Trump, the Self-Described 'Tariff Man,' Does Not Understand How Tariffs Work
Since the president-elect refuses to admit that levies on imports are taxes paid by Americans, he sees no downside to raising them.

"I'm a big believer in tariffs," President-elect Donald Trump said this week, not for the first time. "I think they're beautiful."
Trump claims the heavy tariffs he plans to impose during his second term are "going to make us rich," at no cost to American businesses or consumers. That is a dangerous fantasy.
Trump's position on tariffs begins with his longstanding misconceptions about international trade, which he erroneously views as a zero-sum game with rules that are rigged against the United States. "We're subsidizing Canada to the tune [of] over $100 billion a year," he told Kristen Welker on Meet the Press. "We're subsidizing Mexico for almost $300 billion."
Trump was referring to U.S. trade deficits with those countries, which are about half as big as he claimed. Those gaps between exports and imports are not subsidies; they reflect goods that Americans voluntarily purchase, which means they get something of value in exchange for their money.
As Trump sees it, however, trade deficits are inherently bad, and he aims to eliminate them by imposing tariffs. Although that is feasible only if tariffs raise the cost of imports, making them less competitive with domestically produced alternatives, Trump contradicts that logic by insisting that tariffs do not raise prices.
"Americans are not paying for the Tariffs" on Chinese goods, Trump averred in 2019. "They are being paid for compliments of China."
Trump, the self-described "Tariff Man," clearly does not understand how tariffs work. They are taxes collected from importers, not from the exporting country.
In theory, exporters could respond by cutting prices, or importers could swallow the additional cost. But study after study has found that the cost of tariffs is paid mainly by American buyers of intermediate goods and finished products.
"U.S. tariffs continue to be almost entirely borne by U.S. firms and consumers," Mary Amiti, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and two co-authors reported in 2020. That finding is consistent with the results of prior and subsequent studies.
The Tax Foundation estimates that the tariffs Trump imposed during his first term, which the Biden administration generally kept in place, cost Americans nearly $80 billion a year—"one of the largest tax increases in decades." And that's without considering the impact of retaliatory tariffs, "lost output, lower incomes, and loss in consumer choice."
When Welker noted that "your previous tariffs…cost Americans some $80 billion," Trump was unfazed. "They cost Americans nothing," he insisted. "It didn't cost this country anything. It made this country money."
Since Trump refuses to admit that tariffs are taxes paid by Americans, it is not surprising that he sees no downside to the additional tariffs he has promised to impose in his second term. They include a "universal baseline tariff" of 10 percent or possibly 20 percent; a tariff of 60 percent or maybe more on Chinese goods, plus "an additional 10% Tariff"; and a 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico, which Trump promises to impose on his first day in office.
Trump says the 25 percent tariff, which would wreak havoc with cross-border supply chains for American manufacturers and raise prices for goods such as food, clothing, and cars, "will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens" stop entering the United States. Forever, in other words, which makes sense if you believe that such taxes "are going to make us rich."
Those tariffs, together with the 10 percent levy on Chinese goods that Trump improbably claims will suppress the illicit fentanyl supply by encouraging China's government to execute drug traffickers, would amount to a $1.2 trillion tax increase over a decade, the Tax Foundation projects. "In the long run," it adds, "we estimate the tariffs would reduce GDP by 0.4 percent and employment by 344,900 jobs."
As is often the case with Trump, we have to hope he does not mean what he says.
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
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
For some reason I picture Sullum's office with pictures of Trump all over the walls with "ORANGE MAN BAD" graffiti on every surface from floor to ceiling ( with a fair share of that graffiti being in blood and feces).
Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!
We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!
See The Atlantic article https://feedreader.com/observe/theatlantic.com/politics%252Farchive%252F2016%252F10%252Fdonald-trump-scandals%252F474726%252F%253Futm_source%253Dfeed/+view
“The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” or this one…
https://reason.com/2019/09/02/republicans-choose-trumpism-over-property-rights-and-the-rule-of-law/
He pussy-grab His creditors in 6 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!
All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!
Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!
Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!
