Wouldn't that 35% tariff the donald has been threatening ultimately be paid by the citizens of

[shraby]

the United States through added on cost to the end consumer?

[pangaia]

1. Of course.

But, don't tell anybody.

sssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhh...

[MineralMan]

2. Certainly.

Do you think Trump cares about that? I certainly don't. He cares about publicity, and that only.

[shraby]

4. And we can count on people here not thinking that promise through to it's logical end.

[AngryAmish]

3. This is the neoliberal free trade argument.

[northoftheborder]

5. Yes.....

We used to have tariffs, many tariffs, back in the olden days. We had FAR LESS choice of goods, and more expensive for anything imported. Nearly everything sold in this country was made in this country and far less foreign made goods available or sold. We exported less because there were tariffs on the other end put by those countries. There are trade-offs with FREE trade. I don't begin to understand the intricacies of trade - But there are winners and losers in most policies. Texas has benefitted greatly by NAFTA, exporting agricultural goods. Mexico has benefitted by importing cheaper grain than they could grow, but then put thousands of farmers out of work there, who then migrated to this country to find work, who are now being hated and discriminated against. Or, they migrated to where the new factories were built by US companies in Mexico, putting American factory workers out of work. It's very complicated. But over the last fifty years it has been the general consensus of BOTH Democrats and Republicans and foreign leaders that FREE TRADE benefits more people over all in the world. I remain unconvinced although I have vacillated back and forth over the years.... Complicating further is the World Bank and it's policies......

[lonestarnot]

6. Naturally. That is what slime does it oozes out and drips downward.

[TBA]

7. As I fond of pointing out on Facebook

Imaging walking into Walmart and everything cost 35% more! MAGA!

(I never get a response)

[Wounded Bear]

8. Yes, and it would be far more of a direct cost add-on than...

doubling the minimum wage over 5 years.

[Calculating]

9. Without a doubt

Enjoy paying 35% more for all of your electronic devices and such. Even with the tariff it still won't be competitive to make such items in the USA, so you'll just need to get used to paying 35% more. Make Amurica Great Again boys!

[beachbum bob]

10. ...and similar tariffs will hit American exports and kill jobs...businesses

Bankrupt farmers....as we have seen all this before. A simpletons view of world trade...trade agreements and such doesn't end well.

[aikoaiko]

11. Yes and no. Depends on the economic elasticity of the items and US alternatives

If my preferred Toyota pick-up goes up 35%, I might switch to Chevy (example of elasticity).

On the other hand, if my Toblerone goes up 35%, I'm not switching to Nestle Crunch (example of inelasticity).

[BainsBane]

12. Cars are complicated

Since many foreign cars are made in the US and some US brands made abroad. The question is what happens when those other countries start to retaliate by adding their own tariffs on US goods. What does that do to US exports and the jobs of people who work for those companies? Historically, tariffs have been most useful in protecting economies as they first built up manufacturing capacity. I don't know that we have an example to draw from of an already industrialized country that imposed tariffs.

[aikoaiko]

13. All true what you said. My point was focussed on the tariff being passed on to consumer

Economists are going to love the experiments that happen with a Trump administration. Sadly, many people may get hurt.

[Bucky]

14. Yeah, that's entirely the point of a tariff. It protects pricier domestic goods

It's also about the dumbest, most lunk-headed approach to domestic job creation. It would trigger a global tariff war, similar to the Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped turn the Crash of 29 into the Great Depression.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. Right on all counts. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. The idea would be that people would choose a US-made competitor instead; but ...

... the entire plan cannot happen. If the 35% was, as Trump said, imposed on any US manufacturer that move production out of the USA, those that have already done it would gain an advantage. As would foreign-owned manufacturers. Punitive fines on individual companies just won't be allowed under the standard trade agreements, whether NATFA, WTO or other agreements. He'd be in court from day 1. If he imposed 35% import taxes on everything, then he'd have just torn up international trade, which would make loads of things extremely expensive, would start trade wars with everyone who'd block US exports, and he'd drive the US (and maybe world) economy into a depression.

[Vinca]

16. Yes, it would. A buyer would have to pay 35% more for Trump neckties, shoes, etc.

[taught_me_patience]

17. According to economic theory, it would be born by both consumers and companies

Consumers would have higher prices and companies would also make less money.

[bhikkhu]

18. Essentially its a massive tax increase

as tariffs go to the government, and consumers pay that much more.

A 35% sales tax on imported goods. The people in the lower income brackets are most heavily affected by sales tax, as the larger portion of their income goes to buying goods. Long-term effect is increased income inequality, and inflation. Property owners benefit most from inflation.

[former9thward]

20. No.

Only if you make the choice to buy that product.

[Orsino]

21. You will always get the bill for Trump's lifestyle. n/t

[demigoddess]

22. or they have to keep the price low to be able to sell it, and the profits are less.

that impacts the owner's profit. That is why they have been keeping wages low, to keep the owner's pocketbook full to overflowing.

[Xolodno]

23. Yes.

One of two ways:

1. We pay 35% to the tariff (foreign company raises price to compensate).

2. Domestic company enters the market and although cheaper than the foreign company, still more expensive than what it could be imported.

Hence why "Free Trade" is trumpeted. Economically, yes, its more efficient. Problem is, this should accompany free movement of labor (a.k.a. immigration), which often doesn't.

[haele]

24. Yes. And unfortunately, the manufacturing in this country is not geared to sustainable products...

We no longer make the scale of fabric, furniture, or other necessities that would allow the poorer people to remain clothed and reasonably comfortable buying while "American". It's not the 1950's, or even the 1960's - the factories are just not there. The ability to access the variety of natural resources to provide the basis has been depleted over the past 4 decades due corporate farming, mining, and other resource extraction philosophy and practices - they only will grow or go after what is most profitable in a global market, not what may be profitable locally. And with tariffs, the money behind corporate resource extractors will just leave or go into some other profitable venture somewhere else. So we'll still be stuck without manufacturing or resources.

The manufacturing we would need just to cloth American Citizens, even if OSHA and the EPA regulatory body waivered everything and all the states handed out tax incentives like candy, is just not there, and hasn't been "there" for decades. Companies that provide consumer goods shut down and outsourced for two reasons - global markets and short-term profits.

The cost to just to build up the factories, or re-tool what's left, would be staggering - even with technology and robotics cutting down the price of labor. If one or two new large-scale fabric-making factories might be able to struggle into existence, just providing living wages to the workforce over the three or four years it will take to be able to start making a profit would be problematic at best.
If we are serious about being a "self-sufficient" nation and increasing the amount and range of manufacturing jobs available, we would have to have a concerted effort to nationalize the factories at the beginning, because there will be no profit to attract nationally based investors. All that money that currently goes to taxpayer bail-outs of financial gambling and to the MIC - needs to go to small/medium sized local businesses and infrastructure.

As for tariffs as an economic tool, if the will to invest in American manufacturing is present, we might recover from a 35% tariff and the sudden drop-off in trade that would engender, but I doubt there's either the will or the money available from the majority of wealthy people who would be able to invest.

Haele