5 ms·

He better dusts off the good old auto pen. The man has a lot of cheques to write for the 175 billion he stole illegally from foreign countries.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
edot 8mo ago
What? You mean from American importers and therefore consumers? Foreign countries do not pay tariffs. This lie needs to stop.
- carefree-bob 8mo ago
  You really believe that the incidence of taxation falls 100% on the buyer and never the seller? And you think those who have a more accurate view are "lying"? Please learn a bit about the incidence of taxation: https://stantcheva.scholars.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum7746/files/stantcheva/files/lecture3_1.pdf https://stantcheva.scholars.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum... The main models supporting your view is where consumer income is exogenous and all firm profits are redistributed to the representative consumer as a lump sum transfer: https://www.ief.es/docs/destacados/publicaciones/revistas/hpe/216_Art2.pdf https://www.ief.es/docs/destacados/publicaciones/revistas/hp... Please avoid simplistic beliefs and moral outrage for things as complex as trade policy. The people who say that the incidence of taxation falls heavily on sellers may just be better informed, particularly when listening to wall street earnings calls while simultaneously looking at the consumer price data. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL
  - rsynnott 8mo ago
    Indeed; it's not 100%. It's actually 96%: https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/americas-own-goal-americans-pay-almost-entirely-for-trumps-tariffs/ https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/americas-own-g...
    - carefree-bob 8mo ago
      LOL. Have you read that paper? And do you believe the BLS is lying about inflation data? Let's take a look at the latest EU-consensus reinforcing pamphlet pushed out by Kiehl, because when Mahlkow wrote about tarrifs in 2022, he was all for them. At that time the EU was debating imposing tariffs on Russia, and here Mahlkov insisted that there would be massive economic long term contraction for Russia - which did not happen -- yet simultaneously, Mahlkow predict no meaningful effect of the EU's tariffs on the EU itself. You see, at that time, Mahlkov insisted that because the EU GDP was larger, there would be no impact on the EU itself as a result of tariffs. https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Publications/fis-import/03cea07d-e194-4d37-8e81-a4efd09ba96d-KWP_2210.pdf https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Pu... Now let's dig into the crazy assumptions of Mahlkow's model. Does he use sophisticated econometric analysis? No, what he does is look at shipping containers and published tariff rates. What he assumes is that if, before the tariffs, there were 100 units shipped, but after the tariffs, there were also 100 units shipped, then it must be that 100% of the cost was passed onto the consumer. You see, some tariffs (which the EU bureaucracy and it's various patronage organizations like Kiehl) support don't cause any harm to the nation levying the tariff, but other tariffs are deadly, and fortunately Mahlkov will pick the right model to reach the right conclusion. No looking at pallet data in 2022! Now what is wrong with looking at pallet data for a brief period of time. It never occurs to Mahlkov that the corporations importing the goods have to absorb some of the cost. Mahlkov just assumes 100% is passed through to consumers and the importers pay nothing. This must mean the BLS is committing some kind of fraud as this has not been showing up in CPI data. I'll leave you to decide whether this is warranted or not, but let's just say there is a reason this remains a "brief" available to download and is not a published paper. Meanwhile, real economists, even though the profession is politicized, nevertheless understand that they missed the boat on estimating tariff effects, and that the models need updating. To a real researcher, it's actually a great opportunity. But to someone like Mahlkov, who is trotted out whenever there needs to be economic support for or against the same policy, he will gladly write a paper. And then others will cite it.
acedTrex 8mo ago
"stole from foreign countries" is not how tariffs work.
- Jamesbeam 8mo ago
  You are not wrong. But you’re also not fully right. I think you don’t see the full scale of the economic tail those tariffs had. He raised tariffs illegally by 10% for most countries immediately, which triggered a bunch of negative economic effects around the globe in those countries directly tied to the illegal raise of those tariffs by who represents the United States of America. Damages have to be paid to those countries and their companies. Because those costs occurred from an illegal action. We do agree that if you do something the highest court has deemed illegal, if it caused damages to any party as direct result of that illegal action, the entity who suffered those damages should be entitled to claim damages, right? A lot of companies had to deal with the same problems. You can’t really plan exporting into a country that raises different amounts of tariffs basically over night depending on how his majesty, the king of the free world has slept the night before. Someone needs to plan with the new realities, workers need to put in more hours, external expertise needs to be hired, all costs have to be evaluated, partners in the US might no longer be able to clear their inventory, new business terms need to be negotiated. Don’t get me started about the Logistics troubles, but all of the above are costs which wouldn’t occur if the president had gotten legal advise from the Supreme Court about his economic plans before he did something illegal. Right? So do you follow the law? If yes, your conclusion needs to be that the president needs to write a lot of Cheques and probably needs the autopen. Because it weren’t only us importers and customers suffering from the presidents illegal action.
lokar 8mo ago
Americans pay the tariffs
- mothballed 8mo ago
  .gov can write the check back to Americans then, and disband ICE, CBP, the DEA, and the ATF to pay for it.
  - cdrnsf 8mo ago
    Better yet, dissolve ICE and DHS and send stimulus checks to folks with what used to be their budget.
    - lokar 8mo ago
      Or best: try to get the defect down to about 2% of GDP
sowbug 8mo ago
s/tariff/import tax/
hypeatei 8mo ago
The sad part is that the $175B was already spent because the tariffs didn't generate a budget surplus so we literally just set it on fire and will need to turn on the money printer to give it back to Americans who paid the taxes.
mint5 8mo ago
“Stole illegally from foreign countries” ????!!! American citizens and American importers are not foreigner countries. Don’t propagate or fall for trumps repeated blatant LIE that foreign countries pay tariffs. They are direct taxes on Americans and American importers, the exporter does not pay it.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

edot 8mo ago

What? You mean from American importers and therefore consumers? Foreign countries do not pay tariffs. This lie needs to stop.