We CAN grab all the pussy, all the time, and NONE will be smart enough to EVER grab our pussies right back!
These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!
Unread
Conduct foreign policy and stay out of the economy, Mr. Trump.
Die.
At what point does an article just become stupidity? The idea Sullum advances that Pres Trump doesn't know how tariffs work is just imbecilic.
Sullum writing needs an upgrade from imbecilic to moronic.
Trump says that...
Un-American Ferriners will pay the tariffs
Tariffs will make us all rich!
For reporting this to us, Sullum is an imbecile and a moron!
Sure, gotcha! Do you have some prime real estate in Florida to sell me also?
About the time the TDS-addled shit-pile Sullum hits the first key.
If Trump made such a claim, then he truly is clueless and apparently, so are you.
The EU has essentially a 19% tarrif on almost anything - so shouldn't we have retaliatory tariffs of 19% on any imports from the EU?
Retaliatory tariffs are the equivalent of telling your neighbor "If you beat your wife, I'm going to beat mine to make you stop."
Trump's an economic ignoramus. Just because he's less ignorant than Biden is no great accomplishment, and no excuse for pretending he's not an economic ignoramus.
Good analogy.
Well. Sarc wasn't able to be educated... but will give it a chance here.
For decades there have been algorithmic base trading "games" done in the advancement of economics. Teams develop trade algorithms to find the most advantaged player as well as the most optimal solution.
For decades a form of tit for tat has essentially created the optimal solution.
Advantaged trade has many negative effects that you seem to be ignorant to. Bastiat and others also were ignorant to it. They stopped at first order analysis and generally ignore cost disadvantage.
For example. About 15 years ago a Chinese ambassador was open on their goal for subsidized exports. It was to decrease manufacturing capabilities of western countries. We saw the cost of this during covid. Just a few years ago.
Support of advantaged trade actually decreases optimized trade as the least cost item does not get to markets. An example of this is gas and oil sanctions for various countries.
Allowing one country to be advantaged is not a free nor optimal market. Only with a first order analysis can you even get close to that conclusion.
Retaliatory tariffs can change anti market behaviors of others and reduce antibmarket actions existing in a market. This happened with China's crackdown of theft in 2018. Theft being a much higher domestic cost than tariffs.
It is always weird to me how some of you defend larger drivers of cost, or are utterly silent on it, while obsessed only with tariffs. It comes across as you stopping at econ 101.
To put it more simply.
I bet everyone who is a libertarian believes subsidizing behaviors gets more of those behaviors. Welfare gets more unemployment. Free health care great more bad health acts.
Yet for some reason a large portion of libertarians believe advantaging (subsidizing) bad market actors doesn't get more bad market actors.
Or, sending more tax money to the federal government gets more federal government.
To put it more simply:
Tariffs are taxes. Taxes are theft.
If exporters pay import tariffs, then businesses pay sales taxes, oil companies pay gasoline taxes, and employers pay income and payroll taxes.
Why is it any of government's business who I trade with? Industrial policy is central planning, socialism with a different name. If you want central planning, admit it, say so, don't disguise it as taxes paid by producers who in no way pass it on to consumers.
Anyone who thinks my trading choices are their business is a statist, a central planner, a socialist.
If you think my trading partners are a national security threat, then declare war. Otherwise mind your own business.
I have seen people credit China's economic rise to their central planning, not market reforms, and then claim we need more central planning to compete. Not saying that Jesse is explicitly one of those, more implicitly, but I have seen people make that argument.
"Yet for some reason a large portion of libertarians believe advantaging (subsidizing) bad market actors doesn't get more bad market actors."
JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer (and fellow collectivist dog-pilers, dog-shit-pilers, and steamrollers) believe that my free-will choices concerning who I can or may buy goods and services from, without extra penalties, taxes, and property-theft, are not for ME to decide; they are for JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer and The Collective Hive to decide! Now THAT is REAL libertarianism! JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer will decide who the bad actors are! My free-will buying choices are now subsidies!!!
Hey JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer!!!! Those who buy Your PervFect Bullshit from YOU are subsidizing YOU!!!
