Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not talking about trade imbalance. I'm simply saying, tax incidence is predicted by elasticity, and in the long run suppliers have very high elasticity. You can possibly improve trade imbalance with tariffs (though retaliation makes it hard). But it's hard to escape your consumers paying most or all of the costs of those tariffs.
I think we agree if I'm understanding you correctly, yes the Suppliers have more elasticity and must ultimately absorb this. I'd say the remaining problem left in our analysis is massive inequality in America leading to enormous consumer elasticity in a small ultra-wealth portion. This I can't figure out
Elasticity means you can change your amount produced in response to changes in price.
Producers can’t easily change output, so they bear more of the tax burden themselves. But in the long run, producers can reallocate or exit until they’re producing at minimum(average total cost), which makes supply more elastic and shifts most of the burden onto consumers.
This is stuff that's covered in week 4 of a basic microeconomics class. It gets a little fancier with imperfect competition or heterogenous agents, etc, but predicting tax incidence is basically dominated by this even in advanced microeconomics.