191–193 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why this comment was dead when it contains an interesting perspective.
It plays on Trump’s argument that other countries are paying the tariffs and most people don’t want to admit they were wrong and Trump was right. That being said, it’s too early to call it.
In my trade economics textbook years ago it was stated that the cleared customs cost of an imported good is no more than 30% of its final consumer price, and more typically 10%. The rest is inland logistics, retail costs, and marketing. Further to that, 80% of the economy is services or otherwise has nothing to do with imports. Tariffs are not affecting haircuts or yoga classes or bank fees. Seems to me like tariffs…
What was the textbook and would you recommend it? This is an area where I would like to read something substantial and good.
(Paul Krugman's expertise is actually in trade economics, before the NYT hired him to talk about all kinds of other things.)
Everyone focusing on consumer prices. But tariffs also function to incentivize domestic reindustrialization, which has huge national security implications. You see this clearly in the venture space as increased investment interest in hardtech and manufacturing. It's great that the federal government is looking long term again.
Further there seems to be no coherent tariff strategy that would enact the changes people are fantasizing about. Instead we see special interest, lobbyist, and perhaps even personal quid pro quo carve outs based on who has access to one man while the rest of us are told 15% taxes on foreign goods is a "great deal!".
For any of this policy to be long term it must go through Congress. For it to be effective and not the worst openly corrupt politics we ought to WANT it to come from Congress.
I don't see how anything that's happened with tariffs is evidence of ""the federal government" looking long term".