Game theory doe not negate nearly two centuries of economics. If another country wants to subsidize exports, instead of taxing them just say thank you for the discounted stuff. Finally your strawman argument against libertarians who ignore other costs is in fact confession by projection of the fact that you completely and totally ignore the costs of tariffs.
Ah, you're stupid. Fact is tariffs have costs to both sides and alternates can mitigate that in some cases, depends on the reason for the tariff. Protectionist tariffs are always bad but tariffs to undo other market manipulations or as a tool in negotiation can create net positives.
But I get it, you are good with subsidized slave labor and dumping toxic waste on foreigners so long as you save $0.05 because tariffs bad in some theoretical sense completely abstracted from reality and humanity.
tariffs to undo other market manipulations or as a tool in negotiation can create net positives
What kind of market manipulations? Subsidies? I say subsidies are great. If they want to force their taxpayers to make the stuff I buy cheaper, all I've got to say is thanks. I certainly don't want my government to tax me out of some twisted idea of fairness.
you are good with subsidized slave labor and dumping toxic waste on foreigners so long as you save $0.05
I'll take this one: Yes.
because tariffs bad in some theoretical sense completely abstracted from reality and humanity.
Your defense against critics of Trump's "I'm a big believer in tariffs...I think they're beautiful." is that critics are being too broad and theoretical against Trump's universal tariff proposal?
Trump and his defenders want it both ways. They want tariffs to protect us from foreign competition, but they say doing so won't cause prices to go up. They don't understand that for protectionist tariffs to work, they have to raise prices.
"...Your defense against critics of Trump's "I'm a big believer in tariffs...I think they're beautiful."..."
TDS-addled shit-piles should watch what Trump does, not what Trump says, TDS-addled shit-pile.
If you want to ban trade from slave labor, do so -- as a ban on trade from slave labor. General taxes are about the most inefficient way possible to signal you want to suppress slave labor.
My trading decisions are none of your business. If you think they are, you are a statist, a central planner, a socialist.
If price choices offend you, then you should voluntarily pay double or more at the cash register, otherwise you are supporting price competition and enslaving all those poor workers who can't wheedle raises out of their bosses. Do you compare prices in stores? Do you always buy the most expensive brand? If not, shut up about buying low being supportive of slave labor.
Your analogy might apply if those two neighbors were sharing their wives between them. Tariffs are about trade between countries.
Well based on your analogy I would be careful calling anyone an ignoramus.
.
No, but feel free to send more of your own money to the IRS. I'm sure Congress will find something productive to do with it.
No mention that Biden's tariffs lasted longer and cost more than Trump's tariffs.
I suppose it's better than blaming it all on Trump, but that's damning with faint praise.
We continue to blame Wilson for the income tax more than each subsequent president for not repealing. Same for FDR and the New Deal, Obama and Obamacare. This may not be justified, but it is normal.
But then, I'm a TDS-addled shitpile that should FOAD that thinks the same standards apply to Trump.
Did the income tax exist before Wilson? Did tariffs exist before Trump? Compare those two answers and you might begin to understand why there is a reason for the difference in treatment.
Did the income tax exist before Wilson? Yes
Did tariffs exist before Trump?Yes
Now let's do Obamacare and the New Deal.
First Federal Income Tax. On February 25, 1913, the 16th Amendment officially became part of the Constitution, granting Congress constitutional authority to levy taxes on corporate and individual income.
Wilson elected in 1912.
Before an income tax was established, the majority of funds given to the federal government derived from tariffs on domestic and international goods. The short-lived Revenue Act of 1861 predated the Sixteenth Amendment as the first official federal income tax, but it was eventually repealed in 1872.
There had been an income tax during the Civil War as you noted and Taft enacted a corporate income tax in 1909.
The 16th amendment was approved by Congress in 1909 while Taft was president. Only state ratification delayed it until Wilson was pres.
How [Republican] President Taft Established Income Tax
So hang Cain and let every subsequent murderer off the hook?
"...But then, I'm a TDS-addled shitpile that should FOAD..."
'Nuff said.
