annie88 said:

---

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?

---

I found this:
https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/CAN/partner/USA/product/all

They have the bovine/meat at half that 26.5%.



The dairy number is wrong (270%), but it sure seems high to me:

Tariffs being bad is a dem/TDS talking point.

twk said:

---

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.

---

Trump seems to care about Canadian tariffs, and the drug trade from Canada.

Trump didn't endorse Poilevre or Freeland because that would be stupid. Canada has had an obnoxious leader since as long as I can remember.

Again, we need to take actions in America's interests, not NAFTA, China, Canada or Nato etc. That's what he's doing. Sorry you are so mad that people can freely post thoughts from/on 'Twitter' aka X, without speech police you approve of, aka the 'ministry of truth.'

The left definitely objects to free speech, as in Canada and Europe alike, though we bear some blame, a la USAID. Hopefully no more "Brazils" happen in the future.

Mike Benz on how USAID spent tens of millions of dollars of US taxpayer funds to remove Jair Bolsonaro from power and end free speech in Brazil:

 "When populist waves swept the world within the U. S. in 2016 with Trump and with what happened all over Europe with Marine Le Pen… pic.twitter.com/D8NAtGIpoy

— Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) February 4, 2025

OregonAggie said:

---

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.

---

Can you post the data that made you come to that conclusion?

Idk, since the cartels that produce fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, etc. are classified as terrorists, it seems like it would be more efficient to wipe out the cartels, and their drug producing facilities, etc. with drones, etc.

I'm skeptical that tariffs on Canada and Mexico will lead to significantly lower drug use in the U.S. The demand side of the equation has to addressed somehow too. Drug users will always find a supply.

Like your request will be answered....

"We estimate the 2018-2019 trade war tariffs imposed by Trump and retained by Biden reduce long-run GDP by 0.2 percent, the capital stock by 0.1 percent, and employment by 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs."

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

"These effects were concentrated in the second half of 2018 as the tariffs started to build up and led to an estimated combined effect of 137,000 fewer job postings. Just over two-thirds of this decline was due to the imported input tariffs and one-third due to retaliatory tariffs. The lost postings represent a 0.5 percent decrease in total US jobs in 2018 and a 0.9 percent decrease for the second half of the year."
https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/did-2018-trade-war-improve-job-opportunities-us-workers

An excellent breakdown of the Tariff War…

🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/15ppkc54Q9

— American AF 🇺🇸 (@iAnonPatriot) March 4, 2025

Kansas Kid said:

---

"We estimate the 2018-2019 trade war tariffs imposed by Trump and retained by Biden reduce long-run GDP by 0.2 percent, the capital stock by 0.1 percent, and employment by 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs."

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

"These effects were concentrated in the second half of 2018 as the tariffs started to build up and led to an estimated combined effect of 137,000 fewer job postings. Just over two-thirds of this decline was due to the imported input tariffs and one-third due to retaliatory tariffs. The lost postings represent a 0.5 percent decrease in total US jobs in 2018 and a 0.9 percent decrease for the second half of the year."
https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/did-2018-trade-war-improve-job-opportunities-us-workers

---

Bunch of nonsense. The decreased regulations and lower energy costs that went along with the tariffs completely offset any of that and more.

Economists are terrible at looking at things without holding "all else equal".

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.

---

...which is always bad.

they have visible and invisible outcomes. the visible outcome is that domestic industry grows, and the invisible outcome is that other industries suffer by reduced economic activity.

it's like squeezing a balloon. there aint no such thing as a free lunch.

Adam Smith:

Quote:

---

If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.
...
The value of [a country's] annual produce is certainly more or less diminished when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce [by trade policies].
...
The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation.

---

And on retaliatory tariffs:

Quote:

---

There may be good policy in retaliations [of a tariff in a foreign country], when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconveniency of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods.

To judge whether such retaliations are likely to produce such an effect does not, perhaps, belong so much to the science of a legislator, whose deliberations ought to be governed by general principles which are always the same, as to the skill of that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs.

When there is no probability that any such repeal can be procured, it seems a bad method of compensating the injury done to certain classes of our people to do another injury ourselves, not only to those classes, but to almost all the other classes of them.

When our neighbors prohibit some manufacture of ours, we generally prohibit, not only the same, for that alone would seldom affect them considerably, but some other manufacture of theirs. This may no doubt give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in the home-market.

