I've been thinking about this question quite a bit and can't resolve it logically. If tariffs are always bad for the country that puts them in place, then why would any of these countries retaliate?

It seems their economies would thrive if they eliminated tariffs against us since that would make US imports cheaper in their country. So while US companies and consumers are paying higher prices, they do not need to inflict pain on their own society. So why are they all retaliating and harming their own economies in the process?

Need a Very Concerned poster who has told us tariffs are economic suicide to answer this baffling question

They are inefficient as a permanent policy, but they can be used as leverage for certain outcomes outcomes. In the end they are a domestic tax on the well established benefits of specialization.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

They are inefficient as a permanent policy, but they can be used as leverage for certain outcomes outcomes. In the end they are a domestic tax on the well established benefits of specialization.

---

What short term outcomes are the retaliatory tariffs seeking to accomplish?

Tariffs are not "always bad"

They are traditionally used when a nation is trying to encourage the growth of a certain industry domestically and discourage using foreign products as an alternative to help that domestic industry grow.

They're only bad if your primary value is absolute economic efficiency. Since that doesn't actually exist in the current landscape, they're a useful tool for negotiation, the idea being that temporary pain will bring people to the table to enact long-term solutions.

Will tariffs enrich you? Not likely, considering the opportunity cost of protectionist policy. Can they be used as a bargaining chip to enrich you in the long run? Absolutely.

Concerned moderates usually can't see past tomorrow. They'll support social security and then complain about deficit spending. They're the type of people that stand in the middle of the road and then are shocked when they get hit.

Hasn't Trump said the tariffs go away if the other country takes their own tarrifs down? Why are they only bad when we have reciprocal ones in place on our side?

Kvetch said:

---

Concerned moderates usually can't see past tomorrow. They'll support social security and then complain about deficit spending. They're the type of people that stand in the middle of the road and then are shocked when they get hit.

---

ROFL LMAO LOL LOLZ

DCAggie13y said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

They are inefficient as a permanent policy, but they can be used as leverage for certain outcomes outcomes. In the end they are a domestic tax on the well established benefits of specialization.

---

What short term outcomes are the retaliatory tariffs seeking to accomplish?

---

Trump said stopping or seriously limiting Fentanyl. What that means, specifically, we don't know.

nortex97 said:

---

Hasn't Trump said the tariffs go away if the other country takes their own tarrifs down? Why are they only bad when we have reciprocal ones in place on our side?

---

Not exactly. This is what the White House posted:

Quote:

---

ADDRESSING AN EMERGENCY SITUATION: The extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including deadly fentanyl, constitutes a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

• Until the crisis is alleviated, President Donald J. Trump is implementing a 25% additional tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico and a 10% additional tariff on imports from China. Energy resources from Canada will have a lower 10% tariff
• President Trump is taking bold action to hold Mexico, Canada, and China accountable to their promises of halting illegal immigration and stopping poisonous fentanyl and other drugs from flowing into our country.
• The orders make clear that the flow of contraband drugs like fentanyl to the United States, through illicit distribution networks, has created a national emergency, including a public health crisis. Chinese officials have failed to take the actions necessary to stem the flow of precursor chemicals to known criminal cartels and shut down money laundering by transnational criminal organizations.
  
  • In addition, the Mexican drug trafficking organizations have an intolerable alliance with the government of Mexico. The government of Mexico has afforded safe havens for the cartels to engage in the manufacturing and transportation of dangerous narcotics, which collectively have led to the overdose deaths of hundreds of thousands of American victims. This alliance endangers the national security of the United States, and we must eradicate the influence of these dangerous cartels.
  • There is also a growing presence of Mexican cartels operating fentanyl and nitazene synthesis labs in Canada. A recent study recognized Canada's heightened domestic production of fentanyl, and its growing footprint within international narcotics distribution

---

It goes on, Fact Sheet, but the gist is the same; the justification for these tariffs has nothing to do with trade.

Ok, so the simple answer is both trade and that Mexico-China-Canada take action against the gangs/fentanyl trade.

That seems…uncontroversial on its face as a demand.

Kvetch said:

---

They're only bad if your primary value is absolute economic efficiency. Since that doesn't actually exist in the current landscape, they're a useful tool for negotiation, the idea being that temporary pain will bring people to the table to enact long-term solutions.

Will tariffs enrich you? Not likely, considering the opportunity cost of protectionist policy. Can they be used as a bargaining chip to enrich you in the long run? Absolutely.

Concerned moderates usually can't see past tomorrow. They'll support social security and then complain about deficit spending. They're the type of people that stand in the middle of the road and then are shocked when they get hit.

---

I'm behind the idea of using tariffs to bring other countries to the negotiating table, as many countries have tariffs on our products while we levy none on them. I want the administration to fight for actual fair trade.

