3 ms·

Huge amount of discussion in this thread neglects the idea that a massive increase in tariffs will throttle trade shipments. Its the obvious expected effect.

fallingknife 1y ago
That's obvious. I think the question is more one of how long will they be throttled for? Even if there was a domestic or foreign nontariffed supplier for 100% of the goods in question it would still take significant lead time for the new orders to be filled and even more for cases where capacity needs to be increased.
- theturtletalks 1y ago
  No one knows, it’s a game of chicken. Will the suppliers eat the tariff cost if they start losing market share? Will consumers just pay the extra cost if they really need the item? If the latter happens, will a domestic company come in and undercut the international sellers?
  - pan69 1y ago
    If the suppliers decide that it's not worth the risk of letting the consumer to decide to pay the passed on tariff then there simply is no consumer choice. There needs to exist a domestic supplier to be able to fill the gap. My guess is that for many products, there simply isn't one.
    - habinero 1y ago
      Yeah, standing up a new factory will take five years and hundreds of millions of dollars. Larger businesses like Apple will cut deals. Smaller businesses will just fold.
  - lurkshark 1y ago
    The on-again-off-again of the tariffs throws another wrench in there. It would be a big gamble to start building a domestic factory right now because you don’t know if the tariffs are going to stick around long enough to make it worth it. Plus you still have the issue of tariffs on imported materials cutting away at any potential margin.
roxolotl 1y ago
Again further stating the obvious here but this is the _desired_ effect. Not saying if that’s good one way or the other but it’s clear the goal is to reduce inbound volume from the world.
- ipaddr 1y ago
  Maybe, but no trade means no new money from tariffs and the plan was to confuse the market get massive short term windfall while slowly onshoring those jobs replacing that income through corporate/income tax. Now we have no trade and a drop in demand for US currency.
  - satanfirst 1y ago
    > Now we have no trade and a drop in demand for US currency. Trade hasn't been this fair to the US since before WWII.
    - ipaddr 1y ago
      That's the period before the US dollar was the world's reserved currency. If things go back to that point it will mean the US couldn't afford to borrow at low rates anymore and would lower the ability to fund the military / society. Before the war the unemployment rate was 25% in the US.
      - greenie_beans 1y ago
        i think that was their point, sarcastically
        satanfirst 1y ago
        [flagged]
- overfeed 1y ago
  > it’s clear the goal is to reduce inbound volume from the world. This is painting the bullseye around the arrow - while this was entirely predictable, when did anyone in the administration state that this[1] was the goal? This goal is obviously is contrary to another stated policy goal of lowering inflation. 1. Initially, the stated goal was to make trade imbalances "fair"

fallingknife 1y ago

That's obvious. I think the question is more one of how long will they be throttled for? Even if there was a domestic or foreign nontariffed supplier for 100% of the goods in question it would still take significant lead time for the new orders to be filled and even more for cases where capacity needs to be increased.

theturtletalks 1y ago
No one knows, it’s a game of chicken. Will the suppliers eat the tariff cost if they start losing market share? Will consumers just pay the extra cost if they really need the item? If the latter happens, will a domestic company come in and undercut the international sellers?
- pan69 1y ago
  If the suppliers decide that it's not worth the risk of letting the consumer to decide to pay the passed on tariff then there simply is no consumer choice. There needs to exist a domestic supplier to be able to fill the gap. My guess is that for many products, there simply isn't one.
  - habinero 1y ago
    Yeah, standing up a new factory will take five years and hundreds of millions of dollars. Larger businesses like Apple will cut deals. Smaller businesses will just fold.
- lurkshark 1y ago
  The on-again-off-again of the tariffs throws another wrench in there. It would be a big gamble to start building a domestic factory right now because you don’t know if the tariffs are going to stick around long enough to make it worth it. Plus you still have the issue of tariffs on imported materials cutting away at any potential margin.

roxolotl 1y ago

Again further stating the obvious here but this is the _desired_ effect. Not saying if that’s good one way or the other but it’s clear the goal is to reduce inbound volume from the world.

ipaddr 1y ago
Maybe, but no trade means no new money from tariffs and the plan was to confuse the market get massive short term windfall while slowly onshoring those jobs replacing that income through corporate/income tax. Now we have no trade and a drop in demand for US currency.
- satanfirst 1y ago
  > Now we have no trade and a drop in demand for US currency. Trade hasn't been this fair to the US since before WWII.
  - ipaddr 1y ago
    That's the period before the US dollar was the world's reserved currency. If things go back to that point it will mean the US couldn't afford to borrow at low rates anymore and would lower the ability to fund the military / society. Before the war the unemployment rate was 25% in the US.
    - greenie_beans 1y ago
      i think that was their point, sarcastically
      - satanfirst 1y ago
        [flagged]
overfeed 1y ago
> it’s clear the goal is to reduce inbound volume from the world. This is painting the bullseye around the arrow - while this was entirely predictable, when did anyone in the administration state that this[1] was the goal? This goal is obviously is contrary to another stated policy goal of lowering inflation. 1. Initially, the stated goal was to make trade imbalances "fair"