11 ms·

Out of all possible trade barriers, I think tariffs are generally the better option. The alternative is subsidies, quotas or "unofficial" barriers like product

Out of all possible trade barriers, I think tariffs are generally the better option. The alternative is subsidies, quotas or "unofficial" barriers like product safety rules or other burry-you-in-bureaucracy setups. Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public) They're easier to understand. This one makes Chinese microwaves x% more expensive. It's clearer who is paying for it (consumers) and who benefits, as opposed to pretending a policy is intended to protect consumers. Importantly, they are easier to change. Politicians can make a decision and do it. With other options, it's harder to implement patches or predict the results of any change. Basically, they're simpler, more explicit and more honest than any other approach. ..if you've already decided to have trade barriers.

digitalzombie 8y ago
I disagree. Wavepool, Maytag, etc.. Americans washer and dryer cloth machines pushed for Tariff from the Obama administration to fight against Samsung and other. The tariff target machine coming out from specific countries so Samsung and other moved to other South Eastern companies such as Vietnam. So the American companies pushed for tariff for all incoming washing machine that aren't American. Trump administration gave that to them. The result is Samsung and other moved to America for manufacturing. But these companies got HUGE tax breaks incentive to move their company to their states while the American companies aren't getting anything. This is on top of the prices of metal going up. There is a $100 extra on top of washing/drying machines now. I'm not a libertarian but The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith states that all country will have certain expertise they are just good at. Wether it is because the geography that enable them to be better than other or other things, because they're good at certain thing, countries should play to their strength and trade for what they need. Samsung and other non USA companies are just better than US manufacturer in building washing/drying machine. That's just a fact and this tariff thing is only costing the consumer. The consumers are the losers. These are the sources before the effect of the tariffs: https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/94166-washing-machine-tariffs-deliver-a-mixed-bag https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/94166-washing-machine-t... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/business/trump-tariffs-washing-machines-solar-panels.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/business/trump-tariffs-wa... I don't recall where I got the sources of LG and Samsung moving to USA but it could be PBSnews.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  "I disagree." In other words you think that subsidies and senseless bureaucratic obstacles are better than tariffs? The OP is not saying that tariffs are a good thing, he's saying that tariffs are so obviously bad & stupid that they're easier to get rid of and negotiate away. Subsidies and senseless bureaucratic obstacles are just as damaging as tariffs but they are harder to get rid of.
  - sveme 8y ago
    Regulatory requirements on product safety and environmental standards are not senseless bureaucratic obstacles.
    - bryanlarsen 8y ago
      Which is why I added the adjective "senseless", implying that there are bureaucratic obstacles that aren't senseless.
      - Brockenstein 8y ago
        Depending on who you're talking to "senseless" isn't as objective a term as you seem to imagine.
        bryanlarsen 8y ago
        Of course it's not objective, it's highly subjective. c.f. "ugly cars". Ugly is subjective, but it doesn't mean "all cars are ugly", it's referring to the subset of cars that are ugly.
    - dalbasal 8y ago
      (OP) No, they're not senseless but they are barriers. They can be senseless and they can be designed to be obstacles, a disingenuous way of having obstacles without admitting it. The truth is in the specifics. One advantage of tariffs is that they let you have product safety and environmental standards that were designed for consumer & environmwntal safety instead of an ulterior motives. The most obvious example is the entirely estranged European & American dairy regulations which started as a way of protecting consumers but are now a way of protecting industries. My argument is that if you could just admit that an industry is being protected, and have tariffs then we could enjoy eachothers' cheeses (at a higher price). We'd also raise tax revenue and probably have better consumer safety regulations, since they wouldn't have to (disingenuously) make the case that the way cheese is made in Scotland or prosciutto is made in Italy is fundamentally unsafe.
maxerickson 8y ago
People buying products subject to tariffs (or products made with materials subject to tariffs) pay the majority of the tariff. So they do cost the public. In a functioning market, local suppliers are likely to raise prices in response to the tariffs, as they face less competition.
- notheguyouthink 8y ago
