Why Is The Tariff Issue Controversial?
Setting aside that it could depend on the size of the tariff and the product involved, if you stick to one proposal at a time why is there such a debate about each one of them? If you put a 50% tariff on widgets from Babylon it would seem to result in obvious results. Yet there is this big debate, Are people disagreeing about what the results would be or are they disagreeing not about the results. but rather about whether we want those results?
108 Replies
Is Donald Trump serious about tariffs? This has been the question hanging over not just world markets but the whole world of economics.
The popular wisdom had become that he wasn’t really that serious, and the key bit of evidence for that was his nomination of hedge fund investor Scott Bessent as his Treasury Secretary, someone seen as a moderate when it came to tariffs compared with others whose names were floated for the role.
The answer overnight, though, was pretty brutal. Yes, he is serious, and in the most unexpected way. By choosing to target Mexico and Canada as well as China, he is confirming threats made on the campaign trail that appeared the most fanciful.
For starters he is willing to blow up the Mexico-Canada-America trade deal that he signed in his first term on day one of his second term.
What does a Trump free trade deal even mean now, if the new White House is willing to put tariffs on your country anyway?
And importantly, the rationale for these moves is not mainly or even much about trade or economic policy. These tariffs are about getting Mexico, Canada and China to alter their policies on crackdowns over migration and illicit drugs.
Trump is using tariffs as a weapon of diplomacy, even coercion, on topics entirely unrelated to global trade.
It's more that it's reflexive. Which may also be very sensitive to initial conditions
Experts will almost certainly have given very qualified answers.
This is exactly the play. It's the epitome of transactional thinking. Trump's pretense that the tariffs are a response to a flood of fentanyl and illegal migrants from Canada is plainly absurd.
I'm Canadian and the real concern is precisely the opposite: if he follows through with his insane plan to round up millions of people into camps to await deportation, many of the people in question will start running toward Canada to apply for asylum.
Why are you concerned about that happening for Canada? You get the blessing of increased diversity and non filtered immigration that is so massively positive for every country if that happens.
If deportation of illegals is a loss for the USA, it will certainly be a win for Canada to get some of them right?
That's like saying since you can't solve the three body problem experts shouldn't be so sure that three orbiting bodies won't show a net lowering of entropy or a creation of energy.
There's no question that large scale irregular migration is a problem for any country. But that's a separate issue from the deportation of people who have lived peacefully and productively in a country for years or even decades.
I am sure the costs of these massive deportations will be close to zero as Trump will make the other countries pay for it.
Willis C. Hawley & Reed Smoot, co-sponsors of that tariff stuff, were both sitting congressmen who had served close to 50 years between them in the House and the Senate, respectively.
The tariffs were so popular that they both lost reelection in the next subsequent election following passage of their namesake bill.
The F'd around and found out, most of America is about to start experiencing a find out stage themselves.
Why would it be irregular for Canada? They come ask for asylum and you accept everyone as the holy asylum seeker he is until you decide on the asylum, and there are only benefits from diversity and inclusion
I can see you think this is a 'gotcha' point, but you're implicitly assuming a lot about what I agree or disagree with by mere dint of being Canadian. Also, your use of the word "holy" suggests you don't really know much about Canada or our politics writ large. Believe it or not, Jordan Peterson isn't the most authoritative source of information.
I digress.
The issue is the quantity of migrants per unit of time. Our (and your) economy needs to sustain our demographic pyramid in the proper shape in order to be productive, aka don't let the dependency ratio get too high. Since developed economies like ours have stagnating/declining birthrates, the only way to replenish that ratio is through immigration of young working people. Problem is that housing and infrastructure need to keep pace in order to avoid inflation, which it hasn't. Therein lies the current problem, rather than anything to do with the oh-so-terrifying "diversity and inclusion."
Anyway, this thread is for tariffs, not migration.
ok so you think the proper amount of immigration depends on infrastructure, housing, the shape of the demographic pyramid of your country and so on so you think a sudden extra influx of people wouldn't be necessarily a positive outcome for your country.
I get it.
anyway as for tariffs, it seems that Trump wants to use them for leverage on other topics.
at this point we can only wait and see I guess
Tariffs = trade war...
