"If you look at page 1 of the tariff handbook, it says: Don't tariff inputs. It's the simplest way to make it harder—more expensive—for Americans to do business. Any factory around the world can get the steel, copper, and aluminum it needs without paying a 50% upcharge, except an American factory."

https://bsky.app/profile/justinwolfers.bsky.social/post/3lud...

As such, the way in which they're used can easily be disguished between "hidden tax" and "design to affect production location".

These tariffs are, as a whole, about adding a hidden tax.

Tariffs need to be applied surgically and... they are not

At the end of the day the prices still rise just not as much as with the tariffs but higher than foreign made without tariffs.

If you mean that we exploit Chinese people by not giving them the proper salary, living standard and retirement fund, yeah true

But parallel to that, automatization has reached a level we never had before.

I don't think tarifs would lead to more capital in USA in the right/expected pockets.

Because the sellers can sell to another country without the tariff. American buyers have no alternative.

If you tariff the Chinese one to $8, I will buy American.

China knows this, so they change the price on their screw driver (that actually costs them 0.75) accordingly, so that it can still be sold for $5, because they know there's a ceiling on what people will pay.

China doesn't have pure competition. The price of their goods isnt really related to cost by it more of what the buyer will pay.

Importers pay the tariff. But where the tax burden falls is more complicated.

Short answer is that right now, we don't have strong evidence for where the burden is falling. Given how volatile tariffs have been, and the variety of leverage positions of American importers across industries, it will probably be years before we can suss out a signal from the data.

Here's a thing with a punitive tariff on it. People won't buy it because the price went up too much. It is because prices went up that nobody buys it. (And we all become poorer because we can afford less, whether or not the price increase shows up in the inflation statistics.)

Tariffs have their own Laffer Curve just like income taxes do. Sure, you can set them so that the government gets zero (or close) revenue. But you don't have to. You can set them so that the government gets quite a bit of money. (Note well: I am not claiming that Trump is setting them there.)

If the Trump admin was serious about rebuilding the industrial base, they'd be providing subsidies and federal grants, not tariffs. They'd also be sucking money out of the economy by increasing the number and top marginal rates on the income tax and patching loopholes in the corporate tax code. At the same time, they'd be cutting taxes for the bottom 80% of America and providing healthcare and childcare subsidies.

it's been reported that tariff collections have soared to the point that the budgeted spending is no longer in the red. this article is written in a confusing way, but your statement "not generating much money for the govt" appears to be incorrect

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/11/treasury-posts-unexpected-su...

  Grover Norquist is smiling from the grave right now, watching this bipartisan anti-tax push.

What a country.

In the same way that laws against pumping your own gas help other Americans find work. It makes everyone else poorer instead of naturally created jobs which provide goods and services people want.

> increasing the likelihood that foreign goods will be purchased from allied nations and not totalitarian dictatorships

Citation needed, this round of tariffs have also fallen on our allies

Maybe those folks can be competitive within the US given the absurd tariffs. But will they be competitive on any global scale, with those additional headwinds? And if TACO or years pass and tariffs get rescinded, having that massive extra overhead on CapEx is not a good position to be in.

So no, you don't get re-industrialization, you get stagflation. It's idiocracy.

But don't worry, the falling dollar will compensate.

If you want to incentive domestic reindustrialization, you do it with things like the Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS act or the "Green New Deal" where congress lays out clear sets of rules in law with a mixture of tax incentives, loan programs and spending to give investors and corporations confidence to make decade-long commitments of capital to major projects.

North Africa had high tariffs on cars for decades. That didn’t create a car industry. But when, a few years ago, Morocco decided to get serious they made changes that last year they manufactured almost as much as Italy.

The problem is nobody in D.C. has a strategy for tariffs.

Either America is facing unfair international competitive barriers, in which case the tariffs are punitive and to be negotiated away. Or America is erecting permanent trade barriers, in which case there aren't trade negotiations because that would compromise the long-term investment thesis for re-shoring projects.

Further there seems to be no coherent tariff strategy that would enact the changes people are fantasizing about. Instead we see special interest, lobbyist, and perhaps even personal quid pro quo carve outs based on who has access to one man while the rest of us are told 15% taxes on foreign goods is a "great deal!".

For any of this policy to be long term it must go through Congress. For it to be effective and not the worst openly corrupt politics we ought to WANT it to come from Congress.

I don't see how anything that's happened with tariffs is evidence of ""the federal government" looking long term".

You might argue that the retail channel can eat the difference, but it doesn't make sense to make the same absolute margin on goods that are subject to volatile tariff policies. It makes it hard to predict how many units will sell, how much stock to maintain, and creates a big risk that any units on shelves will suddenly be devalued when these tariffs are rescinded.

The price of food is based on the price of domestic produce and the price of imports. If taxes are levied on food imports it will raise the mean price of food. As yoga instructors need food to do their job (in fact, they need it to live), they would have to raise their prices.

It’s a pernicious problem exacerbated by conservative media that’s 24 hour xenophobia and jingoism. It’s not just the US look to your countrymen dear reader!

We have to see how this will play out. It is a real war albeit no rockets are flying around, for now.

And no, thinking "tax the rich" is a good idea is not the same thing as thinking it's a good idea to add taxes that are passed directly to consumers. You're doing this narrative slight of hand where you are placing taxes that would successfully target the wealthy in the same bucket as ones that are easily passed on to consumers. Don't do that if you want a constructive conversation.

Regardless, within the current system (which is not based on theory and based on reality), we combine these elements, and neither seem to directly benefit certain industries depending on who you're looking at. If it does, these policies may not benefit everyone.