New higher Tariffs from trade talks - Page 92
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 92 of 95 FirstFirst ... 42829091929394 ... LastLast
Results 1,821 to 1,840 of 1899
  1. #1821
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    4,276
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2175
    Likes (Received)
    2653

    Default

    On Iran- I was just referring to a pivot they are making to East re-the adoption of infrastructure funds and defense personnel from China.
    And this is another case- I am rapidly moving into an area where I have no expertise...

  2. #1822
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    barcelona, spain
    Posts
    2,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    593
    Likes (Received)
    1539

    Default

    It´s a shame about the Kurds.

    In a mostly lawless area, the kurd controlled territories have little crime, women go to school, education levels are high.
    Pride in ethnicity is high, but the kurds are not against other ethnicities, or religions.

    The kurds are by far the most disciplined fighting force in the area, and have been for about 80 years or more.
    And pretty civilised, overall.
    And they have been about 70-80% of the effective anti-isis fighting force in the area.

    I fail to see any reason the US suddendly abandoned the kurds, the only and the biggest and the most reliable anti-isis force in the region.
    Courting favour with turkey is not the reason, esp. re: russian missile defense AS400 // fighter jets.

    Erdogan / turkey are against the kurds because they fear a kurd state, kurdistan, of some type, on their land or near it.
    Should kurdistan happen, it would likely be fairly successful (education), rich (education) in short order leading to political power globally and regional importance very quickly.

    The US abandoned the kurds, despite promises, allowing Saddam Hussein to gas them, 30-40 years ago.
    Now they did it again, for no reason we can see.

    Crucially, the US is sending the message to potential and current allies that it cannot be depended on long-term.
    Why is this a good thing ?

    The kurds might next turn to pakistan, india, russia, or china for support.
    Who could blame them ?
    This would be terrible geopolitically, while probably good for the kurds.

  3. #1823
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    127
    Likes (Received)
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Because you are deaf. The screaming started the second China cut off soybean imports, and it cost the US taxpayer ten billion dollars for that one event. God knows how much more we have paid out since, I haven't kept track. Go to Canada, they are crying about canola, because they are more realistic than Amurricans and have their heads less far up their ass. So far these tariffs have cost the US taxpayer in the billions.

    Ignorance may be bliss but in the end, it brings bad results.
    You call one small group of people that didn't even really see a huge, unprecedented hit screaming? That's pathetic.

    Soybean prices didn't even move that much relative to the past. About an 18% drop compared to a 19% drop and 20-30% drops just in the past few years. It was a whole lot of nothing. Farm incomes have been going down for years. So no, it isn't screaming. Add to that that Dems who campaigned on tariffs didn't even win much in swing states like Iowa during the midterms after the tariff "screaming" was happening.

    So that's that. There was no screaming of any material value. Trump is looking like he's going to get re-elected, as well.

    Screaming would be everybody is fed up with it, and wants it reversed. And you know that. And that has not happened. Besides, let's be real - this has hit China, as well. They may censor the moans, but that doesn't mean they aren't happening.

    On Canada, they're pathetic. If they had any balls or deserved any respect, they would have immediately tariffed China right back or imposed a non-tariff barrier like they did on some other import. They also run a deficit with China - in general, you're in a better position than the one running the surplus when that happens.

    As far as the costs in billions or whatever, I doubt it. One thing I will agree with you on and I do like is that you're skeptical of analyses of these events. I just think you're too skeptical to the point where you ignore anything and everything. I'm not so sure we've really lost a whole lot of anything. The trade balance with China is pretty much the same as it was since this all began. Tariff revenues have gone up. Supply chains have shifted and are shifting. The "bailout money" that every anti-Trumper likes to tout is pretty miniscule considering we spend almost 10x already protecting and subsidizing (or "bailing out" if you want to call it that) our agricultural sector. So as far as losing, I think that really remains to be seen. Maybe the long-term effects of shifting away from China, as well as whatever political consequences this causes will be a better outcome. When workers strike, both they and the company lose, but it's done for a better future. Again, not saying he's right in the way he's going about it, but short-term pain is not a pure gauge of whether something is good or not.