A trade war with our 2 border country Allies ?!?! Is Trump reeeaaly THAT damn stupid ?
I wholeheartedly apologize for the undaunted stupidity of folks who call themselves “Americans “
76,000,000 people believe a guy with 6 bankruptcies (including a casino) is going to be good on the economy. Smh.
Over 80 million people voted for a guy (Biden) who would eventually be removed by his own party. The same 80+ million voters who were fed the lie that the president is in good cognitive health.
Is it related with tariffs ?
Ah yes the famous whataboutism….
Ps: cognitive health ?
I wonder What kind of person believes a future president going on national tv claiming « they eat dogs and cats » isn’t suffering from cognitive health problems or his simply a liar ?
But hey it’s all good for them 0o shrug.
You act as if a decline in good cognitive health is linear.
Trumps comments about cats and dogs were based on actual stories from locals at town hall meetings. While not baseless, I also wish he never said it. It was a bad look. But comparing that obvious mistake to Bidens mental state is like comparing apples to truck tires.
Doesn't justify lying to voters about it for political purposes.
lol if only it was the only lies , and fraud , trying overturn an election , etc …
Again you don’t think it’s cognitive dissonance to still believe 2020 was a Win for trump with countless baseless accusations of fraud he still pushing to this day ? ??
FWIW trump is ready to take any crazy narrative if it’s good for him , I wonder if he does the same for choosing his policies ?
And yes , here we are , tariffs , very bad policies while his trying to make it sounds good , again with baseless facts about tariffs .
Good work bro !
Its a bit more conplex than that. The consumer is the end result but the supplier buying the product to sell to the consumer are the ones paying it. That could obviously could translate to higher prices but not nessesarily. It can spark competition in other ways.
There are too many Q marks to have any idea how anything will turn out but it could help refuel a lot of industries and small businesses that got swallowed up by some of the giants and give them a better opp to compete.
the article makes a good case for tariffs on a particular industry/good where it's critical to have a competitive advantage and not rely on imports. that's fine. trump 2.0 tariffs are not that. they are across the board. the regressive tax effect will be bad enough on its own, but made worse by trade war instigation.
People were convicted of voter fraud following the 2020 election. It happened, and you can find several examples of these convictions with a quick Google search. So, certainly not baseless.
Obviously not enough to affect the outcome though. Like many, I'm also wondering how more than 10+ million voters showed up in 2020 and completely vanished for Democrats in 2024. Is that Trumps doing? Or did the Democrat party appeal to that fewer number of people. Seems to be the latter in my opinion. If I were in a position to give Trump advice, I'd tell him to stay away from that topic altogether and focus on delivering his 2024 campaign promises.
Regarding tariffs, the threat of them brings the discussion to the table at the very least. While I also don't want endless tariffs, I do believe a line needs to be drawn in the sand with certain countries. China being one of them. They're an extremely rich country, who can afford to pay more, with a well documented history of ripping off patented technology and producing products in "sweat shop" conditions. They also happen to be the location of one of the largest manufacturers of fentanyl in the world, and if we can use tariffs to apply pressure on them to seek out and prosecute these manufacturers, I'm all for it.
Do you not agree that the US is currently being taken advantage of, by some? And if you do believe that's happening, what is your proposed solution, (bro)?
I image the issue is,,,,,,, HOW is it that China will be paying more?
Talking Trump's economic polices with Trumpers....
China could pay by proactivly assisting with the eradication of fentanyl manufacturing facilities in their country, and convicting those involved in its distribution. I strongly believe this sincere gesture to the US would at the very least dramatically reduce tensions. So, the payment doesn't have to be direct cash into our economy. It can be in the form of reducing the money we have to spend on addressing a particular problem.
China could pay by enforcing rules against stealing intelluctural property. That alone would redirect money back to the US and more specifically the rightful owners of said property.
China could allow US vehicles to enter their market under the same conditions we allow their vehicles to enter ours. Current agreement is completely lopsided in favor of China.
China subsidizes the manufacturing of the chemicals used in fentanyl
Why would China allow US vehicles when USA and Canada have a 100% Tariffs on them now EV that is