  I don't know anything about economy, so this is a question not.. a counter, but: > In a functioning market, local suppliers are likely to raise prices in response to the tariffs, as they face less competition. Is that entirely bad? The whole "US Made!" tagline of old stopped becoming possible because we couldn't charge wages low enough to compete with foreign dollars or foreign slave wages. Raising the cost of X item so that it is actually able to be produced locally would seem to, conceptually, bring that type of job "back". With that said, there's the obvious opposite of now every item US made is meaningfully more expensive. Seeing as so much of what we buy is made offshore, this seems to effectively raise the cost of living. So, I don't really have any answers.. but hey, I don't work in economics :)
  - Heliosmaster 8y ago
    It will bring jobs back if there are enough people who can afford the local made product. And I wouldn't be sure about it, since in the last few years we have witnessed a thinning of the middle class, and the lower parts of the population might not afford to pay a premium because it's locally made. It's hard to go back from a race to the bottom
    - tomp 8y ago
      > if there are enough people who can afford the local made product Eventually, it will keep more money in the country, meaning people will also be able to afford more (after all, they'll be being paid the higher, local wages now). Compare with e.g. Switzerland, where most people have really high salary (by EU standards), and pretty much everything is really expensive, but because of the high salaries people can afford it.
jpindar 8y ago
>Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public) Tariffs are imposing taxes on the very businesses we're supposedly trying to save!
- adventured 8y ago
  Over time tariffs will spur increased domestic replacement manufacturing vs Chinese imports. If the US were primarily harming itself with tariffs, other nations wouldn't be reacting the way they are. They all know the game is up and they're all desperately looking to hold onto their advantages. US manufacturing costs are nearly on par with China at this point because of the vast inflation in costs that have occurred in China over the last 20 years, including in wages. That's particularly the case when you account for the cost of foreign transport/distribution. Chinese manufacturing will only get more expensive over the coming decade, increasing US price competitiveness (whereas there was previously a vast gap between the two, eg just as recently as 2005). It's ideal to begin competing with China using the same tactics they've been using to compete with everyone else for decades. China is no longer a tiny developing economy, they're an economic superpower and still rapidly expanding. The US should spur domestic manufacturing, by increasing the cost of Chinese products. Over time, the net benefit will be to increase domestic manufacturing and reduce Chinese imports. Worst case scenario, the US redirects trade to other developing nations, such as Vietnam, and away from China. That's also a dramatic benefit to the US, as Vietnam can never be a superpower rival.
  - jayd16 8y ago
    >If the US were primarily harming itself with tariffs, other nations wouldn't be reacting the way they are. Invalid argument. You could easily have a policy that harms yourself and others.
  - scroogly 8y ago
    >They all know the game is up and they're all desperately looking to hold onto their advantages. Don't knock it, that game made the US the richest country in the world. And yes, that game does look just about done right now.
imgabe 8y ago
> This one makes Chinese microwaves x% more expensive. Except that's not what the article says. The tariffs in question don't apply to finished products. So it wouldn't make a Chinese microwave more expensive. However, if you want to import components to build a microwave and hire US workers to put it together, that is what these tariffs make much more expensive. So instead of hiring US workers to assemble it in the US, you do the whole thing in China and import it with no tariffs.
- fredley 8y ago
  One function of tariffs is to put political pressure on other countries. That's exactly what China is doing here. By only putting tariffs on uncompleted goods, it now makes even less sense to assemble in the US. This is in direct opposition to what a lot of Trump's voters were voting for: more manufacturing in the US.
  - sipherhex 8y ago
    The first part of your statement is generally accurate. However, the article is discussing tariffs the US has chosen. This is not something China is doing.
    - fredley 8y ago
      I missed that completely. Well that's just bizarre...
      - scroogly 8y ago
        There is massive cognitive dissonance in trying to explain a lot of current events because they are so beyond what you expect to make sense. Yesterday I was trying to explain to a friend about the children separated at the border and how the parents are then being deported alone and have to apply afterwards to try and find their children, and it took about seven attempts. She didn't understand what I was saying at first because she assumed I must have misspoke, as doing that doesn't compute.
Kenji 8y ago
> Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public) What's the difference between "bring in taxes" and "costing the public"? It's literally the same thing. Surely you know who foots the bill either way - the public.

