A Word on Tariffs

[Captain Caveman]

You asked the damn question!

Because it's part of the conversation in this thread that you were not part of.

 

[Crepitus]

but a major increase in costs for nations shipping cheap goods to the US

Dude, they don't pay it. It costs you money, not them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Because it's part of the conversation in this thread that you were not part of.

So what was the answer?

 

[Captain Caveman]

So what was the answer?

Read the thread dumbass.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Read the thread dumbass.

I did. Have a nice day, dumbass!

 

[jwoodie]

Where was that said anywhere?

Real Admirals play war games, not word games.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Real Admirals play war games, not word games.

I have probably played more war games than you have words games.

 

[Dante]

A Word on Tariffs: "Bad"​

next

Remember?


The Trump administration gave more taxpayer dollars to farmers harmed by the administration’s trade policies than the federal government spends each year building ships for the Navy or maintaining America’s nuclear arsenal, according to a new report. A National Foundation for American Policy analysis concluded the spending on farmers was also higher than the annual budgets of several government agencies. “The amount of money raises questions about the strategy of imposing tariffs and permitting the use of taxpayer money to shield policymakers from the consequences of their actions,” according to the analysis.

‘Here’s your check’: Trump’s massive payouts to farmers will be hard to pull back ​

The president was already spending double his predecessor to spare farmers the cost of his trade war. Now the price is reaching unsustainable levels.

Government payments to farmers have surged to historic levels under President Donald Trump as the Agriculture Department floods the industry with cash to stem the financial losses from Trump’s tariff fights and the coronavirus pandemic.


But as agriculture grows more reliant on unprecedented taxpayer support, farm policy experts and watchdog groups warn the subsidies are growing too big and too fast, with no strings attached and little oversight from Congress — and that Washington could have a difficult time shutting off the spigot.

 

[Dante]

Tariffs have been a big bugaboo ever since Trump has talked about them, but what is their real effect at the retail level? Most foreign goods are landed in the US at about 25% of their retail price. That means an item that sells for $100 actually costs about $25 to produce and ship over here. Since tariffs are assessed at the port of entry, a 20% tariff on this item only increases its cost by $5. This is a minor increase in relation to its retail price, but a major increase in costs for nations shipping cheap goods to the US and in revenues to the US Treasury. Isn't that a small price to pay to protect our economy?

If only you knew about what you are attempting to talk about.

 

[Dante]

Tariffs have been a big bugaboo ever since Trump has talked about them, but what is their real effect at the retail level? Most foreign goods are landed in the US at about 25% of their retail price. That means an item that sells for $100 actually costs about $25 to produce and ship over here. Since tariffs are assessed at the port of entry, a 20% tariff on this item only increases its cost by $5. This is a minor increase in relation to its retail price, but a major increase in costs for nations shipping cheap goods to the US and in revenues to the US Treasury. Isn't that a small price to pay to protect our economy?

Word: Hilarious

 

[task0778]

For what it's worth, this link does a good job of explaining tariffs both pro and con and IMHO is worth the time to read. This is at the end:

Tariffs on imports do not restore American producers’ competitiveness in a floating exchange rate system. Only a return to fiscal discipline truly could. Recent and historical cases of fiscal consolidation demonstrate that reducing deficits in a democracy is possible when political will is mustered. Lower deficits would reduce the artificially high demand for US dollars, leading to a lower US dollar Index that naturally enhances American competitiveness.

Tariffs may be politically popular, but under a floating exchange rate system, they are ineffective at correcting trade imbalances or promoting domestic industry. Instead, they function primarily as a tax increase that disproportionately affects consumers and businesses reliant on tradable goods.

The bottom line is, if policymakers are serious about fixing America’s trade and fiscal challenges, they should abandon outdated protectionist measures and focus on meaningful economic reforms. A stronger, more competitive economy will come not from artificial barriers to trade but from sound fiscal policies that address the true structural issues behind trade imbalances.

Tariffs Are Taxes – Bruno Meyerhof Salama & Leonidas Zelmanovitz

Although politicians justify protectionist policies on the grounds of economic nationalism, we cannot forget that tariffs are taxes.

lawliberty.org

Personally, I do not support tariffs. It may be politically popular but all in all not that effective no matter what your goal is to implement them in the 1st place. It's a way to look and talk tough but without not much actual results. What Trump is basically IMHO is sorta bullying other countries into some concessions. But against China, was it really that positive for us when Trump put tariffs on their stuff when he was in office the 1st time? I suppose the answer to that will be different according to the political stance of whoever offers their perspective.