.
Finding a random quote and posting it as defense of your belief without understanding what the quote was saying is something idiots do. Hence your actions.
Example:
https://reason.com/2024/07/09/biden-blames-the-elites/?comments=true#comment-10632964
No you haven't lol. You link to the cafehayek home page as a source with articles countering your assertions on the first page lol.
You never cite your actual sources retard. How do you lie even about this?
And your solitary quotes from essays you clearly didn't read (I have the link last time you did this) largely disproves your assertions.
So broken and boring.
Shorter sarcidiotic:
Dissent is not allowed!
The Horror! Basement Incels have to mow a lawn to afford the latest game gear? What will western civilization do?
How much do they add to Domestic made products?
How much do Domestic Taxes add to Domestic products?
I realize the USA makes nothing and has lost all of its ‘super’ power to the Socialist Regime but furthering its dependence on other nations doesn’t address the Socialist Regime problem at-all. How long do you think the nation is going to survive with a $35T debt, Domestic Taxes making Domestic production not worth while, and a ZERO-Tax on foreign production?
The ZERO-Tariff camp is literally drawing a perfect-plan for national bankruptcy and dependency on communist regimes.
You hit all the economic fallacies I listed in one post! Congratulations!
Do you think your BS books are going to pay the debt?
Or that ZERO-Taxes/Tariffs going to do it?
Or is it that demanding Tariffs are just Taxes but being the one making the BIGGEST divide between the two?
(i.e. 0% versus 80%; same, same BS)
Oh wait; I'd bet you think it's that ?free? MONEY-TREE *fallacy* all leftards have polluted their heads with.
Economics is BS? Good to know. Apparently math is BS too because import taxes that bring in maybe 1% of federal revenue are not going to make a dent in the debt.
You think economics and math are BS. Ever think of running for office? You’d fit right in.
1% *is* the PROBLEM retard.
What % of foreign products make up the total products?
That’s how much Tariffs should cover JUST LIKE Domestic Tax does.
That makes no sense.
That’s because you are “economically” retarded (more like TDS bigoted).
Did those books do it to you or what?
Ignorance is strength, eh?
That’s the philosophy you hold dear.
Simpler for you.
If corporate taxes were relabled domestic tariffs, would you be just as critical?
Tariffs are a consumption tax, so a more apt analogy would be a national sales tax. Which I would not oppose IF AND ONLY IF it was to replace income tax, corporate tax, capital gains, etc. Closest thing I’ve seen is the FAIR tax.
https://www.fairtax.org/
Nothing is perfect, but it’s a better idea than most. In my opinion anyway.
No disclaimer because the comment wasn't full of lies and false premises. See if it's a fluke or not.
fluke it is
You could have just said no. You don’t care about regulatory costs or corporate domestic taxes. You are too ignorant to see them as a primary driver of consumer costs. Instead you want to complain about one small set of taxation you think makes you a libertarian. While once again being too dumb to understand every president has issued taxes and the costs of domestic government intervention dwarfs tariffs.
Because you’re an idiot.
Why do you double down on such terrible arguments. Are you autistic?
Definitely a fluke. Instead of responding to what I said, you attack me with insults and arguments against things I never said.
Are you intentionally trying to be the opposite of an intelligent conversationalist? Because you're doing a really damn good job at it. Best I've ever seen. Hats off.
Disclaimer: Failure to address lies and false premises in Jesse’s comment is not intended to be tacit approval of or agreement with those lies and false premises.
Yes sarc you're retarded. I get it.
Biden Harris issued 1.5T in new domestic regulations and you scream about 50B in tariffs every fucking day. A topic you seemingly only know because of Boehm. You do this through ignorance, the same as Comms major Boehm.
You're an imbecile.
When you make an intelligent argument for the first time, I'll respond without attacks. You tried once, I gave you books and links, and instead of becoming more intelligent you decided on ignorance.
Not worth an intelligent conversation with you as you don't provide anything of substance or intelligence.
"Which I would not oppose IF AND ONLY IF it was to replace" ... "corporate tax"
You'll have to explain to me how that isn't EXACTLY what Trump did.
He didn't replace anything. Corporate taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes, they didn't change. Not significantly. He just made imports, especially the kind that poor people buy, more expensive. That's it. He didn't shift the tax burden to China. He shifted taxes to poor people who buy cheap Chinese shit. He just made their lives more expensive. And he promises to keep it up.