    Anyway, all in all, there has been no screaming that is noticeably changing political attitude here. China, Dems, and even Republicans, hoped for that, but it hasn't happened.

    You said there would be screaming and they could play the long game, so I'll ask you again. The tariffs have been in place going on 2 years now. When is this screaming supposed to start that is going to noticeably shift the political sea?

  4. #1824
    guest Guest

    Default

    One of my customers was in last week, they have been moving their production out of China. He was asking me if I could take on more work.

    They have production in Mexico, but having problems there too. He asked one of the managers of a Mexican factory what the situation was, his answer was that they couldn't find people who wanted to work.

    A hundred thousand (or whatever the number is) migrants massed at the US-Mexico border, and none of them want jobs in Mexico...

  5. #1825
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    barcelona, spain
    Posts
    2,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    593
    Likes (Received)
    1539

    Default

    Em..
    The US paid 25B dollars to farmers last year, to offset some of the soybean export loss.

    You can still doubt it, but the US still paid it, and it still is not enough vs. previous no-tariff trade schemes.
    25B$ was paid by US taxpayers, and the farmers are still hurting because of (not enough) income vs loans outstanding.

    25B$ in subsidies is real money.

    If You had the courage of Your convictions, then You might
    1. support the farmers 25B$ subsidies.
    2. be against them

    Putting Your head in the sand and pretending there were no subsidies is ostrich management.
    This is probably a bad idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    As far as the costs in billions or whatever, I doubt it.

  6. Likes Greg White liked this post
  7. #1826
    guest Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hanermo View Post
    Em..
    The US paid 25B dollars to farmers last year, to offset some of the soybean export loss.
    No, it was $12 Bn last year. $14.5 this year.

    The money comes from the tariffs collected.

    Soybean prices dropped by $0.80-$1.00/bushel, farmers were paid $1.65/bushel.

    Economists Say Trump Administration Is Overpaying Farmers For Trade Losses : The Salt : NPR

  8. #1827
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    2,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2619
    Likes (Received)
    513

    Default

    It is 20 Billion and do not forget our Agriculture is huge. We have it going on. Subsidies are not all from the trade disagreement. We like to maintain and protect the food supply from drought, bad storms and floods, and from low yields.

    There is something to be learned by the United States in this regard and so this article may interest someone.

    Farm Subsidies In America with Pros, Cons, and Impact

    “The government has a role in ensuring food production during wars, recessions, and other economic crises. Food production is more important to the nation's welfare than other business products.”


    “There are 2.1 million U.S. farms, of which 97% are family-owned. There is a competitive advantage in understanding local soil conditions and weather patterns. Families pass this lore on from generation to generation.”

  9. #1828
    guest Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trueturning View Post
    It is 20 Billion and do not forget our Agriculture is huge. We have it going on. Subsidies are not all from the trade disagreement.
    It's more than $20 Bn if you count all subsidies- but Hanermo said $25 Bn to offset the "soybean export loss".

    It was $12 Bn. Not just for soybeans, but to all trade-affected crops.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45310.pdf

  10. #1829
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    6,102
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guest View Post
    The money comes from the tariffs collected.
    Yeh right. And I won't come in your mouth.

    They paid ten billion before a single tariff was "collected."

    btw, from whom do you think the tariffs are collected? Tariffs are paid by the buyer, not the seller. So no matter how you slice it, it comes out of the Amurrican consumer's pocketbook.

  11. #1830
    guest Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    ...Tariffs are paid by the buyer, not the seller. So no matter how you slice it, it comes out of the Amurrican consumer's pocketbook.
    It does not appear to be happening though. Prices have not gone up.

    The Yuan has gone down, exporters have lowered their prices. Maybe importers are paying more, but it hasn't trickled down to consumers yet.

    My stainless is at pre-tariff levels. I just ordered some aluminum- I will pay $10 more on a 220# order than I paid in 2016. I think I can live with it.