OK, so here's the thing about tariff's that Fake News Jake (and anyone else that's a Dog of the State Media) likes to ignore: They breathlessly squeal that it's a form of protectionism - and, like any (incomplete) information State Media loves - that's kinda true. What they then intentionally neglect to tell you is the other side of the coin: that said tariffs also address trade imbalances that Garbage Nations take economic advantage of by virtue of employing unethical business practice.
I am 100% in favor of slamming tariffs down the throats of Garbage Nations like China and India and Pakistan, etc. Garbage Nations (who we should have warhawk literally nuked off the face of the planet decades ago) like that utilize a cost advantage that America does not (ie. slaves), and American goods thus are more expensive to produce than to import by comparison. Tariffs make sense there.
On the other hand, the American regulatory system imposes FAR too much artificial overhead on its production in the first place. (Minimum wages, maximum work weeks, mandatory health coverage, FMLA, unionization, etc. - NONE of which State Media Dogs like Jakey ever seem to protest.) This drives up wholesale/retail costs on the American consumer. Absent the takedown of that regulatory system, tariffs are the only real meaningful way to address the unfair cost advantage that Garbage Nations enjoy. This doesn't help the American consumer, but it does take away the financial incentive to buy from Garbage Nations and embrace American producers instead.
Without being coupled by regulatory reduction, tariffs are not a meaningful solution to trade imbalance. But, what Jakey Jakey News Is Fakey doesn't tell you, as he lays in the fetal position of his bathroom cutting himself every time he hears the word "Trump," is that seems to be what Donald is talking about. Donald appears to want to get the regulatory boot of American Production's neck as much as possible, and in the meantime he'll keep Garbage Nations who undercut us with unethical practices at bay.
Now, that being said, it gets a little more difficult to justify when Trump talks about using tariffs against, say, Canada - where the regulatory overhead on production is comparable. And we certainly don't want to inadvertently legitimize some kind of global-wide artificial overhead on production costs.
But Jake doesn't advocate a capitalist/libertarian solution, does he. Because we all know he's neither capitalist nor libertarian. He's a hard-left Marxist puke. Like the Dog of the State he is, he's all for the Marxist impositions that American government forces on American production. And, like the Dog of the State he is, he also seems all too willing to roll over for the likes of China and India who aim to take economic control of the world. Because he's a leftist puke.
And by virtue of that, he intentionally misleads you - because he's a leftist puke - when he discusses the subject of tariffs on nations like Canada.
Because, Trump's argument there isn't that about production costs for them, and more about other damage those nations are causing us (enabling drug trafficking, border jumping, etc.) Wherein Trump aims to use tariffs punitively to try and force them to self-correct their bad behavior.
Whether his asking America to take it on the chin economically, while he addresses those other harms with tariffs, is a good idea, YMMV ("would you pay an extra $0.10 on your imported goods for awhile to help force complicit nations to take steps against the illegal importation of fentanyl into America")... but either way, Fake News Jake, that leftist puke - his nonsense article casts gross falsity on the subject he's purporting to "report."
Which is par for the course with that leftist puke.
Yeah. The regulatory system, weird how sullum and boehm ignore the estimated 5T in cost increases under Biden, is the primary cost driver here. And they ignore it.
And their screed about tariffs is really a defense if advantaged markets like you say.
They have no understanding of actual economics.
Where are Your PervFect LINKS for shit like... "...ignore the estimated 5T in cost increases under Biden..."?
"They have no understanding of actual economics."
Those who REALLY understand it, say shit like...
Un-American Ferriners pay for the tariffs
Tariffs will make us all rich!
The erections were stolen! All votes NOT for MEEEE are fraudulent!
We'd all be FAR better off if all of the illegal sub-humans were sent HOME! (Never mind that humans are an invasive species everywhere except for Africa, and we can't all fit there comfortably.)
All you do is attempt to dog-pile and steam-roller for YOUR "Team", support Big Lies, and apply a heavy layer of grade-school insults!
All that to defend theft by taxation, when what you really want is import bans. Do you always go for the most inefficient methods?
Do you really believe my trading decisions are any of your business? Then you are a central planning socialist statist.