How is that a good thing?
Trump didnt cut taxes? Didn't have the left crying about deregulation? Didn't get China to Crack down on theft?
Interesting assertion.
So logically, you shouldn’t be opposed to someone who worked to reduce income taxes while increasing consumption taxes…
Sarc uses "fallacy" incorrectly: 1,423,645
Sarc uses "fallacy" correctly: 0
How much do they add to Domestic made products?
Considering the US currently imports many raw materials, I’d estimate about 10% on just about everything, except food.
How much do Domestic Taxes add to Domestic products?
Considering sales tax will be calculated after the tariff price is added, less than what will be under Trump’s plan.
“less than what will be under Trump’s plan”
Is not Trump campaigning on cutting Domestic Taxes?
Is not the left still in favor of Tariffs and Domestic Tax increases?
Is not Trump campaigning on cutting Domestic Taxes?
I guess, but it’s irrelevant to the question you asked.
Is not the left still in favor of Tariffs and Domestic Tax increases?
Maybe. I haven’t heard any proposals of universal tariffs from the left though.
I think I misunderstood your point about the domestic taxes anyway though.
Just universal regulations and corporate taxes. Which cost more.
Whats the current corporate tax rate? Are taxes treated as a liability and add to costs of goods?
Right right right. I misunderstood TJJ’s point. I get it now.
I thought he was saying that tariffs won’t increase domestic prices. But now I see he was arguing domestic taxes increase prices and Trump proposes to offset tariffs with a corporate tax reduction.
Thank you. Most Respect.
I need to work on clarifying my comments better is really the issue.
No worries. Your comment was clear enough. I read it with a preconceived notion in mind.
Clear as mud. I don't know what he's saying.
Because you're an idiot. Mouth the words.
The EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate from 2017 through 2023 was:
2017 10.6%
2018 9.7%
2019 8.6%
2020 8.2%
2021 8.4%
2022 10.9%
2023 11.1%
Taxes are a liability but are not added to cost of goods. They are added to the selling price of goods, though.
Did you drop out of your accounting class?
Yes. They are treated as a cost and appear as a cost to consumer dummy.
Kiss my ass you fucking punk. You're flat out wrong, you ignoramus. Muting you now, asshole cocksucker.
Too bad I couldn't 'mute' my taxed-labors you leftards keep taking.
Once the party of slavery ... STILL the party of slavery.
Awwww, EdG has a big sad and lashes out. You’re wrong, dumbass Leftist.
Technically the tariffs are COGS but US taxes are not and thus part of that greedy businesses gouging consumers piece of mark-up.
Jesse is a dumbass. He won't understand your comment.
> How much do Domestic Taxes add to Domestic products?
Considering sales tax will be calculated after the tariff price… <
Pedantic point of note, tariffs are a cost not a price. You are correct that that cost is passed on to the consumers in the price, thus increasing the price before sales tax is calculated.
Being generous, I think the commenter meant sales tax is assessed based on the selling price which likely includes any tariff costs paid by the manufacturer.
State sales-tax. There is no Federal Taxes on ‘imports’ unless they’re Tariffs.
Nor is there “corporate taxes”, “employee taxes”, “property taxes”, “kill plant-sustenance taxes”, “income taxes”, “Security for Social-ists taxes”, “Lazy-people Unemployment taxes”, “Slut without a dime taxes” … etc, etc, etc, etc… The list of Tax-Cuts on ‘imports’ is endless.
Is there really any confusion on why the entire productive side of America has been off-shored? Every Socialist/Communist regime had this problem and ended up trying to “conquer and consume” the world to try and escape the consequences of ‘armed-theft’s zero-sum productivity game.
EB's analysis on this is about as useful as his other analysis, that is to say useless.
In considering Tariffs, for example, will they be imposed gradually so as to incentive migration of manufacturing and supply chains, or imposed suddenly. If imposes gradually then the cost of the goods may so up for a short time and then stabilize and the supply chain adapts,
When the manufacturing moves does it increase employment and via automation compensation and income taxes? How much of the higher costs are offset by the increased employment and higher compensation?
Then there is the national security component of having supply chains that leave the nation unable to obtain maintenance and repair parts for military equipment without the support of the very nations that might provoke a conflict. The supply chains for commercial goods are often the same as supply chains for military goods. What is the cost of the above risk?
In short, Eric's analysis is shallow, foolish, and economically ignorant.
