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

US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 339 posts

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#191

Post by hackyhacky »

newfriend wrote: post #183
hackyhacky wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The intent is to make that stuff more expensive so we can compete. This would seem to be an admission that the domestic product is inferior, otherwise why would it be necessary to burden the import with tariffs? In any case, if that's the intent, it's not working out for fairly predictable reasons. Lots of imported goods have no domestic equivalent. The factories required to make them require years of investment, w…

If one country has labor protection and pollution regulations, and another country has near-slave labor and dumps chemicals into rivers, would you consider the former inferior? Unable to compete?

Most consumers don't care about the conditions under which a product is made. Whining about labor practices is just an excuse for making an inferior product.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#192

Post by salawat »

temp8830 wrote: post #157
jleyank wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The end result is still higher prices for the end-consumer... If the local businesses were unable to compete with a foreign supplier w/o the tariff, they'll be unable to do it with the tariff. So the consumer will end up paying less than (foreign + tariff) but higher than (foreign).

Yes, and the gamble is that the positives from boosting domestic industry will outweigh the negatives from higher prices. The only people confused about this are NPR-constructed strawmen.

There is no domestic industry, it all moved overseas, and the existential risk to cessation of fiscally enabling tariffs within 4 years (assuming set and forget; note, business's ideal outcome), means most of the money will just find something else to chase for modest returns for 4 more years. Nevermind everything else going on poisoning goodwill toward the U.S. currently. The absolute, unmitigated stupidity on display currently is nothing less than I expected from a population without a Great Depression under their belt. We truly, truly, are too dumb as a society to have learned and internalized a goddamn thing.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#193

Post by danesparza »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #13

Everyone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China" or fill-in-the-blank on what country we're "getting" with them. The reality is that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tariff is. There is a reason you will find tariffs drop off after the great depression. They make everything more expensive for businesses and in turn, the end consumer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_Un…

I have definitely had to pay tariffs on goods I have ordered from the UK. They arrive as a separate bill, and with the threat that if I don't pay them in within a certain time (usually a week) that the good will be returned to the seller.

US Tariffs only hurt US citizens. Anything else is simply the stuttering of a simpleton.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#194

Post by hananova »

newfriend wrote: post #183
hackyhacky wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The intent is to make that stuff more expensive so we can compete. This would seem to be an admission that the domestic product is inferior, otherwise why would it be necessary to burden the import with tariffs? In any case, if that's the intent, it's not working out for fairly predictable reasons. Lots of imported goods have no domestic equivalent. The factories required to make them require years of investment, w…

If one country has labor protection and pollution regulations, and another country has near-slave labor and dumps chemicals into rivers, would you consider the former inferior? Unable to compete?

It’s fairly funny to a european that it isn’t immediately clear which half of the comparison is intended to apply to the US, and which half is supposed to apply to China.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#195

Post by Jordan-117 »

testing22321 wrote: post #24
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #13

Everyone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China" or fill-in-the-blank on what country we're "getting" with them. The reality is that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tariff is. There is a reason you will find tariffs drop off after the great depression. They make everything more expensive for businesses and in turn, the end consumer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_Un…

I can’t help wondering if the biggest problem in the US right now is that a majority of people having a “fundamental misunderstanding” about many, many very important things. Maybe it’s because of propaganda, mis information, social media, education or because they’re too busy and tired trying to make ends meet so they don’t have time to research issues for themselves. It feels like it will be very difficult to cours…

Reminds me of the staggering number of people who don't get marginal tax rates, even thinking they should pass up certain raises so they don't get pushed into a higher tax bracket and pay a higher rate on their whole salary.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#196

Post by ourmandave »

tialaramex wrote: post #141
taeric wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is baffling to me, as it is no different than thinking that "sugar taxes" are taxes that soda companies pay. There is even a straight forward analysis that shows it does impact the soda companies rather heavily. But it is objectively paid by the consumers. And nobody is really confused by that.

Right, and sugar taxes are an example of a tax where there's a clear objective. To avoid the tax, don't put sugar in things if you can help it. Result: Products which had sugar because it was cheaper don't any more because of the tax, it's not cheaper now. These tariffs have a huge red flag because there's no objective. Onshoring? No, wait, we got a new deal the tariffs are removed. New trade deals? No, wait, somebod…

And if tariffs don't work, he'll just defund whatever aid you're receiving or project you're building or life saving research you're doing or critical job you're performing.

And if the cost if lives or dollars or reputation is enormous, he'll still sleep like a baby.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#197

Post by rjbwork »

rubyfan wrote: post #181
tialaramex wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and sugar taxes are an example of a tax where there's a clear objective. To avoid the tax, don't put sugar in things if you can help it. Result: Products which had sugar because it was cheaper don't any more because of the tax, it's not cheaper now. These tariffs have a huge red flag because there's no objective. Onshoring? No, wait, we got a new deal the tariffs are removed. New trade deals? No, wait, somebod…

I think you sum up exactly why they will be found illegal.

Phew, good thing this regime is super into following the law and listening to courts.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#198

Post by munk-a »

danesparza wrote: post #193
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #13

Everyone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China" or fill-in-the-blank on what country we're "getting" with them. The reality is that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tariff is. There is a reason you will find tariffs drop off after the great depression. They make everything more expensive for businesses and in turn, the end consumer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_Un…

I have definitely had to pay tariffs on goods I have ordered from the UK. They arrive as a separate bill, and with the threat that if I don't pay them in within a certain time (usually a week) that the good will be returned to the seller. US Tariffs only hurt US citizens. Anything else is simply the stuttering of a simpleton.

Even if it isn't as clearly separately billed - the market works the way it does and that cost is going to be passed onto the consumer unless the seller just decides to eat the cost (and I am aware of several small businesses that are eating the costs to try and avoid any PR backlash with the hope that this is a temporary situation).

And if the tariffs are ruled invalid you're free to speculate whether target is going to send you a check for what you effectively paid or just pocket the difference.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#199

Post by bettercallsalad »

FT is a globalist mouthpiece.

I don’t support tariff but it being used as a negotiating technique is the only choice here to reduce trade deficit.

US can’t keep up the trade deficit it currently has. It requires endless fiscal deficit and sell paper money to others that sends their cheap stuff to US. With growing deficit, the interest payment now is soon to be higher than defence budget. Something has to give.

Re: US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

#200

Post by nucleardog »

steveBK123 wrote: post #137
phkahler wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The point is to make foreign goods more expensive in order to bring production back to the US. People who don't realize this point out who is actually paying and claim its a problem. Will this bring manufacturing back? It seems to be working to some extent, but its a risk to manufacturers because the whole thing could get reversed after an election.

The whole thing could get reversed on a daily basis as this admin commits massive graft, carving out loopholes & rollbacks for their buddies companies/industries/etc.. Not to mention the incoherence that one day its a tool to bring jobs back, the next day its just a negotiation tactic so they get reduced/dropped on a country by country basis over and over.

> Not to mention the incoherence that one day its a tool to bring jobs back, the next day its just a negotiation tactic so they get reduced/dropped on a country by country basis over and over.

I thought it was retaliation for Canada not doing enough to stop their 20-odd kilogram contribution to the 4 tons of fentanyl smuggled in every year? [0]

(Which is to say I agree with you. Just trying to support your point that the reasoning has been so completely all over the map that anybody trying to assign any real meaning seems delusional. At this point I think most people have entirely forgotten half the reasons that have been made up along the way.)

[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/07/fact-sheet-pr...

Post reply on HN