In fact, that makes you a slaver. Tax yourself, slaver, since that seems to be your answer.
No, Jacob Sullum, I don't want import bans (unless they're from hostile nations - then I want everything bans, including travel/immigration).
If a widget has a market value of $1, but it costs $2 to produce it in America, and China uses slaves to produce it for $0.10 and sell it for market value - I want A) the regulatory basis causing the artificial overhead in America removed so that American producers find it profitable to produce widgets and sell them for $1; and B) a $0.90 tariff on China's import of it.
THAT will give you the actual ability to make meaningful trading decisions on your own choosing. Right now, you're defending not one, but TWO systems that deprive you of it. But you're too much of a pinko Dog of the State to understand that, aren't you.
YOU want, YOU want. What about what everybody else wants? Who died and left YOU in charge of what everbody else wants?
Are you an individualist or a statist slaver? Your comment provides the answer.
So YOU don't want the American regulatory system dismantled, and YOU don't want China's slave labor kept from undercutting American production.
Sullum, you are a clown. You would rather hate Trump than help free markets. How are your priorities this screwed up.
Are you sure he intends to impose such draconianly high and broad tariffs? He very well could be planning to do that, but this looks like a bully-boy negotiating tactic akin to threatening to pull out of NATO to compel other members to meet their security and spending commitments. Trump's pattern is to come in with "insane," over-the-top threats and bully his opponent for leverage so that he can get favorable terms. It's unpleasant and makes him a one-trick pony, but he's much more predictable and banal than people seem to think. You just need to know what he *really* wants to work with or around him. I don't like it, I think it has weaknesses, I think there are better tactics for trade negotiations, and I also think tariffs are stupid, but we've been watching Trump since the 80's and dealing with him in public life for a decade now. Maybe do some research and take some notes?
Twat about all of the long-term negatives of Dear Leader's CUNSTANT Big Lies?
Un-American Ferriners pay for the tariffs
Tariffs will make us all rich!
The erections were stolen! All votes NOT for MEEEE are fraudulent!
We'd all be FAR better off if all of the illegal sub-humans were sent HOME! (Never mind that humans are an invasive species everywhere except for Africa, and we can't all fit there comfortably.)
The cumulative effects of all of these (and more, and usually hateful) Big Lies are corrosive and (to use a favorite Trumpian word) VERY "nasty"! Don't forget that MANY Trump-worshitters BLEEVE, ADORE and WORSHIT every turd that He udders!!!!
This is the reason TDS-addled shit-piles need to watch what he does.
How many more article samples did DailyBeast ask you for before you get the job sullum?
Snot even gonna TRY to refute what Sullum wrote today, JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer? So how rich WILL all of these tariff-taxes MAKE us all, JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer?
JS;dr. Did read the comments.
And so your cuntclusions are...
Un-American Ferriners pay for ALL of the tariffs...
Tariffs will make us all rich!...
Or both? Inquiring minds want to KNOW, damn-shit!
Yep.
I clearly remember the raging inflation caused by Trump's first term tariffs.
Prices went through the roof the day after he imposed the first one, right?
Trump shot 50 bullets at us all from 5,000 yards His last term... Now He wants to shoot 500 bullets at us from 20 yards? Hey, no problem! We didn't get hit all that bad last time, after all!
TTTTAAAARRRRIIIIFFFFFSSSS!
@JacobSullum....There are multiple reasons that tariffs are applied, not just economic. If you want to upgrade your writing from imbecilic to merely moronic, try exploring the multiple reasons a POTUS might want to apply a tariff to a specific country.
In the case of CAN, MX....the drug flow has to go way down, and the flow of illegal aliens into America must stop. Pres Trump can ask politely, and get nothing....or Pres Trump can use his 'soft power' (which he is doing now) to effect a change in behavior.
Sullum, at some point you passed the point of willful blindness into maliciousness. You're capable of better.
Maybe you should take some lessons from Liz Wolfe.
"You're capable of better."
No, grasshopper, he is not.
Tariffs are not just an economic tool. Sullum is either misinformed or stupid.