  12. #1831
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    127
    Likes (Received)
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hanermo View Post
    Em..
    The US paid 25B dollars to farmers last year, to offset some of the soybean export loss.

    You can still doubt it, but the US still paid it, and it still is not enough vs. previous no-tariff trade schemes.
    Did you even read what I said? Obviously not. Here's the relevant part that you skipped over.

    The "bailout money" that every anti-Trumper likes to tout is pretty miniscule considering we spend almost 10x already protecting and subsidizing (or "bailing out" if you want to call it that) our agricultural sector.

    That should've said "10x more". As in, we already pay almost 10x that in "bailout money" before Trump ever came around.

    Also, we received money in tariffs, then that money was redistributed. Don't believe me? Calculate it out. You'll find that, in reality, the tariff revenues almost completely covered it. So on a net basis, it was not anywhere near 25 billion. If you think saying 25 is fair, then the number on the side of the bus was 100% correct, as well. Congratulations, you just shot yourself in the foot.

    Quote Originally Posted by hanermo View Post
    25B$ was paid by US taxpayers, and the farmers are still hurting because of (not enough) income vs loans outstanding.
    Yawn. Not 25 on a net basis, and farmers were already hurting. Again, this was a pretty small hit overall. If you don't believe me, pull up a long-term chart of soybean prices. Here, I'll do it for you. Media blew this up 10x greater than what it really is.

    Soybean Prices - 45 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends

    Quote Originally Posted by hanermo View Post
    Putting Your head in the sand and pretending there were no subsidies is ostrich management.
    This is probably a bad idea.
    Well, if I had actually said that and you hadn't glossed over what I said, then that would be relevant. By the way, are you ever going to give your sources for those figures in the Brexit thread? I think that was only the first time you failed to show where your numbers came from. And you're a moderator? What a joke.

    It's sad people can't see beyond the BS in the media to what the reality is. I'm not saying that what Trump is doing is definitely correct, nor that no one was affected by the tariffs. However, the idea that farmers all throughout the midwest were suddenly devastated overnight is complete and utter bullshit. They played that up wayyyy over reality. Another thing that sticks out is that almost no one seems to cover all the problems China is running into. We've heard about farmers and seen it overblown, but you get not a peep about all the exporters/factories suffering over there. Read the Nikkei instead of CNN/Fox and you'll see the other half of this story (China factorygate prices down, wages stagnant, etc.)

    Chinese factory wages stall as US tariffs start to bite -
    Nikkei Asian Review


    Or here.
    China's furniture makers struggle to cushion tariff blow -
    Nikkei Asian Review


    Or here...
    China scrambles to stem manufacturing exodus as 50 companies leave -
    Nikkei Asian Review


    I said it before, and I'll say it again - I don't think it's going to be the end-all-be-all for either side. But if you're going to say one side has more to lose economically than the other, then it is very hard to say it is not China that is in that position. They sell us 4x what we sell to them, they employ I think it was double or triple as much of their population in percentage terms in manufacturing alone (not counting all the multiplier industries), they rely on it more for their economy, as well. The numbers just do not add up. But keep listening to the news - they'll keep you misinformed.

  13. #1832
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    23
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guest View Post
    It does not appear to be happening though. Prices have not gone up.
    The first buyer is the American importer, not necessarily the end user. In many cases, the importers are eating the tariff as much as possible hoping it will disappear before their business is unsustainable. Other US companies who didn't have the margin or available cash to do that have raised prices. This happened with companies who have built their businesses reselling Chinese-made equipment like Shars and Tormach.

    I've paid several thousand dollars in import taxes on a few orders from China for an item that I resell on which I normally paid a few hundred in the pre-tariff days. I didn't initially raise prices when the first round of tariffs was enacted but when the 25% kicked in, I did.

  14. #1833
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    127
    Likes (Received)
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trueturning View Post
    It is 20 Billion and do not forget our Agriculture is huge. We have it going on. Subsidies are not all from the trade disagreement. We like to maintain and protect the food supply from drought, bad storms and floods, and from low yields.

