81–90 of 205 posts
I don't quite understand the error this article is pointing out and how it could lead to a four fold inaccuracy. Can someone try explain with an example?
In other words, Trump's equation thinks that import price will absorb (elasticity) the tariff's impact, but that's not true. It's passed on almost entirely (the 0.945 number, so 0.055 may be absorbed).
So it's using wrong numbers to justify the effective tariffs. IMO, I don't think Trump cares. I think the equation was a "straw-man".
Can anyone explain the reversal of positions on free trade between left and right since the 2000s? Back then, the biggest bogeyman of leftists was globalization and they would protest against free trade agreements and wanted to boycott imports from poor countries because it was exploiting workers there and taking jobs from poor people in rich countries. At the same time rightists loved free trade because it was good…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that, but I assume they'll take more bites of the apple as they go down the list country by country and negotiate better rates for some kind of kickback and market manipulation opportunity.
it's kinda strange that the largest tariff is in a landlocked country a 5 hour drive from elon musk's hometown. All the numbers on what a country is supposedly charging america appear to be a complete fabrication so we're forced to find other motivation for setting the numbers the way they did.
AEI is just another church of Austrian economics--still burning incense for the ghost of Milton Friedman. If you told any of them, "Tariffs, or your mother dies in her sleep tonight.", they would reply in chorus, "Oh well, that's why I keep a picture to remember her by." If any of these people actually knew what they were talking about, they would be fabulously wealthy hedgies like Dalio or Simons, rather than "think-tank" shills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
for countries that pay a worker $10 a day, put a tariff on the goods produced by that worker to total $10 for countries that pay a worker $15 dollars a day put a tariff on the goods produced by that work to total $4 therefore someone importing goods produced by one worker in one day from the lower wage country would spend $20 for the goods from the lower wage country but only $19 for the goods for the higher wage cou…
That’s a nice idea, but I’m skeptical—where is the new wealth coming from that will allow Lesotho to pay its workers more? It’s not an issue of strong-arming some bad guys in Lesotho to pay their workers more using tariffs as a negotiation tool. I feel that conflating tariffs with some sort of negotiation tool to bring about positive global change is disingenuous, because the real aim is clearly protectionism.
This would mean, of course, that the people who happen to work for an export-oriented factory become much more wealthy than most people in Lesotho. So you might reasonably wonder whether it's better to make twice as many workers half as wealthy. Labor advocates believe the answer is no: paying some people genuinely good wages both creates and encourages further development, while paying a larger number of people "good enough" wages encourages poor countries to race to the bottom competing for the lowest standard of "good enough".
I believe the idea was "Very High Tarrifs" and the formula was some kid in MS Excel . They are definitely not reciprocal. They don't need to be, since the plan was to use the high tarrifs as negotiating tool to somehow reduce the US national debt
There are multiple of these explanations and none od them is consistent with actual decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want the people who work to make the things I use to earn more than $150 per month. A sane tariff policy would be set up to penalize these very low wage exporters to give competitive advantage to exporters and local producers with higher wages but also to incentivize higher wages in a way that set rates make producers more profitable if they paid workers more (and likewise other human development and environmental…
I don’t see how tariffs magically create wealth for foreign exporters that translates into higher wages. Let’s say I can buy a $10 shirt from Lesotho with zero tariff. Now a 50% tariff gets imposed. I can either eat the tariff and pay $15, in which case Lesotho still gets their $10, or Lesotho can eat the tariff to keep their exports competitive, in which case Lesotho now makes $5. The part about giving a competitive…
A truely laughable suggestion.