Lots of MAGA screaming on this one. Mr. Sullum does not point out that whether or how much the tariffs enacted in 2016 contributed to inflation. And a lot of ink has been spilled on this point. In whole, tariff impacts on the cost of a product is not under question: prices will rise. But the inflationary impact of tariffs are blunted both practically and psychologically. First a tariff causes a one time change in the price of a product and inflation rate. After the first year of implementation, the tariff is a constant % of the product cost. Its contribution to increasing price changes is baked in as a baseline so its effect on the inflation rate (how much the cost of product changes with time) is zero. From the point of view of a consumer, the tariff is a one time bump in cost that is able to be rationalized. Seemingly arbitrary price increases are another matter.
But I think Mr Sullum should think a bit more about another aspect of the tariff regime. How much tariff money was actually collected and where does it go? The Trump (and thereafter Biden) tariffs based on goods from $550 billion dollars of imports from China should have a considerable sum of money. Did they? And what happened to the money? There are two points to be made. First, the US collected about $66 billion dollars in tarifs in China during the 2017-2020 period. And of that money, ~$60 Billion was paid out to farmers as relief payments owing to Chinas introduction of tariffs on US farm goods. (https://www.cfr.org/blog/92-percent-trumps-china-tariff-proceeds-has-gone-bail-out-angry-farmers). So the money was paid by American consumers back to American farmers. That is a tax on one portion of US citizens paid back to another group of (Trump leaning) US citizens.
That kind of cronyism extends to another consideration. Tariff exemptions. Companies may apply for exemptions as a corporation or on a product specific basis. Trump will exempt companies from a tariff if they cough up money for campaign contributions. during the provided with the application of exemptions that can be obtained from the government. Here is a recent paper examining the exemption process and outcomes https://jfqa.org/2024/07/30/the-political-economy-of-tariff-exemption-grants/
Like much of what Trump does, tariffs are political theater, meant to rile the MAGA faithful who dutifully fall for the grift and sign on to Reason and show how little they understand. Trump has command of the greatest grift there is: US politics. His is a transactional governance, fully corrupt and now with a group of people who are going to turbo charge that corruption. Welcome to the United States of Banana Republics.
How much do you think this will contribute to inflation?
The tariff rate on certain steel and aluminum products under Section 301 will increase from 0–7.5% to 25% in 2024.
The tariff rate on semiconductors will increase from 25% to 50% by 2025.
The tariff rate on electric vehicles under Section 301 will increase from 25% to 100% in 2024.
The tariff rate on lithium-ion EV batteries will increase from 7.5%% to 25% in 2024, while the tariff rate on lithium-ion non-EV batteries will increase from 7.5% to 25% in 2026. The tariff rate on battery parts will increase from 7.5% to 25% in 2024.
The tariff rate on natural graphite and permanent magnets will increase from zero to 25% in 2026. The tariff rate for certain other critical minerals will increase from zero to 25% in 2024.
The tariff rate on solar cells (whether or not assembled into modules) will increase from 25% to 50% in 2024.
The tariff rate on ship-to-shore cranes will increase from 0% to 25% in 2024.
The tariff rates on syringes and needles will increase from 0% to 50% in 2024. For certain personal protective equipment (PPE), including certain respirators and face masks, the tariff rates will increase from 0–7.5% to 25% in 2024. Tariffs on rubber medical and surgical gloves will increase from 7.5% to 25% in 2026.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-action-to-protect-american-workers-and-businesses-from-chinas-unfair-trade-practices/
Not a fan of tariffs, I don't believe they workout like people hope. My problem with this conversation is some people are complaining about what tariffs might come under Trump while ignoring the tariffs that are real.
You still don't understand that the reason Trump gets so much more coverage on his tariffs is that HE TALKS ABOUT THEM ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
What's telling to me is that his defenders have never once praised Biden for his tariffs, and only mention them when they excuse Trump's tariffs with tu quoque fallacies like you are doing now.
What Trump talks about isn't going to affect me as much as what someone does.
You are wrong again.
I haven't excused anyone's tariffs and I have stated I'm not a fan of them.
My problem with this conversation is some people are complaining about what tariffs might come under Trump while ignoring the tariffs that are real.