    There is something to be learned by the United States in this regard and so this article may interest someone.

    Farm Subsidies In America with Pros, Cons, and Impact

    “The government has a role in ensuring food production during wars, recessions, and other economic crises. Food production is more important to the nation's welfare than other business products.”


    “There are 2.1 million U.S. farms, of which 97% are family-owned. There is a competitive advantage in understanding local soil conditions and weather patterns. Families pass this lore on from generation to generation.”
    I love TheBalance - that's a great site. However, the ag protection is also highly political. I'm not quite sure why that wasn't mentioned there. It's the same with textiles, or has been historically, for many countries. These sectors are politically sensitive. It's why the TPP was bemoaned by many in Japan, it's why the EU spent at one time 50%+ of their entire budget on protecting agriculture, etc.

  15. #1834
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    127
    Likes (Received)
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    btw, from whom do you think the tariffs are collected? Tariffs are paid by the buyer, not the seller. So no matter how you slice it, it comes out of the Amurrican consumer's pocketbook.
    Is that the case when factories (that's the sellers) drop their prices? No.

    Is that the case when the currency weakens? No.

    That would be the seller paying it. Technically, in this case, it's been a mixture of both buyer and seller, but just shooting out the idea that "buyers always pay the tariff" is too simplistic and not technically correct.

    This doesn't even include the other array of options both importers and exporters have.

    If we're paying it, please show us where that bill is. I don't see 10-25% inflation on a mass scale.

    The whole "consumers always pay tariffs" is just anti-trump BS. It's a political talking point. The economists that this came from to begin with know this themselves. If it were always the case, then just about any tax levied would be paid by consumers. They know this isn't the case, which is why there is the whole concept of "tax incidence".

    Regardless, just using real-world common sense is enough here. If US consumers were bearing the full burden of this, then you would see abnormally high inflation since this all began. Obviously that has not happened. You can pull up inflation statistics yourself and see this. We've had well over a year now to see it and we have not. So that cost has been spread through channels largely other than the consumer. Such as:

    Lower value of the yuan against the USD - here is a 2-year chart of the exchange rate.
    XE: USD / CNY Currency Chart. US Dollar to Chinese Yuan Renminbi Rates
    It was ~6.63 yuan to 1 dollar when the first china-specific tariffs came into effect (not including steel/aluminum, solar panels, etc.). It was 7.14 just two days ago. That's about 7.7% of the cost right there. So for the 10% tariffs instated in July of 2018, today, they are only an additional 2.3% instead of a full 10%.

    Lower prices from Chinese factories - here's one specific article but there are broad factory indices that measure this instead of this single anecdote My Customers Don’t Pay Trump’s Tariffs - WSJ
    Here's a producer price index released by the Chinese govt China Producer Prices | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast | News
    105 when first tariffs came in, 99 now. That's a 5.7% drop. So that would offset 5.7% of a 10% tariff. If you add the exchange rate, that goes over the 10%. Catching on now?

    Misclassification - your import has an HS code. Those HS codes are where the tariffs are listed for customs in the USHTS. You change that HS code to another product that has a lower tariff or no tariff.
    The U.S.-China Trade Battle Spawns a New Era of Tariff Dodges - WSJ

    Transshipment - ship the Chinese export to Vietnam, then re-export to the US to avoid tariffs
    American Tariffs on China Are Being Blunted by Trade Cheats - WSJ

    Rules of origin - Instead of having all of the process done in China, have some % of the process done in China, then have another part done at another non-Chinese place. Similar to above, but is fully legal.

    Alternative sourcing - bought it from China? Buy it from another country.

    Lower profits for companies - this happened to an extent when the US-Japan "trade war" (I hate that term) was going on in the 80's. Japanese motorcycle manufacturers ate those costs. There are multiple instances of this. Don't forget that countries move their tariffs up and down all the time - this is the concept of bound rates. It just doesn't get any news coverage

    There are probably more. Anyway, burden of proof lies on anyone here to prove that US consumers are paying for this. There's inflation data, consumer price indices even down to many different product categories, all from the US government. If it's not there, then consumers are obviously not paying it 100%.
    Last edited by nyc123; 10-12-2019 at 02:15 AM.

