Live data from Hacker News

American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

kielinstitut.de

661–670 of 814 posts

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#661
post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This take depends on the munificence of the local retailers deciding all on their own (because there's no external pressure apart from other retailers in the same position) to lower the price of their goods (and therefore reduce their profit) once the tariffs have forced the foreign goods off the market. I don't believe it for a second. Here's something that has happened before though. During the American War of Trea…

Tariffs/subsidies should be weaned off over time. Their success absolutely does not depend on "local retailers [why are you even talking about retailers when it is all about manufacturers?] deciding all on their own to lower their prices". The external competitors are still there and will just come back when tariffs are lowered, so domestic manufacturers are forced to become cost competitive.

> Tariffs/subsidies should be weaned off over time.

The economic problem is that so long as the production cost imbalance exists, weaning off the tariffs just creates the same market forces that created the trade imbalance (and export of jobs) that created the situation in the first place.

I.e., if it inherently costs $5 to make a "widget" in Elbonia [1] and it inherently [2] costs $25 to make the identical (in every way) "widget" here [3] then while a tariff of $20/widget would make both equal in price, any reduction in the tariff will make the Elbonian made widget cheaper, and a purchaser will be incentivized to buy the Elbonian made one over the "made here" version because they, individually, save money by doing so.

So to maintain the widget making industry "here" the tariff has to be maintained. Any reduction and the cost incentives of "made in Elbonia" reappear, and the local manufacturer sees a corresponding drop in sales.

[1] Chosen only because it is not a real place.

[2] Meaning the local manufacturer cannot possibly produce one for less, due to higher costs "here" (e.g., energy costs, raw materials costs, labor costs, insurance costs, etc.)

[3] Where ever "here" is for the reader.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most have low/no duties on most goods categories from China - aside from a few specific goods categories in developed markets - most goods flow out of China to export countries without tariff/duties. ASEAN markets and most of Africa have zero tariffs. I don't think there are any developed markets (which are China's main export destinations) with double-digit tariff averages except India. Using Germany as an example..…

When I import Chinese goods to Europe as a consumer, I have to pay a 25% VAT, which functions as a tariff. It is officially a tariff as far as the government is concerned, as it is collected by customs and not by internal revenue. That is of course paired by the fact that domestic products also have the same VAT to be paid by consumers, but domestic producers are reimbursed their VAT expenses to varying degrees depen…

VAT is a sales tax not a duty/tariff - this is due by you as a consumer not the importer were a company to purchase it for resale. If you bought the same goods from a local seller you'd have the same VAT. EU has some exceptions on goods from the EU (in the form of IOSS/de minimis) but by and large the VAT operates like a sales tax which many US states also have (as do Canadian Provinces and AU residents).

For sake of comparison, they are not usually conflated with import/tariff/duties.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim above is > Almost all the comments acting like this is some truth bombshell, like people in trumpistan all thought raising tariffs magically made the us economy better. This is a straw man, no? This is a person who is deeply involved in the mechanics of writing legislation supported by GOP legislators. I do not believe that she is uniquely dumb amongst right wingers who have access to the levers of power.

would explaining that Tarrifs are supposed to create comparative competition rather than get other countries pay fees dramatically change her world view?

I do not see why it would.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#664
post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The authors ask “who bears the cost of these tariffs?” and use S&P Panijiva data from Jan 2024 to Nov 2025 for their 96% pass through rate to conclude tariffs function “as a consumption tax on Americans.” However, Panjiva is limited to FOIA requests for bill of lading data for 22 countries (Brazil, China, India, Mexico) and excludes major US trading partners, such as the EU, UK, and Canada[1]. The limitations of the…

I would argue tariffs are inherently easier to deal with than NTBs. I will never understand the absolute hate that is leveled at countries that use tariffs vs. the very noisy, tariff-hating countries that use NTBs. EU is, obviously, one of the worst offenders here. Tariffs are a great evil...there are still massive barriers to trade within the EU. Let me repeat: WITHIN the EU, a bloc of countries that share a supra-n…

Agreed. Never understood all NTB and tariff distinctions, except one suspects the pajandrums in Brussels and Geneva didn't quite believe companies could compete on price or product, and therefore needed a way to keep quotas and subsidies.

I'm not alone in this confusion. During oral argument, several Supreme Court justices asked repeatedly about the distinctions between quotas, tariffs, revenue-raising taxes, non-revenue taxes, etc. in IEEPA's statutory language and precedents like FEA v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548 (1976).

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are using "believed" - past tense. Facts change nothing. This report means nothing. These people still believe. The report is wrong. They are right. The truth is whatever they want it to be, not something out of their control.

