Just a quick reminder! Last year the US imported $3.1 trillion in goods from the rest of the world. If we imposed a 10% tariff on every last penny of that amount it would raise $310 billion per year. That's it. That's the cap even in theory. It's a tiny fraction of the annual federal deficit, which clocked in at $1.8 trillion last year.
In practice, of course, even if Trump goes through with this (a) treaties will restrict what he can do, (b) he will grant exceptions, (c) imports will fall due to their higher prices, and (d) other countries will retaliate. The actual amount of revenue tariffs can raise is certainly no more than $150 billion and might very well net out to zero. It's a flyspeck.
My understanding of the reason for Trump's attachment to tariffs is simply that Presidents have a lot of authority over them -- something he discovered in his previous term -- so basically, he can tariff the hell out of everything and then grant exceptions to the people he likes (Musk, Thiel, whomever).
I can imagine an office of Tariff Enforcement with a line out the door of executives waiting to kiss the ring and get their tariffs reduced.
The executives will get what they wanted: lower personal taxes and fewer pesky regulations or interference from the government (e.g. anti-trust litigation). Having to (probably pay someone else to) stand in line to kiss the ring is the price they will pay, along with shittier public services that even they depend on. (It's hard to fly your personal jet without a fully functional and competent air traffic control system and well-maintained runaways at both your origin and destination. Only the richest of the rich can afford to single-handedly fund that stuff exclusively for themselves.)
Trump said he wanted to use tariff revenues to completely replace income tax. Federal income tax revenue last year was $2.6 trillion. That would call for a tariff rate of 84% on ALL imports, which would necessarily result in a huge reduction in imports,, which would call for even higher tariffs, which would result in a reduction in imports, etc.; in other words, there is no world in which tariffs can raise enough revenue to replace the income tax, or even come close.
Of course not! Which is why no sane person would ever consider the idea. Tarrifs aren't even supposed to raise revenue - they're for protecting domestic industry and should only be used with extreme caution. I guess we just have to FAFO now that we elected an insane clown with a tarrif fetish.
Vance is on record as being an advocate for autarky as a means to rebuild American manufacturing. Interestingly enough, I don't see him at any of the big bro roundtables Trump is currently holding. Perhaps he's already outlived his usefulness.
I'm not sure Musk cares about anything other than removing barriers for businesses to make more money, so he may not be interested in the tariffs discussion.
His companies depend upon imported tools and parts, so no idea what he's thinking there.
Trump speaks in poetry not prose. He speaks to be taken seriously, not literally.
These are not defenses of the man, they are literal reality.
You can accept this and try to analyze the future based on a grounding in reality, or you can decide that your only value-add is a constant stream of snark. It's your choice whether to be an adult or a tween.
What reality?
This is approx. 70 words that don't say anything. It's word salad. There might be some nugget of meaning in there but it's been buried.
"Trump speaks in poetry not prose. He speaks to be taken seriously, not literally." This shit again? You forgot the weave. You know the thing someone convinced Trump to call his abrupt change in topics when he starts to lose his train of thought.
We, as a country, litigated this question on November 5, and we decided that it is not, in fact, stupid.
No, you as a country held an election where people voted for and against a candidate who constantly said all kinds of things often contradictory.
Certainly a large fraction of the population without doubt naïvely believe in tariffs - as economic innumeracy is widespread and profound, but it is absolutely a gross exageration to draw the election to this
Duh. You don't do snark well, do you?
"and we decided that it is not, in fact, stupid"
No, no. The voters decided it was "acceptable" (or maybe that it doesn't matter to them at all). The actual stupidity of this particular proposal remains, no matter how many people voted for or against the idea.
While I don't disagree, especially about tariffs, if we were talking about an actually GOOD policy policy that reduced the deficit by 10% or 16%, I really don't think you'd call that "nothing" or a "flyspeck."
FTR, I think tariffs are beyond boneheaded. And of course they aren't about the revenue, they're about being Tough.
The point of the tariffs is not to balance the budget, it is to onshore manufacturing that was moved offshore, to balance manufacturing to the situation around say 1980. The goal of this on-shoring is both security and (hopefully) more manufacturing jobs, ideally with at least some low-skilled elements.
You may or may not agree either that this is a good idea, or that tariffs will achieve it. But oppose the *actual* plan, as opposed to some strawman version of it that you've concocted.
you said Trump’s words aren’t to be taken literally in another post. why then must we accept the most generous interpretation of his musings?
Weirdly you've created the straw man, whereas Kevin went with what Trump and his campaign said.
No, that's not the "actual" plan. it's nice to see you have an active imagination but that doesn't really help when discussing the real world.
The actual point of tariffs is to protect existing industry. When this is done and the higher prices of imports keeps them from being bought, there is no inflation - it is status quo. This is what Biden and other national leaders of automobile countries are trying to do with tariffs on Chinese cars. The Chinese have held off on the vehicle industry in general, but now they seem to be ready to move in. The car industry in the US may still be in existence because of various kinds of protection; quotas, bailouts and tariffs (on light trucks).
Trying to bring back industry that has fled does raise prices. But Trump himself doesn't even understand this, and claims that the exporter will pay the tariffs.
"When this is done and the higher prices of imports keeps them from being bought, there is no inflation - it is status quo. " This is nonsense. The imports are inherently significantly lower cost, otherwise no one would buy them in the first place. And so prices must rise, when you force americans to buy higher priced goods. And without the competition, the local producers will take the already high prices, and raise them even higher.
But most manufacturing wasn't moved offshore. It was automated. and is still done in the US.
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin... Did YOU graduate from Wharton? Was YOUR uncle a professor at MIT? No? Then SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE AND LISTEN TO THE STABLE GENIUS!
Sheesh. Bunch of unqualified mamby-pamby nitpickers around here who think they know more than the HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL Casino Magnate hisself!
"trade wars are good, and easy to win". How can you argue with that?
"n practice, of course, even if Trump goes through with this (a) treaties will restrict what he can do, " This is nonsense. The US has never be in compliance with NAFTA or NAFTA2. No nation violates treaties as often and consistently as the US. Under Supreme curt precedent, there is no judicial avenue for enforcing treaty and there has never been a cost to violating treaties. (Just ask any native American about that.)
There has never been a cost to violating treaties, beyond the costs that the wronged parties impose for treaty violations. There is a very real cost to violating trade treaties, paid by US exporters, because the wronged parties impose those costs. Other treaties like the Convention Against Torture can be violated without cost other than to the violator's reputation.