That's not how I read that sentence. To me that sentence is an ad hominem attack against critics of Trump's policies that attacks critics by saying they're not critical enough of Biden's policies, thus excusing anything Trump plans to do.
Of course that's how you would perceive it. That why people are calling you broken.
I'm not attacking anyone. I'm merely pointing out that if we are going to have an honest conversation about tariffs that affect us, lets talk about the real ones in play and not spend as much time talking about talking.
An honest conversation would include talking about the effects of the tariffs that Trump is proposing. A really honest conversation would compare Trump's proposed tariffs to similar legislation like Smoot-Hawley, and discuss the effects that that bill had on the economy. That would be honest.
Saying "No, no, no you can't talk about what Trump says, only what Biden did" is not honest. Not one little tiny bit. That is what's called "deflection".
And you wonder why I consider Trump defenders to be dishonest and deranged.
But you left out the tariff we will be paying next year from Biden. Why wouldn't we be talking about that?
""Saying "No, no, no you can't talk about what Trump says, only what Biden did" is not honest.""
Except I have never said that nor am I saying that. That's all bullshit in your head.
But you left out the tariff we will be paying next year from Biden.
They suck. He sucks. Thing about Biden's tariffs is that they, like the Trump's first-term tariffs, are targeted. That means their effects will be relatively small. Contrast that with the blanket tariffs that Trump is proposing for this term, which will have a broad effect. How's that? Or was that too much talk about what Trump says?
I'm merely pointing out that if we are going to have an honest conversation about tariffs that affect us, lets talk about the real ones in play and not spend as much time talking about talking.
What does "lets talk about the real ones in play" mean other than lets talk about Biden's tariffs, and what does "not spend as much time talking about talking" mean other than ignore Trump's proposed tariffs?
Jacob, go outside and breathe some fresh air. Take a walk, spend some time with your friends, enjoy neighborhood Christmas lights. Just get better.
So you say Trump doesn't understand how they work, yet in the very next sentence give an example of how they can work under Trump's plan.
Sure - it's a price hike on imported goods - in the short term. In the long term it encourages domestic production, and then the foreign company needs to reduce their prices to the importer otherwise they won't be competitive in US markets. The US isn't some tiny island with limited resources like Nauru. We can make ANYTHING that China makes - if we want to.
Here's an example of how it supposed to work.
""Steve Madden says it will cut production in China to avoid Trump tariffs"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/steve-madden-says-it-will-cut-production-in-china-to-avoid-trump-tariffs/ar-AA1tLhSE?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=d266f697b36e4bd28a74445ce81b8c8e&ei=35
From your link...
"If imposed, the proposed tariffs on imports could lead to consumers paying $6.4 billion to $10.7 billion more for footwear, according to a new analysis from the National Retail Federation. Americans could also lose between $46 billion to $78 billion in spending power each year the tariffs are in place, the organization estimates."
And this is a GOOD thing? Also note that this article just discusses moving production from China to OTHER non-USA nations, ASSuming that The Donald doesn't end up taxing us every bit ass much for buying from those OTHER nations, too!!! ALSO note that constantly moving production from here to there costs money!!! Shit ain't for free!!!
""And this is a GOOD thing?"
I guess it depends on your option of wealth redistribution. Put me down as a no. And we should be talking about instead of ignoring it and saying orange man bad.
I know this news will just shock you, but there are other choices in ladies footwear besides Steve Madden. It COULD lead to those increased prices - but in reality, many consumers will instead choose the less expensive domestically produced shoes.
In theory, we could all be PervFected Angels, and Worshit Donald Trump's Ever Sacred Turd!
"In theory" quite often means, "Your theory makes vastly silly and unwarranted ASSumptions"!!!
Sure, importers are going to deliberately LOSE their money, to make Trump be CORRECT, in the vain hopes that The Donald will "Share access" to Spermy Daniels, for the supposed benefit of said importers!!! Twat OTHER theories do You have for us?
