Tariffs?

[XpertDBA]

But tariffs that the U.S. imposes hurt OUR consumers (by making us pay more). It's essentially a tax. Doesn't Grok get that?

I understand there's a consumer aspect, but equal trade has to be paramount, otherwise it puts US industry at the disadvantage. Trump is definitely looking at it from a business/jobs aspect, not focusing on what consumers are paying in the short term. I do get that.

At the same time, I think we need Canada less that they need us, and in the end they'll cave.

Always seems to just be a negotiation with Trump.

The goal seems to be eliminating tariffs on US products by imposing matching tariffs on their companies until that happens.

Do you think business profits are more important than lower prices? I don't.

And I want to emphasize that when prices are raised (due to a tariff/tax) it isn't just you or me as the final consumer who pays more. It's also the American businesses who make products and provide services using the imported item.

I've been having discussion with a couple of my more conservative friends who don't seem to really know how tariffs work. Their reaction is that if we (America) has a negative balance of trade, we are losing money. I disagree.

Consider this analogy: I go to the grocery store and buy a variety of things. The grocery store buys nothing for me. Literally, I have a negative balance of trade with the grocery. Is this bad? Should I stop "trading" with my grocer? (That was, should I just grow all my food, make my own breakfast cereal, slaughterhouse my own meat?)

Adam Smith wrote all about this in "The Wealth of Nations", published 249 years ago. Free trade is better than having tariffs. Specialization is better than doing everything yourself. Spend your efforts doing what you are best at, then buy the other things. These principles are the foundation of capitalism.

Propping up industries with tariffs and subsidies is state socialism. It might be justifiable in some very specific circumstances, but in general, it's not a good idea. It helps a few and hurts most of us, and the total harm is greater than the total gain.

What a stupid analogy. Wouldn't the real situation be, that the US would have more food producers, cereal producers, and slaughterhouses to produce more food, cereal and meat domestically. This would increase exports of those items making our country more money, instead of relying on us importing those same items. Also, I would think the prices for American-made items would be cheaper, as they would avoid any tariffs at all. This also encourages global companies to consider building and producing here, increasing jobs in the U.S., instead of the other way around.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Great post!!

[bpj]

But tariffs that the U.S. imposes hurt OUR consumers (by making us pay more). It's essentially a tax. Doesn't Grok get that?

I understand there's a consumer aspect, but equal trade has to be paramount, otherwise it puts US industry at the disadvantage. Trump is definitely looking at it from a business/jobs aspect, not focusing on what consumers are paying in the short term. I do get that.

At the same time, I think we need Canada less that they need us, and in the end they'll cave.

Always seems to just be a negotiation with Trump.

The goal seems to be eliminating tariffs on US products by imposing matching tariffs on their companies until that happens.

Do you think business profits are more important than lower prices? I don't.

Short answer, Yes, without the profits there is no company to provide either jobs or products. I just don't think we're reliant on Canada. We can buy elsewhere or produce domestically. The real question is do I think the success and viability of the American businesses is more important than lower prices for consumers in the short term? Absolutely, yes.

And I want to emphasize that when prices are raised (due to a tariff/tax) it isn't just you or me as the final consumer who pays more. It's also the American businesses who make products and provide services using the imported item.

If Canada charges tariffs on US products and the US doesn't charge Canadian products, I don't think it's an even playing field. The businesses that buy from Canada can buy elsewhere. They have nothing we actually need. Especially if it undercuts a domestic company.

I've been having discussion with a couple of my more conservative friends who don't seem to really know how tariffs work. Their reaction is that if we (America) has a negative balance of trade, we are losing money. I disagree.

Consider this analogy: I go to the grocery store and buy a variety of things. The grocery store buys nothing for me. Literally, I have a negative balance of trade with the grocery. Is this bad? Should I stop "trading" with my grocer? (That was, should I just grow all my food, make my own breakfast cereal, slaughterhouse my own meat?)

Adam Smith wrote all about this in "The Wealth of Nations", published 249 years ago. Free trade is better than having tariffs. Specialization is better than doing everything yourself. Spend your efforts doing what you are best at, then buy the other things. These principles are the foundation of capitalism.

Propping up industries with tariffs and subsidies is state socialism. It might be justifiable in some very specific circumstances, but in general, it's not a good idea. It helps a few and hurts most of us, and the total harm is greater than the total gain.

All Trump is doing is placing the same tariffs on other countries that they place on us. As far as I can see that's the only way from this point to get to the "no tariffs" we'd actually prefer.

It's not Trump creating these tariffs. He's just matching the other country in the hopes of eliminating the tariffs they place on us. Why is that a bad thing? He's fighting for American companies and free trade. Except he's saying, "If you don't have free trade with us, we won't have it with you." It's couldn't be any simpler imo.