  16. #1835
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    2,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2619
    Likes (Received)
    513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Yeh right. And I won't come in your mouth.

    They paid ten billion before a single tariff was "collected."

    btw, from whom do you think the tariffs are collected? Tariffs are paid by the buyer, not the seller. So no matter how you slice it, it comes out of the Amurrican consumer's pocketbook.
    Unless they are selling.

  17. #1836
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    4,276
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2175
    Likes (Received)
    2653

    Default

    "consumers are obviously not paying it 100%."

    Was/is that particularly an important distinction.
    Money is entering the government coffers from the tariffs- is that placement a benefit or cost to economic condition.
    If cost is it acceptable if those conditions benefit in the longer term.

    Lots of research is out on just how much of a cost is born by the consumer- I'd say the burden is on you as the one making the point to understand just what that level is if you want to assess the influences of this otherwise your position is uniformed.


    The Return to Protectionism et al, et al....

  18. #1837
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    2,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2619
    Likes (Received)
    513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    "consumers are obviously not paying it 100%."

    Was/is that particularly an important distinction.
    Money is entering the government coffers from the tariffs- is that placement a benefit or cost to economic condition.
    If cost is it acceptable if those conditions benefit in the longer term.

    Lots of research is out on just how much of a cost is born by the consumer- I'd say the burden is on you as the one making the point to understand just what that level is if you want to assess the influences of this otherwise your position is uniformed.


    The Return to Protectionism et al, et al....
    I think if it is wise for trade in the country overall for the public good then it is wise and even critical. It is a plus.

    What is ignored largely is that tariffs have always had a place even though they have not been used like this for some time.

    To say they are not effective is just thinking our forefathers were idiots. Easily if they were here and alive they would set us straight. Count on that concept as they would given today’s situation.

  19. Likes Trboatworks, Scottl liked this post
  20. #1838
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    127
    Likes (Received)
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    Lots of research is out on just how much of a cost is born by the consumer- I'd say the burden is on you as the one making the point to understand just what that level is if you want to assess the influences of this otherwise your position is uniformed.
    The Return to Protectionism et al, et al....
    Why would the burden be on me? I'm not the one making an extreme proposition here. Others are saying it is only paid by the consumer. Obviously that is not the case. I am saying that it is a mixture, and pretty clearly most of that is not the consumer. If it were, you would see this in inflation data. Yet there is no 10-25% inflation in this data for US goods. So it is going somewhere else. So the ball is in the court of all those who say it is only paid by consumers, because there is no evidence that I see to suggest this is the case. I'm not the first person to bring that up, either.

    As far as "return to protectionism", yeah all these models try to suggest what the economic losses are. They are estimates, calculations made by reducing demand and everything else down into equations. They aren't particularly accurate in their track record, either. The ITC uses models to come up with projections of what each new trade agreement will do to the US economy. There have been several where we were supposed to run a surplus where instead we ended up running a deficit. I believe NAFTA was one of those, yet you see what happened with that. The traditional way they do this is using something called CGE modeling. That is what the government uses. They also minimize it all down to equations and then change the prices of inputs by the amount of tariffs on those inputs and run that on previous years. It's a simulation, not a projection, and imo, a poor one at that because you are trying to reduce an entire economy down into a handful of equations. It's a lot more complicated than modeling a financial instrument, for example. Either way, this paper shows that the losses are very small. "Aggregate real income loss of 7.2 billion" - across the US economy, this is absolutely nothing. They say it themselves with the detail "0.04% of GDP" On top of that, the paper makes itself known as being biased right off the bat with...

    "After decades of supporting free trade, "

    This is a vague and nonsensical line. There is no such thing as free trade and no one practices it because it does not exist. Everybody is a protectionist. We use tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and other measures. Nobody allows goods to flow seamlessly. Nor do we allow labor to flow seamlessly, or capital. "Free trade" has just become this political word that's thrown around as if it means something.