When looking at the data during his first term, most of the data I saw shows his tariffs still had an overall negative effect on our economy. I'm hoping it's different this time around.

I'm also curious if there is data out there that shows a positive impact the first time around.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

They are inefficient as a permanent policy, but they can be used as leverage for certain outcomes outcomes. In the end they are a domestic tax on the well established benefits of specialization.

---

Of course, if you can't leverage the outcome you're looking for and the tariffs remain, all countries involved will see inflation, lower sales, and a stock market decline. That……..is from a historical perspective of when the Democrats have instituted tariffs in the past.

Tariff at own peril, better have something to show for at midterms.

It appears that Canada has always believed that tariffs are effective but only when they are allowed to impose them unilaterally.



Perhaps this list is just a fabrication and Canada wasn't actually imposing tariffs on US imports since Truman was President. Is this an accurate list of existing Canadian tariffs?

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, so the simple answer is both trade and that Mexico-China-Canada take action against the gangs/fentanyl trade.

That seems…uncontroversial on its face as a demand.

---

Everyone in the US wants to shut down that trade, as do most people in Mexico and Canada. The real question is, does this tariff do much to advance that goal, because there certainly will be a cost. Time will tell.

DCAggie13y said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

They are inefficient as a permanent policy, but they can be used as leverage for certain outcomes outcomes. In the end they are a domestic tax on the well established benefits of specialization.

---

What short term outcomes are the retaliatory tariffs seeking to accomplish?

---

A reason to get both countries to renegotiate existing deals.

DCAggie13y said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

They are inefficient as a permanent policy, but they can be used as leverage for certain outcomes outcomes. In the end they are a domestic tax on the well established benefits of specialization.

---

What short term outcomes are the retaliatory tariffs seeking to accomplish?

---

We import more than them. Net win

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, so the simple answer is both trade and that Mexico-China-Canada take action against the gangs/fentanyl trade.

That seems…uncontroversial on its face as a demand.

---

Everyone in the US wants to shut down that trade, as do most people in Mexico and Canada. The real question is, does this tariff do much to advance that goal, because there certainly will be a cost. Time will tell.

---

It's got their populaces in a bit of a tizzy, to say nothing of their politicians. We will see, indeed. The Chinese have used fentanyl as some sort of latter-day revenge for the opium wars (an older piece) from what I have read/watched/heard, and really that is the party in interest that needs to be reckoned with.

If the Chinese shut it down…things change quickly.

rgvag11 said:

---

DCAggie13y said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

They are inefficient as a permanent policy, but they can be used as leverage for certain outcomes outcomes. In the end they are a domestic tax on the well established benefits of specialization.

---

What short term outcomes are the retaliatory tariffs seeking to accomplish?

---

Trump said stopping or seriously limiting Fentanyl. What that means, specifically, we don't know.

---

To clarify, I'm asking what short term outcomes are Canada, China and Mexico trying to achieve by directly harming their own economies with retaliatory tariffs against the US?

Why not let the US suffer from the tariffs and then lower their own tariffs so their companies are even more competitive?

because tariffs are great for the larger stronger power that runs deficits from imports

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, so the simple answer is both trade and that Mexico-China-Canada take action against the gangs/fentanyl trade.

That seems…uncontroversial on its face as a demand.

---

Everyone in the US wants to shut down that trade, as do most people in Mexico and Canada. The real question is, does this tariff do much to advance that goal, because there certainly will be a cost. Time will tell.

---

It's got their populaces in a bit of a tizzy, to say nothing of their politicians. We will see, indeed. The Chinese have used fentanyl as some sort of latter-day revenge for the opium wars (an older piece) from what I have read/watched/heard, and really that is the party in interest that needs to be reckoned with.

If the Chinese shut it down…things change quickly.

---

Yes, Trump has managed to take the Liberals from down 26 in the polls to ahead by 2. It's certainly gotten people's attention, but not necessarily in a good way.

Quote:

---

If tariffs are bad, why would Canada, Mexico and China retaliate at all?

---

Because Orange Man Bad.

nortex97 said:

---

Hasn't Trump said the tariffs go away if the other country takes their own tarrifs down? Why are they only bad when we have reciprocal ones in place on our side?

---

it's more than that

he has stated we will have RECIPROCAL tariffs with every country

notice how there are no tariffs on Israel

because Israel has no tariffs on the USA

this is only an issue because leftists want the Euros and the Canucks and the Mexicans to keep having large surpluses against the USA

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, so the simple answer is both trade and that Mexico-China-Canada take action against the gangs/fentanyl trade.

That seems…uncontroversial on its face as a demand.

---

Everyone in the US wants to shut down that trade, as do most people in Mexico and Canada. The real question is, does this tariff do much to advance that goal, because there certainly will be a cost. Time will tell.