No business will eat the cost of tariffs whether imposed gradually or immediately. That would be a profit killer.
No business will eat the cost of *taxes* whether imposed gradually or immediately. That would be a profit killer.
The only question left is which tax (domestic or import) is less and moving production in that direction.
Whoever responded, I have you muted so your responses are wasted. You're just a gray box to me.
No business will eat the cost of tariffs whether imposed gradually or immediately. That would be a profit killer.
You are retarded, business put up with taxes all the fucking time.
You've managed to be more ignorant than a Neanderthal's remains. Congrats! It had to have taken considerable effort to avoid anything resembling an intelligent thought.
The U.S. is the world's second-largest manufacturer, behind only China. We make more shit today than we did when we were the no. 1 manufacturing nation.
All of your premises are idiotically wrong. You've mindlessly gulped down idiotic, rightwing propaganda and substituted it for any critical thinking on your part.
TVs are down 97.8%?
Bought a 32” Samsung tv around the year 2000 (yes, in the year 2000).
Looking at Wally’s website today, the cheapest Samsung 32” is about two hundred bucks.
I don’t recall spending nine grand on that year 2000 model. Weird (like Tampon Tim).
I think my new one was about $250, but I bought it during the big sale prior to the SuperBowl.
So $11,300 in the year 2000.
I paid $850 for a knockoff brand 32″ flatscreen at Circuit City in 2006. The Sonys were well over a grand. Don’t recall what the Samsungs cost.
How much did you get when you hocked it for booze money (probably right before you got evicted for being a deadbeat tenant)?
All flatscreen TVs made 15+ years ago were non-smart TVs. They all also had more expensive CCFL backlight lamps, and decent internal speakers. Now, all TVs have cheap (less dependable) LED backlighting, garbage speakers, and are "smart" in the sense that they are digital advertising billboards. All of the profit on a TV sold today is made on the back-end, unrelated to the hardware sale itself, but on perpetual advertising revenue from the advertising. A direct comparison to then and now can't be made. Most TVs sold today are junk hardware-wise.
True.
For reference:
A new Playstation 2 in 2000 cost $300. A new Playstation 5 in 2023 cost anywhere from $500-700, representing a 60-160% inflation in the price of consoles auspiciously *without* tariffs or, presumably, "high levels of government intervention"*.
*Which isn't to say that such interventions don't exist but that Boehm's identification and elucidation of them is between selective and presumptive.
fuck! my joystick! guess voting for the communist is the better play.
The lowest line on the chart shows the price of televisions, which are 97 percent more affordable today than in 2000 even after accounting for inflation—a remarkable decline that's been made possible by a combination of technological progress and free trade.
Perhaps also due to the fact there isn’t anything on TV that’s worth a rat’s ass.
You know, the weird thing about that chart, is how all the things that are inflating faster than the 'mean' level of inflation, are the things that the government subsidizes.
And not the things we tariff. Odd.
If the whole thing isn’t largely/entirely spurious.
Do we subsidize or tariff college textbooks?
The article feels a lot like "The price of spittin' tobacco will go through the roof if you vote for Trump!"
JD Vance is just wrong about game consoles. So wrong.
According to Boehm, both strategically and reluctantly.
JD Vance can do what Nintendon't.
Just for the record, tariffs are not to raise revenue; they are to discourage consumers from buying certain items.
If game consoles get too expensive, we can always deal out a hand of solitaire with a deck of cards.
($4.89 for two decks)
Yes and no.
Revenue tariffs are meant to be low enough to not change consumer behavior because their purpose is to bring money into the treasury.
Protectionist tariffs are meant to be high enough that people won't pay them because their purpose is to change consumer behavior.
People who claim they can be both are blowing smoke up your ass.
"People who claim they can be both are blowing smoke up your ass."
Is that in one of those special "economic" books UR pitching?
Contradictory to reality thought patterns?
Wonder what that 80% domestic tax does on the order of discouraging domestic "consumer behavior"?
It’s basic logic that follows from the preceding two premises.
Now logic is BS, in addition to mathematics and economics.
Run for office. Seriously. You’re on par with most politicians.
I like how you make shit up not pertaining to actual reality. Do you know what supplier switching is?
Every sentence contains "you". Always about the person, not what the person said.
You could have just said no and admitted your ignorance.
eliminate the income tax, put a small flat percentage tariff on all goods. America will be so rich the whole world will be pounding on the door to sell us all their stuff. It'll be a golden age.
