10 ms·

> Are you aware that the US did this before No because it wasn't even remotely the same. In 2022 the average tariff on Chinese imports was 2.86%, 0.01% on Mexi

by qwytw 2y ago

> Are you aware that the US did this before No because it wasn't even remotely the same. In 2022 the average tariff on Chinese imports was 2.86%, 0.01% on Mexican goods and 0.12% on Canadian goods. Besides that the first term tariffs were targeted and not applied universally to all imports. That "great/fantastic deal"(USMCA) that Trump "negotiated" back in his first term kept most trade with Mexico and Canada more or less tariff free. TBH it's hard to tell if you're being purposefully obtuse or not... > The reason that it’s not simple to calculate Yes and while I very well might be wrong I just don't see how is the 2.8% figure arithmetically possible. e.g. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/structured-finance/effects-of-us-tariff-policy-changes-will-vary-sharply-across-sectors-countries-09-01-2025 https://www.fitchratings.com/research/structured-finance/eff... had different calculations (of course it assumes 60% on China and 10% on all other countries besides Mexico/Canada so it would be well below 21% but not 2.8% either).

owenversteeg 2y ago
>it wasn't even remotely the same I think everyone can agree that in both 2018 and 2025: 1) Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on major trade partners - among which China, Mexico and Canada; 2) most media predicted a large-scale disaster; 3) large parts of the tariffs were later cancelled entirely, delayed, or scaled back. I'm not sure what part of that "isn't even remotely the same." You highlight the low average tariff rates by country despite the (large) first Trump tariffs. This is _exactly_ my point: when you account for all exemptions, changes, agreements, rerouting of trade etc, the marquee double-digit numbers shrink dramatically. --- As for the exact number, obviously it is impossible to know, and there are many ways to measure it. It's not uncommon for two estimates of tariff revenue, both calculated in honest ways, to be widely at odds. This is one reason why I qualified my numbers as "very rough", but I did lay out my reasoning above. To make it simple: most groups (CRFB, Tax Foundation, etc) estimated the tariffs we were discussing (China +10, Canada/Mexico +25) to sit - very roughly - at 100B of revenue raised plus or minus a few tens of billions. Current US tariff revenue is approximately 100B. So, in other words, we're talking about an approximate doubling of mean tariffs, which stand at around 1.5-2% today depending on who you ask and how it is measured.

by qwytw 2y ago

owenversteeg 2y ago

>it wasn't even remotely the same I think everyone can agree that in both 2018 and 2025: 1) Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on major trade partners - among which China, Mexico and Canada; 2) most media predicted a large-scale disaster; 3) large parts of the tariffs were later cancelled entirely, delayed, or scaled back. I'm not sure what part of that "isn't even remotely the same." You highlight the low average tariff rates by country despite the (large) first Trump tariffs. This is _exactly_ my point: when you account for all exemptions, changes, agreements, rerouting of trade etc, the marquee double-digit numbers shrink dramatically. --- As for the exact number, obviously it is impossible to know, and there are many ways to measure it. It's not uncommon for two estimates of tariff revenue, both calculated in honest ways, to be widely at odds. This is one reason why I qualified my numbers as "very rough", but I did lay out my reasoning above. To make it simple: most groups (CRFB, Tax Foundation, etc) estimated the tariffs we were discussing (China +10, Canada/Mexico +25) to sit - very roughly - at 100B of revenue raised plus or minus a few tens of billions. Current US tariff revenue is approximately 100B. So, in other words, we're talking about an approximate doubling of mean tariffs, which stand at around 1.5-2% today depending on who you ask and how it is measured.