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

Post by tialaramex » Thu, Feb 12, 2026, 5:51 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #40

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…

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.

Post by JoshTriplett » Thu, Feb 12, 2026, 5:51 PM UTC

temp8830 wrote: post #103

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know of a 10-12 employee business in my town who custom-designs kids products that are manufactured in China because they want to keep their products affordable for parents. Getting them manufactured in the US (even though they wanted to) was way too expensive and would require them to charge way above retail just to stay open. Once the tariffs dropped, their cost of goods more than doubled. Their business in that…

OK, so the custom-designed kids product becomes a luxury item and the business has to charge above retail. The kids learn that adults time is too valuable to be spent on manufacturing trinkets that get thrown away. They take better care of the few toys they do own. There is less plastic crap in landfills. Seems like a win all around?

Post by bootsmann » Thu, Feb 12, 2026, 5:51 PM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #80

bootsmann wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It does get hard to math out when you have to weigh the money the average consumer would save over the 10 million auto jobs in the US. Not that hard to math out, the deadweight loss of tariffs is always non-zero. IIRC there was a pretty good paper that mathed out the impact of Obamas tire tariffs and concluded that it cost the economy significantly more jobs than it saved.

That's pretty much impossible. If it costs a company 1% less to make a widget that takes 1000 hours of labor to make it overseas instead, the company is incentivized to move overseas. The thousand of hours labor, the material to source the widget, the real estate for the factory, the transportation now all occurs overseas. At the very least, you can't spew something like that then not even bother to link a source.

Post by JungleGymSam » Thu, Feb 12, 2026, 5:52 PM UTC

xnx wrote: post #93

nielsbot wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no hypocrisy because deep down they never had any principles. Principles they did profess were just marketing. (This applies to Dems as well, while we're at it.)

> This applies to Dems as well, while we're at it. I disagree with this both-sideism. Democrats are much more in following with norms, where MAGA-era FKA-republicans will through anything aside for their benefit (e.g. Merrick Garland).

Post by engineer_22 » Thu, Feb 12, 2026, 5:52 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #105

engineer_22 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they increase the price of goods - that's the whole point!!! > is like fighting your neighbor who's dog keeps peeing in your yard by lighting your own couch on fire. it's more like buying your own dog to pee in your yard, and keep out the neighbor's What is missing from the convo is where the tarriffs go - they go to fund the federal gov't, which spends on Goods and Services for the American People (you hop…

Generally, protective trade policies weaken rather than strengthen competitiveness in industrialized nations. I guess you could argue that we’re so far behind in some sector like manufacturing that we need developing-nation-like trade barriers to nurture embryonic growth, but a look at real numbers would, I think, demonstrate that’s rubbish.