[Seattle or Bust]

Almost all items traded between Canada and the US do not have any tariffs associated with them. The US has never come close to hitting limits on goods in which these tariffs would go into effect.

Trump negotiated the last deal. Called it the best deal ever.

Per usual, he’s being dishonest and trying to make it sound like there are tariffs on every transaction which is utter nonsense. I can see it’s working here. But I’m not surprised.

[bpj]

Almost all items traded between Canada and the US do not have any tariffs associated with them. The US has never come close to hitting limits on goods in which these tariffs would go into effect.

Trump negotiated the last deal. Called it the best deal ever.

Per usual, he’s being dishonest and trying to make it sound like there are tariffs on every transaction which is utter nonsense. I can see it’s working here. But I’m not surprised.

Then those items still won't have a tariff on them.

Trump's just matching their tariffs. What is bad about that?

[Michael K.]

It cracks me up, us charging Tariffs is going to ruin the economy, but somehow Canada charges Tariffs and their economy isn't ruined. The question I asked is why is it such a huge issue that are charging Tariffs, and posted the Canadian Tariffs as an example of "why the Hell wouldn't we charge them?"

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Almost all items traded between Canada and the US do not have any tariffs associated with them. The US has never come close to hitting limits on goods in which these tariffs would go into effect.

Trump negotiated the last deal. Called it the best deal ever.

Per usual, he’s being dishonest and trying to make it sound like there are tariffs on every transaction which is utter nonsense. I can see it’s working here. But I’m not surprised.

I could believe that.....if you showed our work.
But I've asked you to prove this before.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

It cracks me up, us charging Tariffs is going to ruin the economy, but somehow Canada charges Tariffs and their economy isn't ruined. The question I asked is why is it such a huge issue that are charging Tariffs, and posted the Canadian Tariffs as an example of "why the Hell wouldn't we charge them?"

I think you're 100% caught up.

[gil]

I understand there's a consumer aspect, but equal trade has to be paramount, otherwise it puts US industry at the disadvantage. Trump is definitely looking at it from a business/jobs aspect, not focusing on what consumers are paying in the short term. I do get that.

At the same time, I think we need Canada less that they need us, and in the end they'll cave.

Always seems to just be a negotiation with Trump.

The goal seems to be eliminating tariffs on US products by imposing matching tariffs on their companies until that happens.

Do you think business profits are more important than lower prices? I don't.

And I want to emphasize that when prices are raised (due to a tariff/tax) it isn't just you or me as the final consumer who pays more. It's also the American businesses who make products and provide services using the imported item.

I've been having discussion with a couple of my more conservative friends who don't seem to really know how tariffs work. Their reaction is that if we (America) has a negative balance of trade, we are losing money. I disagree.

Consider this analogy: I go to the grocery store and buy a variety of things. The grocery store buys nothing for me. Literally, I have a negative balance of trade with the grocery. Is this bad? Should I stop "trading" with my grocer? (That was, should I just grow all my food, make my own breakfast cereal, slaughterhouse my own meat?)

Adam Smith wrote all about this in "The Wealth of Nations", published 249 years ago. Free trade is better than having tariffs. Specialization is better than doing everything yourself. Spend your efforts doing what you are best at, then buy the other things. These principles are the foundation of capitalism.

Propping up industries with tariffs and subsidies is state socialism. It might be justifiable in some very specific circumstances, but in general, it's not a good idea. It helps a few and hurts most of us, and the total harm is greater than the total gain.

What a stupid analogy. Wouldn't the real situation be, that the US would have more food producers, cereal producers, and slaughterhouses to produce more food, cereal and meat domestically. This would increase exports of those items making our country more money, instead of relying on us importing those same items. Also, I would think the prices for American-made items would be cheaper, as they would avoid any tariffs at all. This also encourages global companies to consider building and producing here, increasing jobs in the U.S., instead of the other way around.

The analogy is simplistic, but I don't think it's stupid. International trade really is just a special case of any stem of exchange. If Washington apples are sold in Texas, it's business as usual. If the apples are sold in British Columbia, it's international trade.

How about this: Instead of an individual, let's say there is a home country that is resource-rich in almost everything, and is completely self-sufficient. No imports or exports. But if their neighboring county produces better food more cheaply, why not import some? The consumer gets cheaper food. The existing food producers can either [1] innovate and be more productive (i.e., do a better job completing with the imports), or [2] get out of food production and do something that has higher value. This seems like basic economics/capitalism to me.

[gil]

It cracks me up, us charging Tariffs is going to ruin the economy, but somehow Canada charges Tariffs and their economy isn't ruined. The question I asked is why is it such a huge issue that are charging Tariffs, and posted the Canadian Tariffs as an example of "why the Hell wouldn't we charge them?"

Both countries would be better off without tariffs. That was the point behind NAFTA and behind the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal of the first Trump term in office.