You have the weirdest obsession with Stormy Daniels. And your posts are so disingenuous it makes me cringe to see your name. At least sarc and the others try to make the point they want to make. It seems like you sit at home frothing at the mouth waiting for the opportunity to bring up something trump said about sex or daniels. Its just plain weird.
Sore-in-the-cunt cuntsorevaturds should NEVER be allowed to forget that Their Dearest Fearless Leader is SOOOO Fearlessly a Moral Shining Example to us All from Upon His (Shitty) City Upon the Hill... That He slept with a porn star while His wife was pregnant!!! (And then used campaign funds and-or mislabeled funds to try and hide shit.)
TWAT are YOUR excuses for this PATHETIC low-life?!?!?
I am providing no excuses for anyone. There hasn't been one president in my lifetime that I would "look up to" or consider moral.
Your obsession with his sex life is what I am talking about. It is still extremely weird.
“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
― Thomas Sowell
Another early lesson of economics is comparative advantage. The idea is that everyone benefits when they concentrate on what they're good at and trade with each other, as opposed to trying to be self sufficient.
An early lesson of politics is to deny that comparative advantage exists, and to instead say that others are engaging in unfair activity that can only be fixed with taxes, subsidies, and other acts of force.
Unless he has some weird aging disorder, Sullum looks way too old to be this stupid and petulant.
Programming maxim number 2,375; "stupid has no limits".
fuck yes! remember how the first T admin was even worse than Carter?
Trump deserves a chance to make America rich using tariffs. That's what he campaigned on, and it resonated with voters. And since he doesn't need legislation to do his tariff man stuff, he can get right to work on implementing the tariffs.
His tariff system should be equitable though. No carve outs for his friends or preferred industries. Otherwise it is just cronyism. Although, if cronyism is how he wants to do it, he'd know better than me. I'm not the tariff man. I'm not about to tell the tariff man how to do tariffs. I'm not a self-made very stable genius like the tariff man, so I'll defer to him.
Tariffs have always bred massive cronyism. And Trump is the cronyist President since Warren Harding.
Actually, Trump is the LEAST crony President in your parent's lifetime. YOU are far more of a cronyist than he is.
"Trump, the Self-Described 'Tariff Man,' Does Not Understand"
There, I fixed it for you! You could put pretty much anything in place of "tariff" and after "understand" and it would still be true. The sequel to "Being There" could be filmed under the title of "Being in the White House - Part Deux"
That would be a boring sequel. Just lots of B footage of him watching Fox News all morning in order to bask in the love. For Trump, the appearance is the reality. That's why his appointees are mostly drawn from the entertainment industry. As long as these people play well on TV, it doesn't matter what they do, if anything. All that matters is how they look while Trump is watching them on TV, and how many nice things they say about him. That's the whole thing. Implementing stuff is boring and for nerds.
Trump does not impose tariffs for the sake of tariffs. It is leverage. He is a businessman. He is negotiating in real world terms. He first imposed tariffs on China in 2016 because they had already imposed insanely unfair tariffs on US goods. It was leverage to level the playing field. This time around, it is the same thing. They are a means to an end. To imply Trump doesn't understand how tariffs work is dishonest and childish. I don't think Jacob Sullum understands how journalism works. Use "Reason", not your TDR.
Sullum is of course correct but the many Trump trolls would support Trump if tomorrow he reversed course and announced zero tariffs on all imports.
It took less then 10 words for the author to conclusively prove he either doesn't understand Trump's position on tariffs, or is a blatant liar.
Does Sullum know now DOMESTIC taxes work?
Does he think ZERO% for importers and 80% for Domestic if fair?
I see the (2) most TDS inflicted writers at reason have both chimed in on the "Trumps Tariffs" endless repeating propaganda.
You know, either way, Sullum just looks like a fracking idiot in these endless "why Trumps bad" articles. Either Sullum doesn't understand the concept of getting other nations to play nice by threatening Tariffs or he does and doesn't care for the sake of something bad to say about Trump. Is there a fucking editor at reason that can corral this idiot?
Why should we worry about retaliatory tarrifs if they only negatively effect the citizens of the country imposing them?
Trump's failure to understand how tariffs work is why his economic advisor Gary Cohn quit the first Trump admission.