These are the sort of things the poor and middle class voted for. To make the rich, richer. And then turn around and complain that rich are getting richer and they are getting poorer.
Corporate taxes have the problem of small business paying much more proportionally than large ones and a flat tax on businesses that rely on cheap foreign labor and goods is deserved.
Trump doesn't get to define all of my opinions by me needing to oppose exactly everything he's done.
The problem with the current political situation is the establishment in both parties w were too cowardly or useless to address real problems which are now actually being addressed by objectively stupid fascists.
And that is the lesson to everyone, get stuff done or get replaced by awful people doing awful things.
In the short run, this isn't true: firms have goods they need to move.
And applying tariffs to tools and raw materials when you're supposed to be trying to bring manufacturing back to your country is... well, let's just say any government stupid enough to do that isn't likely to improve things in any other respect.
The OP said tariffs are not progressive taxes. You are agreeing with them while believing you are disagreeing.
Further tariffs are not specific to corporations. Individuals pay them. Small business pay them. Large businesses pay them.
> And that is the lesson to everyone, get stuff done or get replaced by awful people doing awful things.
I don't think that the establishment who benefitted from the status quo actually cares nearly as much as they pretend to while the poor and eroding middle class bear the brunt of the suffering. I doubt rich reagonites and clintonites who made a killing off of deregulation and cheap overseas labour have many regrets.
If tarrifs on imported goods are high then people choose non imported goods (which might be substitutes for goods which can’t be made in America) as there are no tarrifs.
They are dangerous though. If country A stops selling to US it sells cheaper to other countries. It also stops importing from the US (and chooses subsidies).
Overall everyone loses out - at least in theory, as everyone uses worse substitutes.
Food is messy because it's a commodity with a whole lot of substitution-- consumers have a high elasticity as a result.
We are talking about elasticity's prediction for the share producers and consumers each pay when there is a cost structure or tax change. Incidence theory is well validated and fits observed evidence remarkably well, including in 2019 studies of the effects of the 2018 trade war.
But tariff incidence is a micro question. Elasticity analysis doesn’t care whether the world has a demand shortfall or a supply glut. It asks: when a tax raises transaction costs, which side is less able to change behavior? In the long run, suppliers usually have more flexibility than consumers.
The market 'offering' the most demand to the global economy right now is America, by far and away, with a distant second of Europe and Middle East. America has chosen to use tariffs in an attempt to 'tax the demand offered' to the global economy in order to stop the localize debt accumulation of that demand, along with other justifications (rightly or wrongly) of stabilizing global trade and currency.
This is at least the THEORY on Tariffs. Its makes a bit more sense than the 'grrr 1950's trade imbalance' story media keeps spinning, but whatever I'm not going to defend it any more than that.
You can possibly improve trade imbalance with tariffs (though retaliation makes it hard). But it's hard to escape your consumers paying most or all of the costs of those tariffs.
I'd say the remaining problem left in our analysis is massive inequality in America leading to enormous consumer elasticity in a small ultra-wealth portion. This I can't figure out
Elasticity means you can change your amount produced in response to changes in price.
Producers can’t easily change output, so they bear more of the tax burden themselves. But in the long run, producers can reallocate or exit until they’re producing at minimum(average total cost), which makes supply more elastic and shifts most of the burden onto consumers.
This is stuff that's covered in week 4 of a basic microeconomics class. It gets a little fancier with imperfect competition or heterogenous agents, etc, but predicting tax incidence is basically dominated by this even in advanced microeconomics.
(I'm not committing myself to the idea, only that it isn't obviously outside the norms of economic thought)
Then you seemed determined to misunderstand, e.g.
> > But it's hard to escape your consumers paying most or all of the costs of those tariffs.
> I think we agree if I'm understanding you correctly, yes the Suppliers have more elasticity and must ultimately absorb this.
This is really simple fundamental microeconomics stuff. If you want to understand it, there's plenty of sources online. If you want to argue it, you should learn the basics first.
If your intention was to be curious about it, your comments don't convey that.
> Consider if you see everyone around you as the asshole who the asshole might be...
And now you're just effectively calling names.
If you want to talk about economic concepts in a forum like this, you should either ask questions or fill yourself in on the foundational knowledge.
All tarrifs do is remove foreign competition who have lower costs for a variety of reasons, some which benefit the country imposing the tariff, some not.
Neoliberal approach is to always require the cheapest goods, no matter the cost. That’s not the only approach.
Which is hard to do when the idiots in charge place tariffs on the raw materials that both manufacturers rely on.
That wasn't my first clue that a rational and charitable interpretation of the Trump tariffs doesn't exist, but it was a big one.
Take a moment a think about yourself here. Really. “Shut up and don’t ask questions” is a very toxic behavior.
Really. Think. About. This.
It's hard to read emotions via text. I'm reading that -you- seem to be, with periods between each word, short phrases, &c.
> “Shut up and don’t ask questions” is a very toxic behavior.
c.f.
> > If you want to talk about economic concepts in a forum like this, you should either ask questions or...
It just seems like you're not reading the things I say.