digitalzombie 8y ago

I disagree. Wavepool, Maytag, etc.. Americans washer and dryer cloth machines pushed for Tariff from the Obama administration to fight against Samsung and other. The tariff target machine coming out from specific countries so Samsung and other moved to other South Eastern companies such as Vietnam. So the American companies pushed for tariff for all incoming washing machine that aren't American. Trump administration gave that to them. The result is Samsung and other moved to America for manufacturing. But these companies got HUGE tax breaks incentive to move their company to their states while the American companies aren't getting anything. This is on top of the prices of metal going up. There is a $100 extra on top of washing/drying machines now. I'm not a libertarian but The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith states that all country will have certain expertise they are just good at. Wether it is because the geography that enable them to be better than other or other things, because they're good at certain thing, countries should play to their strength and trade for what they need. Samsung and other non USA companies are just better than US manufacturer in building washing/drying machine. That's just a fact and this tariff thing is only costing the consumer. The consumers are the losers. These are the sources before the effect of the tariffs: https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/94166-washing-machine-tariffs-deliver-a-mixed-bag https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/94166-washing-machine-t... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/business/trump-tariffs-washing-machines-solar-panels.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/business/trump-tariffs-wa... I don't recall where I got the sources of LG and Samsung moving to USA but it could be PBSnews.

bryanlarsen 8y ago
"I disagree." In other words you think that subsidies and senseless bureaucratic obstacles are better than tariffs? The OP is not saying that tariffs are a good thing, he's saying that tariffs are so obviously bad & stupid that they're easier to get rid of and negotiate away. Subsidies and senseless bureaucratic obstacles are just as damaging as tariffs but they are harder to get rid of.
- sveme 8y ago
  Regulatory requirements on product safety and environmental standards are not senseless bureaucratic obstacles.
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    Which is why I added the adjective "senseless", implying that there are bureaucratic obstacles that aren't senseless.
    - Brockenstein 8y ago
      Depending on who you're talking to "senseless" isn't as objective a term as you seem to imagine.
      - bryanlarsen 8y ago
        Of course it's not objective, it's highly subjective. c.f. "ugly cars". Ugly is subjective, but it doesn't mean "all cars are ugly", it's referring to the subset of cars that are ugly.
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    (OP) No, they're not senseless but they are barriers. They can be senseless and they can be designed to be obstacles, a disingenuous way of having obstacles without admitting it. The truth is in the specifics. One advantage of tariffs is that they let you have product safety and environmental standards that were designed for consumer & environmwntal safety instead of an ulterior motives. The most obvious example is the entirely estranged European & American dairy regulations which started as a way of protecting consumers but are now a way of protecting industries. My argument is that if you could just admit that an industry is being protected, and have tariffs then we could enjoy eachothers' cheeses (at a higher price). We'd also raise tax revenue and probably have better consumer safety regulations, since they wouldn't have to (disingenuously) make the case that the way cheese is made in Scotland or prosciutto is made in Italy is fundamentally unsafe.

maxerickson 8y ago

People buying products subject to tariffs (or products made with materials subject to tariffs) pay the majority of the tariff. So they do cost the public. In a functioning market, local suppliers are likely to raise prices in response to the tariffs, as they face less competition.

