5 ms·

I'm frankly stunned that there is an argument in the US about "who pays for tariffs". It's like dictionaries don't exist or something. The literal definition of

I'm frankly stunned that there is an argument in the US about "who pays for tariffs". It's like dictionaries don't exist or something. The literal definition of the word reveals who the tax is effectively applied to.

spankibalt 1y ago
You obviously didn't get the memo: Dictionaries are woke.
- King-Aaron 1y ago
  With the way old Donald wants to rewrite history in the museums, it wouldn't surprise me if dictionaries were next.
  - spankibalt 1y ago
    My comment was about the intellectual aptitude of Trump's most vocal fans... and therefore easiest marks.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  They're double plus bad or should that be bigly bad?
jader201 1y ago
You’re applying a literal definition, but in practice, it can be different. For (a simplified) example, if there’s a 30% tariff on a $100 item, all else equal, the price is now $130, and the customer that originally would have paid $100 is now paying $130. But what can — and I’ve experienced firsthand — happen, is that the US retailer will eat some/all of the tariff in order to not lose the customers business (or even just out of goodwill). Also, the foreign supplier can do the same thing. Rather than lose the business of the US retailer, they may, in turn, eat some/all of the tariff. I’ve seen both of these happen with products I’ve purchased over the past few months. I’m not saying this happens a lot, but I don’t know that it doesn’t, either. I’m just saying that it’s not as clear cut as the definition.
- King-Aaron 1y ago
  The supplier absorbing the tariff isn't sustainable, they will always ultimately pass the cost on to the consumer one way or another. And your $130 example still demonstrates that the consumer just ends up paying more. The whole idea is to dissuade the consumer from buying a foreign product, and choosing a domestic one instead. But if there is no domestic alternative, then it is always just going to be a case of "pay more or don't have it". Anyway I just think everyone in the US are very silly for allowing this to happen. Very silly indeed.
  - jader201 1y ago
    > The supplier absorbing the tariff isn't sustainable, they will always ultimately pass the cost on to the consumer one way or another. I’m not arguing that it is. But passing the price on to the customer isn’t necessarily sustainable either. And to be clear, I’m not arguing in favor of tariffs. Just saying that, in practice, it’s not always “suppliers and retailers still get their money, and the customer pays 100% of the tariff”. > And your $130 example still demonstrates that the consumer just ends up paying more. That example was the case when it does follow the definition. The exceptions that followed that were when it may not. > The whole idea is to dissuade the consumer from buying a foreign product, and choosing a domestic one instead. Not just the customer, but the retailer or manufacturer getting goods/parts from foreign suppliers. > But if there is no domestic alternative, then it is always just going to be a case of "pay more or don't have it". No argument, there. I’ve already seen some small businesses make the tough choice to close their doors because of tariffs.
    - donkeybeer 1y ago
      >But passing the price on to the customer isn’t necessarily sustainable either. It very much is in tariff loving countries. What are customers gonna do? Cry? Even if a local alternative exists, why would they not jack up prices to be just around the tariffed prices of the imports? You don't get domestic products cheaper than the imports even if they exist.
  - dfee 1y ago
disqard 1y ago
I've come to the conclusion that we're living in a post-Truth society. Thus, "tariffs" can be made to mean anything.
f33d5173 1y ago
There is a debate. The issue is you have first order effects, second order effects, third order effects, etc. If we want to be naive, we only look at first order effects, which gives us the people tariffed pay the tariffs. If we want to be intelligent, we include first order and second order (and so on) effects. What certain people are doing is focusing on particular higher order effects while totally ignoring first order effects. For certain goods this might even be a roughly accurate analysis, but in general it is nonsense. But this is the genesis of the "debate". The first order effect would be raising prices. A second order effect would be people buying different goods. A third order effect would be importers lowering prices to remain competitive (this is where we get the idea that they pay the cost of tariffs). Another third order effect would be local producers raising prices. A fourth order effect would be importers raising the prices again, because local producers raised prices also. The net effect is higher consumer prices, but potentially not by that much, while foreign producers might have to substantially lower prices. I don't know what good this would apply to, one that is neither a commodity, but it has a very competitive local market. Movies maybe? Trump also came up with the idea that local sellers wouldn't raise prices, and instead eat the price difference. This is highly questionable, but maybe for some goods it would work out...
- donkeybeer 1y ago
  All that is theory. Look into actual tariff loving countries for the results.
jonway 1y ago
I’ve noticed that people are often just lying as well. I’ve encountered people who will argue that someone else is paying them when it’s convenient to hand-wave away a tax increase for the sake of an argument, and later complaining about the same tariffs. It’s very easy to be this lazy when you’re playing Politics: Tribes. There’s all sorts of dumb-shit slogans and obviously wrong memes about making china or Mexico pay, or cat boxes. They don’t care because it isn’t what’s important, it’s just expedient to parrot some shibboleths.
- donkeybeer 1y ago
  With trumpies its hard to say how much is lying and how much is genuine earnest stupidity.

spankibalt 1y ago

You obviously didn't get the memo: Dictionaries are woke.