carefree-bob 8mo ago
You really believe that the incidence of taxation falls 100% on the buyer and never the seller? And you think those who have a more accurate view are "lying"? Please learn a bit about the incidence of taxation: https://stantcheva.scholars.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum7746/files/stantcheva/files/lecture3_1.pdf https://stantcheva.scholars.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum... The main models supporting your view is where consumer income is exogenous and all firm profits are redistributed to the representative consumer as a lump sum transfer: https://www.ief.es/docs/destacados/publicaciones/revistas/hpe/216_Art2.pdf https://www.ief.es/docs/destacados/publicaciones/revistas/hp... Please avoid simplistic beliefs and moral outrage for things as complex as trade policy. The people who say that the incidence of taxation falls heavily on sellers may just be better informed, particularly when listening to wall street earnings calls while simultaneously looking at the consumer price data. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL
- rsynnott 8mo ago
  Indeed; it's not 100%. It's actually 96%: https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/americas-own-goal-americans-pay-almost-entirely-for-trumps-tariffs/ https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/americas-own-g...
  - carefree-bob 8mo ago
    LOL. Have you read that paper? And do you believe the BLS is lying about inflation data? Let's take a look at the latest EU-consensus reinforcing pamphlet pushed out by Kiehl, because when Mahlkow wrote about tarrifs in 2022, he was all for them. At that time the EU was debating imposing tariffs on Russia, and here Mahlkov insisted that there would be massive economic long term contraction for Russia - which did not happen -- yet simultaneously, Mahlkow predict no meaningful effect of the EU's tariffs on the EU itself. You see, at that time, Mahlkov insisted that because the EU GDP was larger, there would be no impact on the EU itself as a result of tariffs. https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Publications/fis-import/03cea07d-e194-4d37-8e81-a4efd09ba96d-KWP_2210.pdf https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Pu... Now let's dig into the crazy assumptions of Mahlkow's model. Does he use sophisticated econometric analysis? No, what he does is look at shipping containers and published tariff rates. What he assumes is that if, before the tariffs, there were 100 units shipped, but after the tariffs, there were also 100 units shipped, then it must be that 100% of the cost was passed onto the consumer. You see, some tariffs (which the EU bureaucracy and it's various patronage organizations like Kiehl) support don't cause any harm to the nation levying the tariff, but other tariffs are deadly, and fortunately Mahlkov will pick the right model to reach the right conclusion. No looking at pallet data in 2022! Now what is wrong with looking at pallet data for a brief period of time. It never occurs to Mahlkov that the corporations importing the goods have to absorb some of the cost. Mahlkov just assumes 100% is passed through to consumers and the importers pay nothing. This must mean the BLS is committing some kind of fraud as this has not been showing up in CPI data. I'll leave you to decide whether this is warranted or not, but let's just say there is a reason this remains a "brief" available to download and is not a published paper. Meanwhile, real economists, even though the profession is politicized, nevertheless understand that they missed the boat on estimating tariff effects, and that the models need updating. To a real researcher, it's actually a great opportunity. But to someone like Mahlkov, who is trotted out whenever there needs to be economic support for or against the same policy, he will gladly write a paper. And then others will cite it.

acedTrex 8mo ago

"stole from foreign countries" is not how tariffs work.

Jamesbeam 8mo ago
You are not wrong. But you’re also not fully right. I think you don’t see the full scale of the economic tail those tariffs had. He raised tariffs illegally by 10% for most countries immediately, which triggered a bunch of negative economic effects around the globe in those countries directly tied to the illegal raise of those tariffs by who represents the United States of America. Damages have to be paid to those countries and their companies. Because those costs occurred from an illegal action. We do agree that if you do something the highest court has deemed illegal, if it caused damages to any party as direct result of that illegal action, the entity who suffered those damages should be entitled to claim damages, right? A lot of companies had to deal with the same problems. You can’t really plan exporting into a country that raises different amounts of tariffs basically over night depending on how his majesty, the king of the free world has slept the night before. Someone needs to plan with the new realities, workers need to put in more hours, external expertise needs to be hired, all costs have to be evaluated, partners in the US might no longer be able to clear their inventory, new business terms need to be negotiated. Don’t get me started about the Logistics troubles, but all of the above are costs which wouldn’t occur if the president had gotten legal advise from the Supreme Court about his economic plans before he did something illegal. Right? So do you follow the law? If yes, your conclusion needs to be that the president needs to write a lot of Cheques and probably needs the autopen. Because it weren’t only us importers and customers suffering from the presidents illegal action.

lokar 8mo ago

Americans pay the tariffs

mothballed 8mo ago
.gov can write the check back to Americans then, and disband ICE, CBP, the DEA, and the ATF to pay for it.
- cdrnsf 8mo ago
  Better yet, dissolve ICE and DHS and send stimulus checks to folks with what used to be their budget.
  - lokar 8mo ago
    Or best: try to get the defect down to about 2% of GDP

sowbug 8mo ago

s/tariff/import tax/

hypeatei 8mo ago

The sad part is that the $175B was already spent because the tariffs didn't generate a budget surplus so we literally just set it on fire and will need to turn on the money printer to give it back to Americans who paid the taxes.

mint5 8mo ago

“Stole illegally from foreign countries” ????!!! American citizens and American importers are not foreigner countries. Don’t propagate or fall for trumps repeated blatant LIE that foreign countries pay tariffs. They are direct taxes on Americans and American importers, the exporter does not pay it.