Tariffs?

[GL_Storm]

What Trump is calling a "Tariff" by other countries actually comes from a formula based on the US trade deficit with that country divided by the total dollar value of imports from that country.

The example that I found online was Indonesia, which Trump says is charging a 64% tariff on US goods. Here's the math:

Trade Deficit with Indonesia: $18 Billion
Total Imports to the US from Indonesia: $28 Billion
Tariff Rate: 18/28 = .64 (64%)

The logic here seems to be that if any trade deficit with another country exists at all, then by definition the US is being treated unfairly by that country through some combination of tariffs and what are called non-tariff barriers to trade, which include regulations and Value Added Taxes.

[gil]

Seems kind of like arguing whether income taxes are paid by the employer or employee.

It would make a BIG difference if tariffs that the US puts in place where in fact paid by China, Mexico, Canada, the EU, etc. (versus Americans). Don't you think that's true?

No, I don't.

They'd just raise the price to account for the tariff and pass it along to the importer at that point. That's how business works.

Either way, it's a cost to the consumer. As such, it's an impediment to business for foreign countries in our market because it makes it harder to undercut US companies on price.

A sad day for people who'd rather buy cheap foreign goods than see a flourishing US economy and industry.

I agree the goal should be no tariffs. Free trade. But how do you get there without retaliatory tariffs when other countries have tariffs on us?

The difference I see if China were to be paying of the tariffs, that is a net gain for the US economy. When US consumers are paying for the tariffs, it's just a tax: it moves money around and distorts the economy.

Businesses aren't alway successful as passing on higher costs. Just ask the small businesses in Seattle about the effect of increasing minimum wages. It's all about the price elasticity of demand (I think that is the correct term).

How do we get there (closer to free trade)? The old fashioned boring way, by diplomacy and hammering out agreements, with long term goals of reducing tariffs and other barriers. While they ween't perfect, I think it can be argued that the WTO and NAFTA, and the bilateral agreement from Trump's first term that replaced NAFTA, were steps in the right direction. Unless the newly announced tariffs have the long term effect of reducing tariffs, I think it's a step in the wrong direction.

[gil]

What Trump is calling a "Tariff" by other countries actually comes from a formula based on the US trade deficit with that country divided by the total dollar value of imports from that country.

The example that I found online was Indonesia, which Trump says is charging a 64% tariff on US goods. Here's the math:

Trade Deficit with Indonesia: $18 Billion
Total Imports to the US from Indonesia: $28 Billion
Tariff Rate: 18/28 = .64 (64%)

The logic here seems to be that if any trade deficit with another country exists at all, then by definition the US is being treated unfairly by that country through some combination of tariffs and what are called non-tariff barriers to trade, which include regulations and Value Added Taxes.

That is what I've read too, and I don't think it makes a lot of economic sense. If you have a willing buyer and a willing seller, both plan to gain for the transaction. That's capitalism. The balance of trade is the sum of all those transactions. I don't see any unfair treatment at all.

[GL_Storm]

What Trump is calling a "Tariff" by other countries actually comes from a formula based on the US trade deficit with that country divided by the total dollar value of imports from that country.

The example that I found online was Indonesia, which Trump says is charging a 64% tariff on US goods. Here's the math:

Trade Deficit with Indonesia: $18 Billion
Total Imports to the US from Indonesia: $28 Billion
Tariff Rate: 18/28 = .64 (64%)

The logic here seems to be that if any trade deficit with another country exists at all, then by definition the US is being treated unfairly by that country through some combination of tariffs and what are called non-tariff barriers to trade, which include regulations and Value Added Taxes.

That is what I've read too, and I don't think it makes a lot of economic sense. If you have a willing buyer and a willing seller, both plan to gain for the transaction. That's capitalism. The balance of trade is the sum of all those transactions. I don't see any unfair treatment at all.

It's the blanket, sort of shotgun approach that bothers me the most.

[bpj]

It would make a BIG difference if tariffs that the US puts in place where in fact paid by China, Mexico, Canada, the EU, etc. (versus Americans). Don't you think that's true?

No, I don't.

They'd just raise the price to account for the tariff and pass it along to the importer at that point. That's how business works.

Either way, it's a cost to the consumer. As such, it's an impediment to business for foreign countries in our market because it makes it harder to undercut US companies on price.

A sad day for people who'd rather buy cheap foreign goods than see a flourishing US economy and industry.

I agree the goal should be no tariffs. Free trade. But how do you get there without retaliatory tariffs when other countries have tariffs on us?

The difference I see if China were to be paying of the tariffs, that is a net gain for the US economy. When US consumers are paying for the tariffs, it's just a tax: it moves money around and distorts the economy.

Businesses aren't alway successful as passing on higher costs. Just ask the small businesses in Seattle about the effect of increasing minimum wages. It's all about the price elasticity of demand (I think that is the correct term).

How do we get there (closer to free trade)? The old fashioned boring way, by diplomacy and hammering out agreements, with long term goals of reducing tariffs and other barriers. While they ween't perfect, I think it can be argued that the WTO and NAFTA, and the bilateral agreement from Trump's first term that replaced NAFTA, were steps in the right direction. Unless the newly announced tariffs have the long term effect of reducing tariffs, I think it's a step in the wrong direction.

Doesn't make a difference where it comes from.

Say the importer pays $1.

Makes no difference whether he pays 90 cents to the exporter and 10 cents to the government or whether he sends $1 to the exporter and the exporter sends 10 cents to the government.

Still came from the same pocket.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Nancy and Berny had it right 20 years ago. Basically, now they are against them because President Trump made them happen! [PERIOD]

As for the 25% tariff..... it made Toyota assemble/build their trucks in the USA. Thus a tariff isn't on those trucks. It brought jobs and taxes to the USA.

I love how you call yourself a moderate, but always are against President Trump and for the wild-left.... not too moderate if you ask anyone.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Dude, I do like you and feel you have an interesting take on political things. But you are as rigidly against President Trump as pbj is to any reasonable thought in favor of Israel and the Jews.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

If this all works out and President Trump does get everyone to come to the table and renegotiate better deals and the tariff's are drastically reduced, would you admit that it worked?

If everything comes collapsing down and the world turns to shit over this, I would admit that it was a bad plan. But I want to see what happens.

[bpj]

Dude, I do like you and feel you have an interesting take on political things. But you are as rigidly against President Trump as pbj is to any reasonable thought in favor of Israel and the Jews.

I'm not opposed to thoughts in favor of Israel and Jews.

You just never give any.

All you do is shriek and kvetch about what I say.

I'm just not blindly pro-Israel like you are.

What makes them an ally? We send them billions in aid per year, and they still have the chutzpah to have tariffs on us?? It actually made me laugh because it's so stereotypical.

They're the reason the rest of the middle east hates us to begin with.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Sure thing Fritz.

hitler.jpg (22.01 KiB) Viewed 187 times