Originally the entire Federal Government was funded ENTIRELY by just Tariffs and Excise tax.
Excise tax is an indirect tax on specific goods that go into trust funds for projects related to the taxed product or service like fuel, airline tickets, heavy trucks.
Originally the federal government was smaller than the average post office.
Now it employs nearly three million people to move unimaginable quantities of other people’s money around.
It can’t be funded by consumption taxes.
But that’s math which you said is BS. So I don’t have any illusions of changing what you feel.
"It can’t be funded" ...
- by *just* domestic manufacturing without killing domestic manufacturing.
Has been my point all along.
As said before; You're a Nazi-Empire too late to be calling WOLF now.
I don't know what that means.
A hundred years ago around 30% of the population was employed in farming. Now it's like 2%. Yet we produce more food than ever.
Are we worse off because we lost those farming jobs? Do we now not do any farming because only 2% of the population is employed in it, even though farming output is at or near an all time high? Of course not.
Same applies to manufacturing. We make more stuff with fewer people. Why is that bad?
Automation is a good thing and entirely off-subject.
The bad is per your own (once again) statement; Foreign-Traders are only covering 1% of the nations required Taxation while the other 99% is coming from Domestic-Traders.
The socialist bill is coming home to roost.
I’m still not understanding that. You want to pass off taxes to other nations? It doesn’t work like that. Tariffs are just taxes that make imported goods more expensive for YOU when YOU buy them.
Tariffs are a consumption tax. You pay them when you buy stuff.
Same could be said of a sales tax. You only pay it when you buy stuff.
I don’t know if you’ve heard of the FAIR tax or not. Here’s their website.
https://www.fairtax.org/about
The basic idea is to replace income tax, capital gains, payroll tax and all the taxes on productive activity and replace them all with a national sales tax.
You might like the idea.
Do you think imports should be exempt of a national sales tax under the trade-war banner?
I haven't closed it off (national sales tax) but I don't like the idea that it puts the cost farther away from the individual record. State sales taxes by law are required to be on every receipt and only priced at the register. I consider that highly important.
National excise taxes aren't; and those types of product specific "sales tax" no-one even realizes they're paying them.
i.e. Who really accounts the $0.19 to $0.25/gal federal tax on fuel. Do they think in their mind that a $3.75/gal pump price is really $3.50/gal without federal excessive theft?
Shorter Sarc……. “The federal government employs three million people. We need higher taxes to fed the beast!”
So sayeth the one true libertarian here.
Still amazes me how he is been pounding his fist for higher taxation for months (yes I have links sarc), yet for some reason this is the one tax that upsets him despite being a much smaller tax than what he defends and demands more of.
I have said that increasing spending while decreasing revenue is irresponsible. Because it is. I assume those are the comments you’re giddy about mendaciously misinterpreting, cherry-picking out of context, and lying about.
The opposite of intelligent conversation.
Go forth and do your thing. The only people you will impress are fellow liars and idiots. They know who they are.
Disclaimer: Failure to address every lie and false premise in Jesse’s comment is not intended to be tacit approval of or agreement with those lies and false premises.
You have literally said we have to raise taxes, no conditions. Do you need the links to your own posts? Including one of the dumbest descriptions of the laffer curve as a line?
But revenue didn’t decrease.
the one thing you can be sure of is that when a JouRnoList writes about economics, they are wrong. I'm not saying the tariffs wont have effects but they certainly, 100%, will not be this.
Yeah, it’s a bullshit story, from a neo Marxist retard who voted ‘strategically and reluctantly’ for the mess we’re in now.
Boehm lost any shred of credibility long ago. I wonder how long before he devolves into a worthless alcoholic hobo (like Sarc).
i'll never forget 'strategically and reluctactly' voting for the worst administration of my lifetime, possibly ever. amazing
Amd most of them will do it again. I wonder if they will have the guts to reveal their voting choices this time around?
It's funny how Trump's last tariffs were horrid, Biden's increases were nothing to write about and the proposed Trump tariffs are apocalyptic, at least according to journalists. Almost like they've got a political agenda.
Reason wrote about Biden’s tariff increases, and the were critical of them too. Just because you guys ignore those articles and don’t comment on them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
The difference is that Trump puts tariffs front and center, all the time. He says things like tariffs are the best thing ever invented. He brags about how high he’s going to make them.