notheguyouthink 8y ago
I don't know anything about economy, so this is a question not.. a counter, but: > In a functioning market, local suppliers are likely to raise prices in response to the tariffs, as they face less competition. Is that entirely bad? The whole "US Made!" tagline of old stopped becoming possible because we couldn't charge wages low enough to compete with foreign dollars or foreign slave wages. Raising the cost of X item so that it is actually able to be produced locally would seem to, conceptually, bring that type of job "back". With that said, there's the obvious opposite of now every item US made is meaningfully more expensive. Seeing as so much of what we buy is made offshore, this seems to effectively raise the cost of living. So, I don't really have any answers.. but hey, I don't work in economics :)
- Heliosmaster 8y ago
  It will bring jobs back if there are enough people who can afford the local made product. And I wouldn't be sure about it, since in the last few years we have witnessed a thinning of the middle class, and the lower parts of the population might not afford to pay a premium because it's locally made. It's hard to go back from a race to the bottom
  - tomp 8y ago
    > if there are enough people who can afford the local made product Eventually, it will keep more money in the country, meaning people will also be able to afford more (after all, they'll be being paid the higher, local wages now). Compare with e.g. Switzerland, where most people have really high salary (by EU standards), and pretty much everything is really expensive, but because of the high salaries people can afford it.

jpindar 8y ago

>Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public) Tariffs are imposing taxes on the very businesses we're supposedly trying to save!

adventured 8y ago
Over time tariffs will spur increased domestic replacement manufacturing vs Chinese imports. If the US were primarily harming itself with tariffs, other nations wouldn't be reacting the way they are. They all know the game is up and they're all desperately looking to hold onto their advantages. US manufacturing costs are nearly on par with China at this point because of the vast inflation in costs that have occurred in China over the last 20 years, including in wages. That's particularly the case when you account for the cost of foreign transport/distribution. Chinese manufacturing will only get more expensive over the coming decade, increasing US price competitiveness (whereas there was previously a vast gap between the two, eg just as recently as 2005). It's ideal to begin competing with China using the same tactics they've been using to compete with everyone else for decades. China is no longer a tiny developing economy, they're an economic superpower and still rapidly expanding. The US should spur domestic manufacturing, by increasing the cost of Chinese products. Over time, the net benefit will be to increase domestic manufacturing and reduce Chinese imports. Worst case scenario, the US redirects trade to other developing nations, such as Vietnam, and away from China. That's also a dramatic benefit to the US, as Vietnam can never be a superpower rival.
- jayd16 8y ago
  >If the US were primarily harming itself with tariffs, other nations wouldn't be reacting the way they are. Invalid argument. You could easily have a policy that harms yourself and others.
- scroogly 8y ago
  >They all know the game is up and they're all desperately looking to hold onto their advantages. Don't knock it, that game made the US the richest country in the world. And yes, that game does look just about done right now.

imgabe 8y ago

> This one makes Chinese microwaves x% more expensive. Except that's not what the article says. The tariffs in question don't apply to finished products. So it wouldn't make a Chinese microwave more expensive. However, if you want to import components to build a microwave and hire US workers to put it together, that is what these tariffs make much more expensive. So instead of hiring US workers to assemble it in the US, you do the whole thing in China and import it with no tariffs.

fredley 8y ago
One function of tariffs is to put political pressure on other countries. That's exactly what China is doing here. By only putting tariffs on uncompleted goods, it now makes even less sense to assemble in the US. This is in direct opposition to what a lot of Trump's voters were voting for: more manufacturing in the US.
- sipherhex 8y ago
  The first part of your statement is generally accurate. However, the article is discussing tariffs the US has chosen. This is not something China is doing.
  - fredley 8y ago
    I missed that completely. Well that's just bizarre...
    - scroogly 8y ago
      There is massive cognitive dissonance in trying to explain a lot of current events because they are so beyond what you expect to make sense. Yesterday I was trying to explain to a friend about the children separated at the border and how the parents are then being deported alone and have to apply afterwards to try and find their children, and it took about seven attempts. She didn't understand what I was saying at first because she assumed I must have misspoke, as doing that doesn't compute.

Kenji 8y ago

> Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public) What's the difference between "bring in taxes" and "costing the public"? It's literally the same thing. Surely you know who foots the bill either way - the public.