3 ms·
At significant loss to the consumer. Sure a tariff can benefit a subset of people, by costing others even more. We could also do this without tariffs by simply
by SideQuark 8mo ago
At significant loss to the consumer. Sure a tariff can benefit a subset of people, by costing others even more.
We could also do this without tariffs by simply taking money from some group and handing it to another.
- lucketone 8mo agoReceiving money for free is different than money earned for work (even if subsidised). It creates different incentives for the receiver.
- dataflow 8mo agoSomeone mentioned a week or two ago on HN that the point of the auto tariffs was national security (maintaining the industry/expertise/etc. in the US, I assume), not economic.
- SideQuark 8mo agoThey’re wrong. Lyndon Johnson imposed the 25% Chicken Tax during trade skirmishes with Germany to make Volkswagens more expensive, and later tapes surfaced showing this was actually done for political favors. It had zero to do with national security. As a result Americans pay about 25% more for light trucks of inferior quality ever sense, as a giant handout to the car industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_Unit... So as usual, tariffs cost the country imposing them, returning less net goods, and moves money into the protected class at the expense of the wider public.