He’s the one who puts his tariffs in the spotlight. And then, oh my God, journalists talk about them! Then his defenders wonder why.
They can’t understand it. It must be that the journalists are deranged. Why do they talk about what Trump puts in front of them and talks about himself? Journalists should be ignoring Trump’s tariff talk and instead be talking about Biden! They're so unfair to Trump!
Idiocy.
Shorter Sarc…… “Did you SEE what Trump was wearing? He was totally asking for it!”
Tariffs didn't exist before Trump. Sarc even didn't know Reagan issued tariffs. Was hilarious.
What was the adjective they used for their criticism buddy?
Ultimately, the group comcludes, the economy would shrink by an estimated $4.9 billion, due to the combination of higher costs and lower consumer spending power.
For the people who care about video games as art (yes, they exist and aren't just JoUrALiSTs), this can only be a positive, since it would signal publishers that they can't keep making games just for money.
I vote for a 100% federal tax on college textbooks.
And the anti-capitalist right-wing here rush to support Trump's policy. If Trump hath said it, it must be right. What a bunch of economically illiterate buffoons.
From the MORE spending, MORE spending, MORE spending .... OMG! Not more Taxes though --- Camp.
Talk about being 'economically' illiterate buffoons.
Leftard Self-Projection; Thicker than flies on a cow-pie.
Fuckwit, I'm not a leftist. I'm too much in favour of free markets and free trade (though not to the point of laissez-faire insanity), You on the other hand are opposed to both. You want to compel people to buy only from approved producers and you want to restrict the flow of capital, using coercion, presumably.
All those free trade deals you promote are agreed to tariffs, caps, regulations, etc. Lol. They aren't free trade shrike.
I must of missed your praise for Trumps Tax-Cuts and De-Regulation?
I must of missed your Cussing of Democrats massive spending bills?
Are you sure you are free-markets and free-trade or are you just ‘imports for free’ lobbying?
I must of
*Have
Just because I’m in generally in favour of capitalism and free markets doesn’t mean that I pretend that all problems can be solved by them. The US deficit is a problem. Cutting taxes does not solve them – we’re not on the right side of the Laffer curve.
Deregulation is commonly though only an idiot would say, invariably, a good thing but I don’t see much evidence of useful deregulation with major positive economic effects. See https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2020/deregulation-under-trump
Both GOP and Democrats are in favour of spending. I have on occasion criticised both.
BTW I must have missed your criticism of Trump for his threatened use of "Gov-guns" as you put it, post-election if he wins.
De-Regulation is literally ending the Gov-Gun usage.
Why would I criticize Trump for that?
You support democrats. YOU are anti capitalist. But like many of you neo Marxist democrats, you delude yourselves to the contrary.
So how much did Biden’s taxes and continuations of Trump’s taxes raise the cost of game consoles? My wife’s original Pong game is the only one we have.
On ebay, the pong is between $40 and $200 - - - - - - - -
OK this is mostly off topic but Boehm's tariff obsession has really become absurd. Not going to waste time reading it. Anyway, this guy wrote a rant in response to JD Vance mansplaining to that Lulu chick from the NYT that American born men would do the construction jobs that illegals have taken.
https://x.com/johnkonrad/status/1845238994977665294
Samples but worth reading the whole thing:
"Lulu is shocked I’d give up my “thinking job.” For construction. Sure, I LOVE my job now—but I’d throw it all away to build again. To construct.
It’s like the movie Office Space. My wife said it’s a “guy movie,” and she’s right. Most people think it’s just an office comedy - or think the stapler guy “won” because he’s now rich. But to guys - real men- it’s a hero’s story. The main character leaves it all behind… and ends up working construction! That’s the happy ending.
Listen to her voice. Hear the contempt: “They’d work construction?”
YES, I WOULD, LULU.
And I wouldn’t just build condos. Turn us loose, and we’d build grand ships, towering bridges, and homes with character and strength.
American men are the best builders in the world. But we’re shackled by HR, red tape, DEI, lawyers and endless regulations. All the bullshit the NYTimes constantly advocates for.
We are sick of it. We are sick of the Times. We are sick of you Lulu. Sick of you telling us what we want.
We want to build… and not build for ourselves but build great things for YOU. Yes YOU Lulu. Great things for women and men and children of all colors and religions and backgrounds. Big great things that advance all of us together.
That’s why we look up to
@elonmusk
—he’s out there building rockets and robots.