King-Aaron 1y ago
With the way old Donald wants to rewrite history in the museums, it wouldn't surprise me if dictionaries were next.
- spankibalt 1y ago
  My comment was about the intellectual aptitude of Trump's most vocal fans... and therefore easiest marks.
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
They're double plus bad or should that be bigly bad?

jader201 1y ago

You’re applying a literal definition, but in practice, it can be different. For (a simplified) example, if there’s a 30% tariff on a $100 item, all else equal, the price is now $130, and the customer that originally would have paid $100 is now paying $130. But what can — and I’ve experienced firsthand — happen, is that the US retailer will eat some/all of the tariff in order to not lose the customers business (or even just out of goodwill). Also, the foreign supplier can do the same thing. Rather than lose the business of the US retailer, they may, in turn, eat some/all of the tariff. I’ve seen both of these happen with products I’ve purchased over the past few months. I’m not saying this happens a lot, but I don’t know that it doesn’t, either. I’m just saying that it’s not as clear cut as the definition.

King-Aaron 1y ago
The supplier absorbing the tariff isn't sustainable, they will always ultimately pass the cost on to the consumer one way or another. And your $130 example still demonstrates that the consumer just ends up paying more. The whole idea is to dissuade the consumer from buying a foreign product, and choosing a domestic one instead. But if there is no domestic alternative, then it is always just going to be a case of "pay more or don't have it". Anyway I just think everyone in the US are very silly for allowing this to happen. Very silly indeed.
- jader201 1y ago
  > The supplier absorbing the tariff isn't sustainable, they will always ultimately pass the cost on to the consumer one way or another. I’m not arguing that it is. But passing the price on to the customer isn’t necessarily sustainable either. And to be clear, I’m not arguing in favor of tariffs. Just saying that, in practice, it’s not always “suppliers and retailers still get their money, and the customer pays 100% of the tariff”. > And your $130 example still demonstrates that the consumer just ends up paying more. That example was the case when it does follow the definition. The exceptions that followed that were when it may not. > The whole idea is to dissuade the consumer from buying a foreign product, and choosing a domestic one instead. Not just the customer, but the retailer or manufacturer getting goods/parts from foreign suppliers. > But if there is no domestic alternative, then it is always just going to be a case of "pay more or don't have it". No argument, there. I’ve already seen some small businesses make the tough choice to close their doors because of tariffs.
  - donkeybeer 1y ago
    >But passing the price on to the customer isn’t necessarily sustainable either. It very much is in tariff loving countries. What are customers gonna do? Cry? Even if a local alternative exists, why would they not jack up prices to be just around the tariffed prices of the imports? You don't get domestic products cheaper than the imports even if they exist.
- dfee 1y ago

disqard 1y ago

I've come to the conclusion that we're living in a post-Truth society. Thus, "tariffs" can be made to mean anything.

f33d5173 1y ago

There is a debate. The issue is you have first order effects, second order effects, third order effects, etc. If we want to be naive, we only look at first order effects, which gives us the people tariffed pay the tariffs. If we want to be intelligent, we include first order and second order (and so on) effects. What certain people are doing is focusing on particular higher order effects while totally ignoring first order effects. For certain goods this might even be a roughly accurate analysis, but in general it is nonsense. But this is the genesis of the "debate". The first order effect would be raising prices. A second order effect would be people buying different goods. A third order effect would be importers lowering prices to remain competitive (this is where we get the idea that they pay the cost of tariffs). Another third order effect would be local producers raising prices. A fourth order effect would be importers raising the prices again, because local producers raised prices also. The net effect is higher consumer prices, but potentially not by that much, while foreign producers might have to substantially lower prices. I don't know what good this would apply to, one that is neither a commodity, but it has a very competitive local market. Movies maybe? Trump also came up with the idea that local sellers wouldn't raise prices, and instead eat the price difference. This is highly questionable, but maybe for some goods it would work out...

donkeybeer 1y ago
All that is theory. Look into actual tariff loving countries for the results.

jonway 1y ago

I’ve noticed that people are often just lying as well. I’ve encountered people who will argue that someone else is paying them when it’s convenient to hand-wave away a tax increase for the sake of an argument, and later complaining about the same tariffs. It’s very easy to be this lazy when you’re playing Politics: Tribes. There’s all sorts of dumb-shit slogans and obviously wrong memes about making china or Mexico pay, or cat boxes. They don’t care because it isn’t what’s important, it’s just expedient to parrot some shibboleths.

donkeybeer 1y ago
With trumpies its hard to say how much is lying and how much is genuine earnest stupidity.