Those workmen, however, who suffered by our neighbors prohibition will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they and almost all the other classes of our citizens will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods.

Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country, not in favor of that particular class of workmen who were injured by our neighbors prohibition, but of some other class.

---

Tariffs are just a tax, paid by the consumers in the country raising the tariff, to the benefic of the protected industry. There's no magic.

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.

---

Is it me or does the mispronunciation of Fentanyl to "Fentanol" bother anyone else? I don't see any "o" in the word. Lazy mimicking.

Dude, I almost failed out of chem 101, let alone organic chem etc. I don't judge people who can't figure out chemical suffix meanings.

CM/
When the US does it, it's bad. When other countries do it, it's our way of accepting the redistribution of wealth...

So if the consumers are paying for it, why our stocks down?

The stock market reacting to tariffs indicate that profits are going to decline.

Because every industry other than the ones being protected by tariff will feel the downstream effects. That and if the tariffs are inflationary, the net present value of future cash flows goes down, which is what a stock price is.

This happens every time tariffs are put in place. Happened during President Trump's first term, too.

So how are the consumers paying for it then? It sounds to me like the investors are the ones that are going to be paying for it?

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

"We estimate the 2018-2019 trade war tariffs imposed by Trump and retained by Biden reduce long-run GDP by 0.2 percent, the capital stock by 0.1 percent, and employment by 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs."

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

"These effects were concentrated in the second half of 2018 as the tariffs started to build up and led to an estimated combined effect of 137,000 fewer job postings. Just over two-thirds of this decline was due to the imported input tariffs and one-third due to retaliatory tariffs. The lost postings represent a 0.5 percent decrease in total US jobs in 2018 and a 0.9 percent decrease for the second half of the year."
https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/did-2018-trade-war-improve-job-opportunities-us-workers

---

Bunch of nonsense. The decreased regulations and lower energy costs that went along with the tariffs completely offset any of that and more.

Economists are terrible at looking at things without holding "all else equal".

---

Then go show me studies that counter it. The reality is there are over 40 jobs that require steel as a key input for every 1 that is involved in making steel. Increase the cost of key raw materials through tariffs and you have a hard time competing against foreign competition that has cheaper raw materials. This is especially true for exported products.

Lower energy helped create jobs and lower regulatory burden will also help but those don't have anything to do with tariffs. We didn't lower energy costs through import tariffs and lower regulations weren't a result of tariffs either. Both of those things do create jobs but that doesn't mean tariffs don't cost jobs.

Consumers pay for them in the form of higher prices. Investors suffer the effects of reduced economic activity. Those things are related, not exclusive.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

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

---

This is where I break with Freidman and Sowell.

I approve of using tariffs in retaliation for countries causing harm to our country OR in retaliation to their tariffs.

jt2hunt said:

---

So how are the consumers paying for it then? It sounds to me like the investors are the ones that are going to be paying for it?

---

The large majority is paid by consumers but because consumers can't afford to buy as much, that results in lower business activity/profits so some of the tariff impact is born by shareholders.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Tariffs being bad is a dem/TDS talking point.

---

Historically, some of the biggest supporters of tariffs have been unions (ie Dems)

Who was a massive believer in removing protectionism, Reagan.

"In recent years, the trade deficit led some misguided politicians to call for protectionism, warning that otherwise we would lose jobs. But they were wrong again. In fact, the United States not only didn't lose jobs, we created more jobs than all the countries of Western Europe, Canada, and Japan combined. The record is clear that when America's total trade has increased, American jobs have also increased. And when our total trade has declined, so have the number of jobs."

https://www.ipi.org/policy_blog/detail/president-reagan-on-trade-tariffs

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?

---

Certain people hate Trump so much that regardless of what he does, it is always terrible/the worst/Nazi-like.

Here's a couple



https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/135/1/1/5626442?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/06/700650144/despite-trumps-promises-the-trade-deficit-is-only-getting-wider

I don't trust NPR with damn near anything btw but it's something. I'll see if I can find more as I read a lot of articles a few years ago about it.

Again, tariffs only increase price if domestic demand stays the exact same as before they were enacted.