ROCKETSHIPS AND ROBOTS! It’s why Trump’s appeal sticks—he has built grand casinos, golf courses and buildings. He BUILDS! He constructs! He’s in construction.
What has Tim Waltz ever built? I love and respect teachers but I look up to men who BUILD GREAT THINGS.
THIS is what this election is really about. It’s about why so many men feel trapped and undervalued.
Men are simple creatures Lulu.
WE WANT TO BUILD COOL THINGS
YES WE WOULD TAKE CONSTRUCTION JOBS!"
On a personal note, back before the great recession I had a small commercial printing business for 20 years. It grew to the point that I had guys in the back room doing the work while I sat in the office writing quotes and paying bills. But what I really wanted to do was ink up the Heidelberg, run a 4 color job and see the dots fit in that lovely mosaic. I have a 35 year old son who grew up in that world but now he sits at home in front of a screen all day. Makes more money than I ever did breaking my back. Had a big tree come down in the back yard and he and his brother in law, who also sits in a chair all day, and my 13 year old grandson came over to clean it up. Chainsaws, axes, mauls and a big rented splitter. Never seen a happier group of men. Got easily 3 cords of firewood. This is the masculinity that our girl boss culture and Tampon Tim are redefining. Fuck Joe Biden. Fuck Kamala Harris. Fuck the NYT. Fuck Tampon Tim.
"OK this is mostly off topic but Boehm’s tariff obsession has really become absurd."
What's really odd is that the Biden administration put hundreds of new tariffs on everything with barely a mention from Boehm, but possible-maybe-perhaps-in-the-future-tariffs from Trump consistently rate a couple of frantic articles from Boehm a week.
Almost like something is happening strategically and reluctantly here.
In reality Boehm votes for far left democrats excitedly and enthusiastically.
Actually, it seems his obsession is Trump, not just tariffs.
He didn't have much to say about Harris-Biden tariffs, but is crazy upset about possible Trump tariffs.
Also crazy upset about anything Trump suggests, no matter how libertarian.
"Trump's Proposed Tariffs Would Add Nearly $250 to the Price of New Gaming Consoles. Similar price hikes would hit smartphones, laptops, tablets, and televisions."
...or American companies can bring their manufacturing back to the US, have Americans work in their factories, and profit off their labor instead of having communist party officials profit off of slave and/or child labor in China.
We all know what Phil Knight of Nike and his ilk will choose.
^EXACTLY^ +1000000
If one *chooses* to participate in the International Trade market.
They should be responsible for funding the National Defense Department.
At least more-so than those who chose to deal Domestically.
Not insist their 'trade' should be ZERO; that's completely dishonest.
You didn't read the recent article about where the profit lies. And you probably don't know or understand about comparative advantage, like many if not all of your ilk.
Comparative advantage only works if you can mobilize and trade the labor widgets naturally produced in your country.
Comparative advantage is far more dehumanizing of the people that make up the labor market than anyone gives it credit for.
So we're required to subsidise workers in uneconomic industries, to avoid that dehumanising. That is a relatively left-wing position, of course.
Where the profit lies on a cheap late night beach chair as if representative of all global trade.
You're an idiot shrike.
Tariffs remain less, by a lot, than just the theft of China on domestic companies. Weird how your support of free trade seems to include theft costing domestic industry.
And we can lower welfare, while we are at it!
Seems like that should be a priority for libertarians.
Better yet, eliminate AFDC, corporate welfare, foreign aid, grants, etc., which would save us a lot of money and won't have the ruling elitist filth in DC giving our money away to their cronies.
imagine choosing to vote for total communist takeover of america just because of the concern about the price of your gaming console.
That would be like being willing to burn the whole country to the ground in support of slightly looser abortion laws ... oh wait.
Nobodies concerned about the price of abortion.
They're concerned about being FORCE to reproduce by Gov-Guns.
they are concerned about a difference of 4 to 6 weeks in another state they dont live in.
rephrased-as … Concerned at what week “their bodies” get traded-off to a [WE] mob of 3rd party nosy busy-bodies packing Gov-Guns behind their own "moral standards" (religion).
Maybe the left-states can start pimping Women (trading them off) under Dobbs. Isn't there "moral standards" on par for a State-Pimping agency? What would stop them? Roe v Wade is gone. [WE] State-democracy has no LIMITS in-place anymore for Individual Women short of what-ever the [WE] mobs "moral standards" are.