In fairness to this report, the report is about tariffs and their impact on...imported goods affected directly by tariffs isn't it? From an overall economic policy standpoint, missing facts that provide context are pretty important especially when you're trying to paint an entire side of the isle as completely brainwashed. Nobody can have a conversation when we create straw men to argue with. Other relevant context:…

Did the price of eggs come down because of tariffs or because of increased imports?

Please provide this fact also.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#666
post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason for populism is that the incumbent governments do a consistently poor job satisfying their constituents' preferences and interests, so people get desperate to find something / someone different that might work better. Always has been, always will be, social media or not. Example: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4230288 We haven't invented a governance structure yet that would be im…

> "Education" is nice and all, but millions of people keep smoking despite the obvious harm and decades of education I think there’s a missed opportunity for media to make it explicit that by giving their time and attention to these platforms, people are directly generating profit. Way too many assume their involvement has no real effect, but it does. I suspect people would be far less willing to log in if it were cl…

It needs to be looked at holistically.

Daniel Schmattenberger said one kpi for good society is the inverse of addiction behaviors.

Maybe a 5 why's (and beyond) on people's addictions can help get to the root cause.

It's usually structural and systemic and not a moral failing on the individual choice problem

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#667
post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She lost for the same reason Hillary lost. She came across as Marie Antoinette. Oblivious to the anger of the working class. Touting how great the economy was going and ignoring the resentment felt by those who believed the “liberal elite” betrayed them.

Frankly, bullshit. This was not about working class in the slightest. Working class as such supported and voted for democrats. The thing is, women are working class too, not just men. And farmers are frequently effectively rich owners - in unstable business bu owning a lot. This was about all thosw isms and hierarchies we pretended dont exisr anymore.

> Working class as such supported and voted for democrats.

I live in coastal CA, and a healthy majority of my “working class” friends are Trump supporters.

The ones in the trades, who are relatively high earners, are all Trump supporters.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It relies on understanding that the person paying the bill for the tariff is not necessarily the person that takes the economic hit. If you read the second half of the sentence you quoted it hints at that. The exporter does "give a shit", because all other things being equal, the net cost of the product has gone up, which will reduce demand (and therefore sales at a given price point) in any market that has the sligh…

Still missing the forest for the trees a bit but you're right, my wording could have been better. What I'm getting at is tariffs are generally unrelated to foreign sellers: they're not charged to them, they're not responsible for them, and the entire narrative about how "we're going to make foreign producers pay tariffs" is false. Just like "pass" is the wrong verb, because there's nothing to pass: the tariff was cha…

You're talking about the trees (who literally pays taxes) I'm talking about the forest (which parties in the entire system end up less economically well off because the tax exists, AKA tax incidence)

I'll use your example. Your argument is that when Toyota sells fewer cars as a result of a new tax increasing the landed cost of their products, that they aren't being made worse off? Sure Toyota isn't literally cutting the check to the state, but unless they are selling a product that is perfectly inelastic (they aren't, no such product exists in the real world), they will have less revenue, ceteris paribus.

I get that the suppliers aren't literally paying for the tariffs via transferring dollars to the US CBP.

I am saying that reduced demand and sales for a product as a result of a higher cost is an actual realized loss for the producer caused by the tariff. The producers are paying an economic cost for the tariffs by either reduced volume or reduced margin. My citation is the article you are commenting on.

This is a well known, demonstrable and universally accepted concept in economics you are trying to argue against. It is called tax incidence, and it very intentionally discards who pays the tax directly, and concentrates on the respective proportions of consumer and producer surplus that are claimed by the increased tax.

This is literally what the paper this post is linked to is about; what proportion of the economic cost of the tax is borne by the seller and what portion is borne by the buyer. Go get

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I have spent my whole life intimately involved with southern Republicans. They will never ever not vote Republican, let alone vote Democrat. It is an identity marker. It doesn’t even really matter what the policies are. They’ll complain for a while, but they will always internalize a Republican policy shift no matter what it is. They used to treat “free market economics” as a religion just 10 years ago. Secondarily,…

>... It is an identity marker. It doesn’t even really matter what the policies are....They simply don’t connect their political beliefs to their reality.

In other words, they're stupid.

Re: American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis

#670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy this - Harris had a big bump in the polls as soon as she entered the race and I think she could have won if she had offered voters anything . This bullshit that American's won't vote for a woman is just an excuse not to run women and to deflect blame towards a culture war issue and away from the fact that the democrats don't actually have popular policies. I voted for Harris, I even canvased for her, but…

She’s known to own firearms. I wonder what would happen if one of these Democrat candidates released a video like “A girl and her Glock: Kamala goes John Wick”. Similarly, AOC should visit the south, eat some grits, volunteer with some Black churches, and do a little skeet shooting with some good ole boys.

The Zohran model is to not pretend to be someone different, and exclusively focus on what you believe the core problem to be with a few clearly definable solutions (and no slogans).
Post reply on HN