Take Chipotle for example. Their CEO said this morning that they expect a small cost increase due to tariffs, but that they would be eating that cost, for now, as their pricing model has room. Why would they eat the cost? Because they know they can't pass it on to the consumer who is ALREADY pulling back. The second they can't eat the cost anymore, demand will decrease. At that point, the exporting country, who likely can't replace our demand anywhere else reliably, either eats the cost on their end, or they export less and take the economic hit on that front.

Tariffs used right can actually be deflationary in that regard. And Trump has implied time and again that wants to shift us away from a net consumer society to a net producer society. Tariffs are the tool used during that transition. At the same time, some tariffs are being used to get certain countries to change their behavior.. like the Canada with fentanyl issue.

The bottom and middle class in America has already completely traded down to Walmart. That shows how weak the consumer is. Now, even Walmart stock is declining as the writing is on the wall. The consumer has no room. Tariffs aren't going to increase costs much at all, because our consumer will just pull back more.

And on the steel issues, China hoarded insane amounts of steel for their fake real estate boom. Now they are stuck with it and have been absolutely dumping it into world markets. Our steel industry will be GONE if they are allowed to continue for a few more years. Tariffs are on steel are to protect our producers. A country that can't produce its own basic materials is left dependent on its enemies who absolutely WILL take advantage of them.

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.

---

No. That is their issue. Besides, Pierre Poilievre is not a Trump guy anyway. Trump will seek to punish their economy no matter the leader.

Yeah, to keep profit the same they just need to sell two teas burritos amirite

VegasAg86 said:

---

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.

---

Perfect analogy! This is why the logic doesn't add up.

Oh, so I see you just shot yourself in the face. Well I will not be outdone so I'm going to shoot myself in the face even more than you just did!

Tariffs....


.....liberalism incarnate.

Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate. Then deregulate some more. Gut spending and gut taxes. The conservative approach.

The administration has started the process of deregulation, especially in the EPA.

SwigAg11 said:

---

The administration has started the process of deregulation, especially in the EPA.

---

Thats good....tariffs are stupid. As is all liberalism.

Most US/Canadian/Mexican trade is governed by the USMCA trade agreement from 2020. That act is supposed to remain in effect until 2036, but we just essentially tore it up. BTW, if you look who signed the USMCA, you will see the name Donald J Trump at the bottom.

The USMCA got rid of many or maybe even most tariffs between the US, Mexico, and Canada. Some still existed and some were even modified by Biden. For example Canadian Lumber had an 8% or so tariff under the original deal and under Biden it went up to 15% or thereabouts. These things were agreed upon by the countries.

So Trump is tearing up his own deal.

So why are tariffs bad? Well would you like overnight inflation? If the US imposes a 25% tax on Maple syrup then the price goes up right about 25%. And when the price goes up 25%, people buy less. And if people buy less then the economy of Canada is hurt. So if Canada puts a 25% tariff on whatever we sell then the price rises for Canadians and they buy less, therefore hurting the American business. Are you cool with rapid inflation? Then Tariffs are fine.

Trump says that this will all spur American manufacturing, and this may be true to an extent... but let's look at consumer electronics. TVs are made in about 4 factories worldwide, mainly in Korea and China. Something like 80% of all TVs come from those 4 factories and the reason is that it is REALLY expensive to manufacture TVs. Do you really think any American company is going to put a billion or so into a TV making plant when they know the second these tariffs go away they will be at a competitive disadvantage with the Koreans and Chinese? Heck no, that would be stupid. In a LOT of these industries the Americans CAN'T make the product. Sure California grows avocados, but they account for less than 10% total and there isn't anyone to pick them anymore. Can't really make an avocado farm as it takes 7-10 years before the tree produces fruit. So with a tariff on avocados it is just raising prices 25% and there is nothing anyone can do.


So overall you can't really say tariffs are cool unless you also say you are cool with rapid inflation. They are the same thing at a consumer level.

Sounds like a deal with Mexico/Canada might be announced soon.

🚨 BREAKING: Canada, Mexico were on the phone with the Trump administration all day, Commerce Sec. Lutnick says a deal may be announced tomorrow on tariffs pic.twitter.com/Uv3WxV5C14

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 4, 2025

Strong men make good times https://t.co/h4ok05TzYz

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 4, 2025

In his last few days in office, Trudeau tears are delicious.

Why would they have them at all?