You are right. And they are willing to sell the whole country down the river over that. Everything thing else added together, top to bottom, is not as important as that 4 week window of difference on abortion laws in another state they dont live in.
If you don't want mommy responsibilities, don't do mommy activities that create them. Seriously, is a tiny bit of personal responsibility and self control too much to ask? Or is allowing murder for any inconvenience your idea of liberty?
Which part of that isn’t part of your own personal religion?
I’m a fan of PERSONAL religion just not Gov-Gun FORCED religion that destroys their 4A & 13A *inherent* rights. Yes; murdering you precious unicorn theories is an *inherent* right to a Woman because if she commits suicide she murders your precious unicorn.
Your ‘baby’ dropping stork religion doesn’t hold any water for Gov-Gun usage.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.
the start of the 21st hentury.
I'm keeping this.
Make sure you coop it up somewhere safe.
Eggciting
>>21st hentury.
lol that's the biggest no shit of the 21st century
Serious question, what did the “enfeebled” president do to prices in ‘Murica during the 21st hentury?
Well in today's topsy turvy political environment it's awfully hard to reach a definitive conclusion to a query such as yours. Many Reason readers use what we call the JD Vance test as, an admittedly crude, barometer for economic matters. So if for instance if Vance said on a podcast that the cost of groceries has increased by 21% during the Biden presidency we can safely assume that he is wrong. The actual increase is anywhere from 0 to 20.99%. It's also a fact that the primary driver of price increases is future Trump tariffs that have already been priced into the market. And Vance is also wrong about that. The same Reasoning of course applies to game consoles. And toasters.
that’s been made possible by a combination of technological progress and free trade.
And offshore slave labor.
So, look, for as much as crybabies like Eric scream “Orange Man Tariff Bad” – he constantly ignores the bigger picture. Yea, Orange Man wants to impose tariffs. Yea, Orange Man wants to stick it to places like China – who really DOES need it stuck to them (to the point that I’m 100% OK with nuking Beijing and Shanghai).
But what Eric doesn’t address – what he doesn’t even consider is: why aren’t Xbox’s primarily made in America? Why isn’t the iPhone? Why does America not have huge industrial plants that are churning out retail products, and just cut China out of the loop entirely?
Because it’s easy to whine about tariffs. It’s a lot harder for a Marxist pinko punk like Eric to point out the problems with minimum wages, employer-mandated health coverage, hand-wringing climate-whatever hysterics led by a girl who’s primarily known for her lack of education due to her perpetual truancy, an unproductive generation of wokescolds who can screech about social justice and the gender spectrum but can’t do basic mathematics, and an oppressive regulatory body – all of which create so much artificial overhead that makes commerce and industry in America so unprofitable that it’s not worth investment.
For as much as Reason cosplays as a “libertarian” site, it never seems to want to be critical of the lol PrOgReSsIvE left that does far more economic damage to Americans than Orange Man Tarriffs ever will.
"Note: Since 2000, College Tuition increased 184% which is 2.4X greater than overall inflation of 76% & 1.7X greater than the 110% increase in average wages. No wonder there's $1.8T in student loan debt"
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, seems like people should just go to college in China.
Quite fitting for the running history of Commie-Anything.
The 'Government' made it more ?affordable? over and over and over again.
It is what one would expect if it is increasingly difficult to get high status jobs or the potential to attain them without degrees, and relatively successful parents don't want their children to have to compete with the intelligent children of the less well off.
Under the mental delusion that the punch-card ENIAC computer should cost $6.9 billion dollars to buy today. It amazes me the kinds of excuses leftards make to justify all the consequences of the 'Communist' manifesto.
Irrelevant and bizarre.
One thing i'm sure of i aint votin for the border czar and the AI safety czar. Never.
SHE WAS NEVER THE BORDER CZAR. Well actually she was but we're not allowed to say it out loud.
Is this calculation the same as the one from the $400 toaster article?
Because I'm not sure those numbers were all that accurate.
shut up. a journolist is speaking
Who cares if the coddled kids have to pay more for their gaming consoles. They're going to vote democrat anyway. Let The Camel promise a war for cheap gameboys and nintendos.
Libertarian Reason Anti-Trump / Republican article count: 1,735
Anti-Biden/Harris / Democrat: 0,386.33
Beware of the Reason Staff’s TDS which they do not hide.
TRUMP ‘16 ‘20 ‘24