---

It's got their populaces in a bit of a tizzy, to say nothing of their politicians. We will see, indeed. The Chinese have used fentanyl as some sort of latter-day revenge for the opium wars (an older piece) from what I have read/watched/heard, and really that is the party in interest that needs to be reckoned with.

If the Chinese shut it down…things change quickly.

---

Yes, Trump has managed to take the Liberals from down 26 in the polls to ahead by 2. It's certainly gotten people's attention, but not necessarily in a good way.

---

I don't care about their polls/elections. Their charlatans will either bend the knee or collapse their economy. Either way is fine. Had a conference call with a Canadian yesterday for work. Dude was straight up rattled. Made me laugh.

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, so the simple answer is both trade and that Mexico-China-Canada take action against the gangs/fentanyl trade.

That seems…uncontroversial on its face as a demand.

---

Everyone in the US wants to shut down that trade, as do most people in Mexico and Canada. The real question is, does this tariff do much to advance that goal, because there certainly will be a cost. Time will tell.

---

It's got their populaces in a bit of a tizzy, to say nothing of their politicians. We will see, indeed. The Chinese have used fentanyl as some sort of latter-day revenge for the opium wars (an older piece) from what I have read/watched/heard, and really that is the party in interest that needs to be reckoned with.

If the Chinese shut it down…things change quickly.

---

Yes, Trump has managed to take the Liberals from down 26 in the polls to ahead by 2. It's certainly gotten people's attention, but not necessarily in a good way.

---

I don't care about their polls/elections. Their charlatans will either bend the knee or collapse their economy. Either way is fine. Had a conference call with a Canadian yesterday for work. Dude was straight up rattled. Made me laugh.

---

You don't care if Canada has a woke idiot like Trudeau, or someone willing to end all the green nonsense like Poilievre? That's some deep strategic thinking right there.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Need a Very Concerned poster who has told us tariffs are economic suicide to answer this baffling question

---

Are these percentages correct?

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, so the simple answer is both trade and that Mexico-China-Canada take action against the gangs/fentanyl trade.

That seems…uncontroversial on its face as a demand.

---

Everyone in the US wants to shut down that trade, as do most people in Mexico and Canada. The real question is, does this tariff do much to advance that goal, because there certainly will be a cost. Time will tell.

---

It's got their populaces in a bit of a tizzy, to say nothing of their politicians. We will see, indeed. The Chinese have used fentanyl as some sort of latter-day revenge for the opium wars (an older piece) from what I have read/watched/heard, and really that is the party in interest that needs to be reckoned with.

If the Chinese shut it down…things change quickly.

---

Yes, Trump has managed to take the Liberals from down 26 in the polls to ahead by 2. It's certainly gotten people's attention, but not necessarily in a good way.

---

I don't care about their polls/elections. Their charlatans will either bend the knee or collapse their economy. Either way is fine. Had a conference call with a Canadian yesterday for work. Dude was straight up rattled. Made me laugh.

---

You don't care if Canada has a woke idiot like Trudeau, or someone willing to end all the green nonsense like Poilievre? That's some deep strategic thinking right there.

---

I'm not running Canada, and would prefer they freely choose their own leadership, then deal with the consequences of that decision. We have a different mindset about that, obviously.

I was looking for that information myself, and couldn't find a definitive answer, but just for meat, it seems that it's not correct (they are half of what is claimed).

twk said:

---

I was looking for that information myself, and couldn't find a definitive answer, but just for meat, it seems that it's not correct (they are half of what is claimed).

---

They seemed kind of high to me. Honestly, I have no idea.

If shooting people is bad, why should I shoot back if someone shoots at me?

Quote:

---

Would have been awesome if we had befriended Russia as a bulkwark against China a dozen years ago, but here we are

---

Trump seems to care what happens in Canada as he has imposed tariffs for reasons other than trade. Maybe you need to check your talking points on that issue. I'm sure Twitter has a response somewhere if you dig deep enough.

DCAggie13y said:

---

I've been thinking about this question quite a bit and can't resolve it logically. If tariffs are always bad for the country that puts them in place, then why would any of these countries retaliate?

It seems their economies would thrive if they eliminated tariffs against us since that would make US imports cheaper in their country. So while US companies and consumers are paying higher prices, they do not need to inflict pain on their own society. So why are they all retaliating and harming their own economies in the process?

---

Because most politicians are economically illiterate.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

If shooting people is bad, why should I shoot back if someone shoots at me?

---

Shooting yourself because someone else shot himself would be a much better analogy, based on the tariffs only hurt the country imposing them argument.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Tariffs are not "always bad"

They are traditionally used when a nation is trying to encourage the growth of a certain industry domestically and discourage using foreign products as an alternative to help that domestic industry grow.

---

If it pays off then it'll have been worth it. If not, well...