Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

thesoundingline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 81 posts

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#11

Post by wpietri »

aceon48 wrote: post #9
brookhaven_dude wrote: post #6

It's their loss and US consumers' gain. Why is everyone so quick to assume that anything that benefits exporters is the what we must pursue?

Thats your theory at least. At some point, you don't need any more cheap shit from Amazon, but you need a decent job. As a top 5%er or whatever, surely cheaper is better for you... But prob not your lower middle class neighbor who has to compete more globally in the low skill labor market, where other countries are protecting their people in that regard

In which case, I'd much rather we increased taxes on income and/or wealth to a) help workers move up the value chain, and b) provide a safety net for people who lose out on trade.

A tariff on "cheap shit from Amazon" is a heavily regressive tax, and acts to reduce total delivered value. Whereas taxing the well-off to pay for education and encourage investment increases total delivered value.

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#12

Post by wpietri »

avgDev wrote: post #10
brookhaven_dude wrote: post #6

It's their loss and US consumers' gain. Why is everyone so quick to assume that anything that benefits exporters is the what we must pursue?

How do US consumers gain from tarifs? My company is US based with some manufacturing done in the US, some in China and some in EU. We are constantly dealing with price changes due to tarifs, and consumers are going to get hit hard once the price increases travel up the food chain to the end product. The way tarifs are talked about by our president is laughable and sad. That is not good for the US. Trump plans to use…

I believe that brookhaven_dude means that low US tariffs are good for US consumers because that keeps prices low for them. Whereas high foreign tariffs on US goods are in effect a tax on foreign consumers, meaning they get less for their money.

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#13

Post by asah »

aceon48 wrote: post #9
brookhaven_dude wrote: post #6

It's their loss and US consumers' gain. Why is everyone so quick to assume that anything that benefits exporters is the what we must pursue?

Thats your theory at least. At some point, you don't need any more cheap shit from Amazon, but you need a decent job. As a top 5%er or whatever, surely cheaper is better for you... But prob not your lower middle class neighbor who has to compete more globally in the low skill labor market, where other countries are protecting their people in that regard

Please remember Boeing airlines, John Deere tractors, Caterpillar construction and earth moving equipment, Cisco routers, military gear -- and any number of parts and components that are made here and assembled elsewhere into finished products (and in some cases, imported back to the US).

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#14

Post by 628C6l0 »

aceon48 wrote: post #9
brookhaven_dude wrote: post #6

It's their loss and US consumers' gain. Why is everyone so quick to assume that anything that benefits exporters is the what we must pursue?

Thats your theory at least. At some point, you don't need any more cheap shit from Amazon, but you need a decent job. As a top 5%er or whatever, surely cheaper is better for you... But prob not your lower middle class neighbor who has to compete more globally in the low skill labor market, where other countries are protecting their people in that regard

You mean "at most"? I've noticed an interesting tendency to mix up "at least" and "at most" even though they are opposite in meaning. I've even heard people say at best when they mean at worst

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#15

Post by [deleted] »

tehlike wrote: post #7
CompelTechnic wrote: post #3

The headline's use of the word "put" has an oddly vague interpretation. The first time I read the headline, I imagined "put" was in the past tense, which implied the recent past, i.e. the last 6 months, due to the recent political action. Which would give the impression that Trump was foolish and got backlash worse than the benefit he gained. Then I read the article and i realized "put" is in the present tense, which…

A better one would be "the largest ys trading partners all had higher tariffs on the US goods than vice versa"

[deleted]

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#16

Post by mabbo »

wpietri wrote: post #12
avgDev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do US consumers gain from tarifs? My company is US based with some manufacturing done in the US, some in China and some in EU. We are constantly dealing with price changes due to tarifs, and consumers are going to get hit hard once the price increases travel up the food chain to the end product. The way tarifs are talked about by our president is laughable and sad. That is not good for the US. Trump plans to use…

I believe that brookhaven_dude means that low US tariffs are good for US consumers because that keeps prices low for them. Whereas high foreign tariffs on US goods are in effect a tax on foreign consumers, meaning they get less for their money.

> Whereas high foreign tariffs on US goods are in effect a tax on foreign consumers, meaning they get less for their money.

When prices are higher, consumers buy less. So those foreign consumers are indeed getting less for their money- so they will buy less US Goods, reducing the money coming to US producers. Instead, those foreign consumers will buy local goods at lower prices.

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#17

Post by moate »

Four_Star wrote: post #4
CompelTechnic wrote: post #3

The headline's use of the word "put" has an oddly vague interpretation. The first time I read the headline, I imagined "put" was in the past tense, which implied the recent past, i.e. the last 6 months, due to the recent political action. Which would give the impression that Trump was foolish and got backlash worse than the benefit he gained. Then I read the article and i realized "put" is in the present tense, which…

Agreed. The character limit prevented 'impose' from fitting.

"Had" would have worked and provided better sense of tense. "Put" is a pain in the ass when it comes to setting tense by itself.

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#18

Post by itsmenotyou »

tehlike wrote: post #7
CompelTechnic wrote: post #3

The headline's use of the word "put" has an oddly vague interpretation. The first time I read the headline, I imagined "put" was in the past tense, which implied the recent past, i.e. the last 6 months, due to the recent political action. Which would give the impression that Trump was foolish and got backlash worse than the benefit he gained. Then I read the article and i realized "put" is in the present tense, which…

A better one would be "the largest ys trading partners all had higher tariffs on the US goods than vice versa"

also ambiguous as had in this case suggests that might no longer be the case

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#19

Post by nod »

CompelTechnic wrote: post #3

The headline's use of the word "put" has an oddly vague interpretation. The first time I read the headline, I imagined "put" was in the past tense, which implied the recent past, i.e. the last 6 months, due to the recent political action. Which would give the impression that Trump was foolish and got backlash worse than the benefit he gained. Then I read the article and i realized "put" is in the present tense, which…

"make things fair" is a strange way to put "other countries hurt their consumers more, so we should too"

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#20

Post by assblaster »

asah wrote: post #13
aceon48 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats your theory at least. At some point, you don't need any more cheap shit from Amazon, but you need a decent job. As a top 5%er or whatever, surely cheaper is better for you... But prob not your lower middle class neighbor who has to compete more globally in the low skill labor market, where other countries are protecting their people in that regard

Please remember Boeing airlines, John Deere tractors, Caterpillar construction and earth moving equipment, Cisco routers, military gear -- and any number of parts and components that are made here and assembled elsewhere into finished products (and in some cases, imported back to the US).

Why aren't these things assembled in the United States as well? Cost to transport from one facility to outside the United States then back surely adds cost to the finished product, unless there are savings gained from cheaper labor or less regulation.
Post reply on HN