    Does this paper state how much of the tariff burden is paid by consumers when a tariffed good is imported specifically? I don't see it (I'm just glossing over here). Afterall, that's not what it seems like this paper is doing - it's a typical whole-economy effects paper looking at effects in aggregate. I do have a paper which specifically does look at tariffs and who paid them. Their conclusion was that about 75% of it was paid by China and about 25% by the US. I can dig it up if you're interested.

    Anyway, ball is in the court of anyone saying it is consumers paying. I've given a lot of supporting evidence for what I said in that they largely are not. I haven't seen anyone else give anything in support of the opposite other than simply saying it.

  21. Likes Trueturning liked this post
  22. #1839
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    barcelona, spain
    Posts
    2,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    593
    Likes (Received)
    1539

    Default

    Well-posted, eloquent, but wrong.

    1. Factories don´t drop their prices.
    2. True.

    3. No. Wrong.
    The importer always pays the tariff.
    The importer may eat the cost increase. This reduces his profits aka dvidends, earnings, stock market values.

    4. Disagree.
    There is no burden of proof on anyone.
    More tariffs are more costs, and they are paid for by the US importer/seller and/or the consumer in a minimax.

    5.
    There has been no major inflation.
    True.
    But inflation has nothing to do with import duties and the macro economy profitability.

    Example.
    The US pays 25B$, now, to US farmers because they cannot ship soybeans to china.
    850.000 tons, iirc.
    This is lost production, lost economic activity.

    One cannot game economics.
    Import duties, tariffs, licenses, cannot be profitable.
    Reduction Ad A. the US could in Your narrative tariff everything 1000% or whatever, import less, and be rich and happy forever.

    I think You agree the US cannot tariff iphones and car parts enough to pay for all fired US workers in phone sector and auto parts sectors.
    After that, it is a Q. of numbers and priorities.


    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    1. Is that the case when factories (that's the sellers) drop their prices? No.
    2. Is that the case when the currency weakens? No.

    3.
    That would be the seller paying it. Technically, in this case, it's been a mixture of both buyer and seller, but just shooting out the idea that "buyers always pay the tariff" is too simplistic and not technically correct.

    ...
    4.
    burden of proof lies on anyone here to prove that US consumers are paying for this.

    There's inflation data, consumer price indices even down to many different product categories, all from the US government.
    5.
    If it's not there, then consumers are obviously not paying it 100%.

  23. #1840
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    2,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2619
    Likes (Received)
    513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hanermo View Post
    Well-posted, eloquent, but wrong.

    1. Factories don´t drop their prices.
    2. True.

    3. No. Wrong.
    The importer always pays the tariff.
    The importer may eat the cost increase. This reduces his profits aka dvidends, earnings, stock market values.

    4. Disagree.
    There is no burden of proof on anyone.
    More tariffs are more costs, and they are paid for by the US importer/seller and/or the consumer in a minimax.

    5.
    There has been no major inflation.
    True.
    But inflation has nothing to do with import duties and the macro economy profitability.

    Example.
    The US pays 25B$, now, to US farmers because they cannot ship soybeans to china.
    850.000 tons, iirc.
    This is lost production, lost economic activity.

    One cannot game economics.
    Import duties, tariffs, licenses, cannot be profitable.
    Reduction Ad A. the US could in Your narrative tariff everything 1000% or whatever, import less, and be rich and happy forever.

    I think You agree the US cannot tariff iphones and car parts enough to pay for all fired US workers in phone sector and auto parts sectors.
    After that, it is a Q. of numbers and priorities.
    Hanermo, you always reply and never address the person directly. We do not know with certainty who you may be addressing.

    Why not avoid being shy and address directly who you respond to? Unless you may not want direct feedback I do not understand why you would be shy.

    Since you always have numbers you churn out which are usually challenged by many you seem to wish to avoid direct interaction. Is this intentional on your part ? I think not it seems like a oversight.

    Please Sir El Conquistador our moderator, be more specific so we can understand you.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •