Instant Inflation

 

Put some items in my Amazon cart last night, didn’t check out. Wanted to see if I still wanted them in the clear unsparing light of day. Called up the cart tonight, and every item – USB cords, a sweatshirt, a power converter – had increased in price by a dollar. The presumption, I gather, is that the replacement cost of the items will be greater in the future. It makes me want to scour Amazon for everything made offshore that I know I will need, and buy it now before the price leaps up again.

Published in Economy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 144 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'. Coolidge
    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'.
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    Also, it appears that the tariff-rates being imposed by the U.S. are not actually based on what tariffs other countries impose on us, but just on trade deficits:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-trumps-tariff-table-was-made/

    It’s immediately clear that the “tariffs charged” are not actually tariffs charged, because even countries with which the U.S. has free-trade agreements are listed as having very high tariff rates. It says South Korea, for example, charges 50 percent tariffs on U.S. imports, when in reality, nearly all trade between South Korea and the U.S. is duty-free.

    Enterprising folks on X figured out how the White House got these numbers. It turns out that they don’t have anything to do with tariff rates. The administration simply took the U.S. trade deficit in goods with each country, and then divided it by the amount of imported goods the U.S. buys from that country. The U.S. tariff rate is then “discounted” by dividing that result in half.

    In 2024, U.S. goods imports from South Korea were $132 billion. The trade deficit was $66 billion. So, $66 billion / $132 billion = 50 percent. Then, divide by 2 to get the U.S. “reciprocal” rate of 25 percent, just like the table says. Ryan Petersen, the CEO of logistics firm Flexport, posted that this methodology predicts the tariff rates just about perfectly for every country (the only differences are for rounding).

    So if National Review has this right, there are countries that put up practically no trade barriers with us but we’re still going to target them just because we buy more from them than they buy from us?

    Not a fan of the idea.

    I’m not either but he’s got less than four years to accomplish things, a small window for grand designs. 

    • #91
  2. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I understand the theory, but I’d say that the past few decades haven’t proven it. And it’s ultimately probably not sustainable, but when it stops working it might easily hurt us the most.

    You’ve literally not made one specific point here. I will make it for you. We get stuff cheaper from overseas and then the federal reserve can’t accept this so they keep creating inflation. It’s stupid.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    We may not be able to get cheap gew-gaws from China, but China will still have the warships etc they’ve built with our money.

    Trading with the Chinese mafia is and was patently stupid. We can import deflation from anybody else that isn’t going to attack us.

    But if China is cheaper…

    Then we get the better of the deal………

    Does this “we” you keep speaking of include the people and communities devastated by loss of jobs to China?

     

    • #92
  3. Knotwise the Poet Member
    Knotwise the Poet
    @KnotwisethePoet

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    Also, it appears that the tariff-rates being imposed by the U.S. are not actually based on what tariffs other countries impose on us, but just on trade deficits:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-trumps-tariff-table-was-made/

    It’s immediately clear that the “tariffs charged” are not actually tariffs charged, because even countries with which the U.S. has free-trade agreements are listed as having very high tariff rates. It says South Korea, for example, charges 50 percent tariffs on U.S. imports, when in reality, nearly all trade between South Korea and the U.S. is duty-free.

    Enterprising folks on X figured out how the White House got these numbers. It turns out that they don’t have anything to do with tariff rates. The administration simply took the U.S. trade deficit in goods with each country, and then divided it by the amount of imported goods the U.S. buys from that country. The U.S. tariff rate is then “discounted” by dividing that result in half.

    In 2024, U.S. goods imports from South Korea were $132 billion. The trade deficit was $66 billion. So, $66 billion / $132 billion = 50 percent. Then, divide by 2 to get the U.S. “reciprocal” rate of 25 percent, just like the table says. Ryan Petersen, the CEO of logistics firm Flexport, posted that this methodology predicts the tariff rates just about perfectly for every country (the only differences are for rounding).

    So if National Review has this right, there are countries that put up practically no trade barriers with us but we’re still going to target them just because we buy more from them than they buy from us?

    Not a fan of the idea.

    Country-to-country is different from person-to-grocery-store etc.

    Yeah, but if another country has a smaller population than us and is less wealthy than us (which is most countries), doesn’t it make sense they’re likely to consume less product from us than we are from them? 

    • #93
  4. Knotwise the Poet Member
    Knotwise the Poet
    @KnotwisethePoet

    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs… (View Comment):

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    Also, it appears that the tariff-rates being imposed by the U.S. are not actually based on what tariffs other countries impose on us, but just on trade deficits:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-trumps-tariff-table-was-made/

    It’s immediately clear that the “tariffs charged” are not actually tariffs charged, because even countries with which the U.S. has free-trade agreements are listed as having very high tariff rates. It says South Korea, for example, charges 50 percent tariffs on U.S. imports, when in reality, nearly all trade between South Korea and the U.S. is duty-free.

    Enterprising folks on X figured out how the White House got these numbers. It turns out that they don’t have anything to do with tariff rates. The administration simply took the U.S. trade deficit in goods with each country, and then divided it by the amount of imported goods the U.S. buys from that country. The U.S. tariff rate is then “discounted” by dividing that result in half.

    In 2024, U.S. goods imports from South Korea were $132 billion. The trade deficit was $66 billion. So, $66 billion / $132 billion = 50 percent. Then, divide by 2 to get the U.S. “reciprocal” rate of 25 percent, just like the table says. Ryan Petersen, the CEO of logistics firm Flexport, posted that this methodology predicts the tariff rates just about perfectly for every country (the only differences are for rounding).

    So if National Review has this right, there are countries that put up practically no trade barriers with us but we’re still going to target them just because we buy more from them than they buy from us?

    Not a fan of the idea.

    I’m not either but he’s got less than four years to accomplish things, a small window for grand designs.

    And I think he may blow all his grand designs with this nonsense.

    • #94
  5. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    What, you want Trump to put on tariffs and keep them on, regardless of the target maybe removing their tariffs?

    Otherwise you would consider Trump to be “fickle?”

    No, I’d be happy for him to take them off if others remove their tariffs.  But I’d have rather we not gotten into this game of trade-war chicken in the first place.

    Israel just last week removed all tariffs on imports from the US.  Set them to zero.

    Trump this week imposed a 17% tariff on imports from Israel.

     

    Trumps program has no strategy, no plan, no rationality.  It’s also (in my view, and if it ever gets there, probably the view of the Supreme Court) Unconstitutional.  The “National Security” fig leaf he’s claiming can’t possibly apply to every country in the world.  The Constitution is very explicit that Congress has the power to tax, not the executive, and we’ve all been cheering the last few years as the Supreme Court has been ruling again and again that Congress cannot delegate core powers to the Executive.

     

    • #95
  6. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    If we’re going to do Tariffs (a big if, although I will admit I’m much less of a free trade absolutist than I was in my youth), they need to come from an act of Congress, not from the whim of the Executive.

    • #96
  7. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I understand the theory, but I’d say that the past few decades haven’t proven it. And it’s ultimately probably not sustainable, but when it stops working it might easily hurt us the most.

    You’ve literally not made one specific point here. I will make it for you. We get stuff cheaper from overseas and then the federal reserve can’t accept this so they keep creating inflation. It’s stupid.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    We may not be able to get cheap gew-gaws from China, but China will still have the warships etc they’ve built with our money.

    Trading with the Chinese mafia is and was patently stupid. We can import deflation from anybody else that isn’t going to attack us.

    But if China is cheaper…

    Then we get the better of the deal………

    Does this “we” you keep speaking of include the people and communities devastated by loss of jobs to China?

    I think the “lost jobs” thing has been kind of a myth.  The jobs that are supposedly lost to China have simply been exchanged for different jobs in the U.S.  The U.S. has had some of the lowest unemployment numbers in the past ten years that we have ever had since they started measuring it.  In fact we are in the midst of a 15-year shortage of workers.  Just about anybody who wants a job can find one these days.  What has caused the upheaval has been the radical shift of manufacturing to automated processes requiring fewer human beings, but creating more products.  That puts a definite burden on those whose jobs were in the manufacturing industry, but whole new industries and other jobs have opened up to take their place.

    It can be difficult for many people to adapt, but they can learn new skills and take the jobs that are available, which many employers are desperate to fill.  This process has been going on since the dawn of civilization, though the changes seem like they are happening faster now.

     

    • #97
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    Also, it appears that the tariff-rates being imposed by the U.S. are not actually based on what tariffs other countries impose on us, but just on trade deficits:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-trumps-tariff-table-was-made/

    It’s immediately clear that the “tariffs charged” are not actually tariffs charged, because even countries with which the U.S. has free-trade agreements are listed as having very high tariff rates. It says South Korea, for example, charges 50 percent tariffs on U.S. imports, when in reality, nearly all trade between South Korea and the U.S. is duty-free.

    Enterprising folks on X figured out how the White House got these numbers. It turns out that they don’t have anything to do with tariff rates. The administration simply took the U.S. trade deficit in goods with each country, and then divided it by the amount of imported goods the U.S. buys from that country. The U.S. tariff rate is then “discounted” by dividing that result in half.

    In 2024, U.S. goods imports from South Korea were $132 billion. The trade deficit was $66 billion. So, $66 billion / $132 billion = 50 percent. Then, divide by 2 to get the U.S. “reciprocal” rate of 25 percent, just like the table says. Ryan Petersen, the CEO of logistics firm Flexport, posted that this methodology predicts the tariff rates just about perfectly for every country (the only differences are for rounding).

    So if National Review has this right, there are countries that put up practically no trade barriers with us but we’re still going to target them just because we buy more from them than they buy from us?

    Not a fan of the idea.

    Country-to-country is different from person-to-grocery-store etc.

    Yeah, but if another country has a smaller population than us and is less wealthy than us (which is most countries), doesn’t it make sense they’re likely to consume less product from us than we are from them?

    But the supposed point that some people make is that the money we send to other countries is “worthless” unless it comes back to US.  Which your example also disproves, but in addition, the numbers belie it – by $1 Trillion just in 2023 – and again, if that money ends up with China because those poor countries are themselves also buying cheaper stuff from China, then China certainly isn’t buying that much from US.  Not even as much as we import from them, let alone what might be due to other countries.  And to the extent that China is in effect using our own money to buy our debt and then we pay interest on it AGAIN…. that’s not good.

    • #98
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I understand the theory, but I’d say that the past few decades haven’t proven it. And it’s ultimately probably not sustainable, but when it stops working it might easily hurt us the most.

    You’ve literally not made one specific point here. I will make it for you. We get stuff cheaper from overseas and then the federal reserve can’t accept this so they keep creating inflation. It’s stupid.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    We may not be able to get cheap gew-gaws from China, but China will still have the warships etc they’ve built with our money.

    Trading with the Chinese mafia is and was patently stupid. We can import deflation from anybody else that isn’t going to attack us.

    But if China is cheaper…

    Then we get the better of the deal………

    Does this “we” you keep speaking of include the people and communities devastated by loss of jobs to China?

    I think the “lost jobs” thing has been kind of a myth. The jobs that are supposedly lost to China have simply been exchanged for different jobs in the U.S. The U.S. has had some of the lowest unemployment numbers in the past ten years that we have ever had since they started measuring it. In fact we are in the midst of a 15-year shortage of workers. Just about anybody who wants a job can find one these days. What has caused the upheaval has been the radical shift of manufacturing to automated processes requiring fewer human beings, but creating more products. That puts a definite burden on those whose jobs were in the manufacturing industry, but whole new industries and other jobs have opened up to take their place.

    It can be difficult for many people to adapt, but they can learn new skills and take the jobs that are available, which many employers are desperate to fill. This process has been going on since the dawn of civilization, though the changes seem like they are happening faster now.

     

    It’s more complicated than that, which you should know.  Just for one, there are a lot of open jobs for which there may not be nearly enough QUALIFIED workers.  Because they require degrees in engineering or something, which many people don’t have, and which many people couldn’t get no matter how hard they tried.

    • #99
  10. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    I’m not a tariff expert and worry about the current Trump tariff policy, but it does seem weird that so many are beside themselves the sky is falling that the US imposing tariffs which are actually less than other Countries tariffs have imposed on the US, in the negotiated hopes the other Countries will reduce their tariffs is a terribly destructive policy ….really … when you actually write it down the issue makes you wonder why the US had tolerated the status quo for so long.

    What am I not understanding?

    • #100
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    I’m not a tariff expert and worry about the current Trump tariff policy, but it does seem weird that so many are beside themselves the sky is falling that the US imposing tariffs which are actually less than other Countries tariffs have imposed on the US, in the negotiated hopes the other Countries will reduce their tariffs is a terribly destructive policy ….really … when you actually write it down the issue makes you wonder why the US had tolerated the status quo for so long.

    What am I not understanding?

    Maybe how easy it is for some people to become Chicken Little?

    • #101
  12. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    There is one unknown aspect of the tariffs that I will be interested to see. During the pandemic, many companies’ costs went very high. I heard a couple of commentators on Fox Business say at that time that the businesses were absorbing the increases to keep their prices stable. 

    If the tariffs are collected when the goods cross the border rather than when the goods are sold, companies selling within the United States could, in theory, absorb the tariffs and stabilize their prices. 

    That might work for a lot of them. They will lose some profits but not all of them. 

    The goods would go to the wholesalers who might reduce their prices a bit to absorb some of the new tariffs, leaving, say, only half of the tariffs for the retailers to absorb. That may be doable for businesses and work to the consumers’ advantage. 

    The other interesting response might be that the countries involved will eliminate the tariffs on U.S. goods being sold in their countries to (a) ensure their supply remains steady and (b) to get the tariffs removed on the goods they are trying to sell in the United States. In those situations, again, consumers won’t notice much of an increase, if any. 

     

    • #102
  13. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

     

     

     

    I think the “lost jobs” thing has been kind of a myth. The jobs that are supposedly lost to China have simply been exchanged for different jobs in the U.S. The U.S. has had some of the lowest unemployment numbers in the past ten years that we have ever had since they started measuring it. In fact we are in the midst of a 15-year shortage of workers. Just about anybody who wants a job can find one these days. What has caused the upheaval has been the radical shift of manufacturing to automated processes requiring fewer human beings, but creating more products. That puts a definite burden on those whose jobs were in the manufacturing industry, but whole new industries and other jobs have opened up to take their place.

    It can be difficult for many people to adapt, but they can learn new skills and take the jobs that are available, which many employers are desperate to fill. This process has been going on since the dawn of civilization, though the changes seem like they are happening faster now.

     

    It’s more complicated than that, which you should know. Just for one, there are a lot of open jobs for which there may not be nearly enough QUALIFIED workers. Because they require degrees in engineering or something, which many people don’t have, and which many people couldn’t get no matter how hard they tried.

    It’s not quite what you think.  Here are the positions that have the most numbers of job openings in the U.S.

    1. Fast Food and Counter workers – 912,400 projected job openings
    2. Home Health and Personal care Aides – 718,900
    3. Cashiers – 565,600
    4. Retail Salespersons – 552,500
    5. Stockers and Order Filers – 485,800
    6. Waiters and Waitresses – 471,200
    7. Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material  Movers, by Hand – 409,000
    8. Customer Service representatives – 365,300
    9. Janitors and Cleaners – 350,300
    10. General and Operations Managers – 320,800

    https://www.careeronestop.org/Toolkit/Careers/careers-most-openings.aspx

    • #103
  14. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    MarciN (View Comment):

    There is one unknown aspect of the tariffs that I will be interested to see. During the pandemic, many companies’ costs went very high. I heard a couple of commentators on Fox Business say at that time that the businesses were absorbing the increases to keep their prices stable.

    If the tariffs are collected when the goods cross the border rather than when the goods are sold, companies selling within the United States could, in theory, absorb the tariffs and stabilize their prices.  That might work for a lot of them. They will lose some profits but not all of them.

    I’m not quite following your train of thought.  Tariffs are imposed on the seller when they cross the border, not when they are sold to the consumer.  And then how does the U.S. retailer absorb the price hike?  Just by taking a financial hit for the benefit of patriotic Americans?  That is asking a lot from millions of retailers, besides, what if the price hike is larger than their profit margin?

    The goods would go to the wholesalers who might reduce their prices a bit to absorb some of the new tariffs, leaving, say, only half of the tariffs for the retailers to absorb. That may be doable for businesses and work to the consumers’ advantage.

    Again, you are asking a minority group – wholesalers and retailers, to absorb the financial losses for the majority of the country. Something tells me that is going to meet with disturbing resistance!

    The other interesting response might be that the countries involved will eliminate the tariffs on U.S. goods being sold in their countries to (a) ensure their supply remains steady and (b) to get the tariffs removed on the goods they are trying to sell in the United States. In those situations, again, consumers won’t notice much of an increase, if any.

    Well, that has been one of the biggest talking points of Trump supporters, and it sounds very reasonable and fair.  However, before the Trump Tariffs were revealed on Tuesday, Israel announced it would drop every single tariff on products coming from the United States (their tariffs were insignificant to begin with), and Vietnam announced a drastic cut to its tariffs, also.  Trump completely ignored this and slapped a 17% tariff on Israel and 46% tariff on Vietnam, thereby completely destroying the notion that these tariffs were meant to create free trade between our countries.

     

    • #104
  15. Knotwise the Poet Member
    Knotwise the Poet
    @KnotwisethePoet

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    I’m not a tariff expert and worry about the current Trump tariff policy, but it does seem weird that so many are beside themselves the sky is falling that the US imposing tariffs which are actually less than other Countries tariffs have imposed on the US, in the negotiated hopes the other Countries will reduce their tariffs is a terribly destructive policy ….really … when you actually write it down the issue makes you wonder why the US had tolerated the status quo for so long.

    What am I not understanding?

    The problem that narrative is that in several situations the U.S. is not imposing tariffs that are less than other countries’ tariffs on the U.S., instead it’s the U.S. now imposing tariffs on other countries that are far higher than the tariffs they were imposing on the U.S.  As Steven Seward mentions above we’re hitting Israel and Vietnam with tariffs right after they cut theirs.  According to Trump’s chart the U.S. is going to be imposing a 25% tariff on South Korea even though South Korea’s effective tariff rate on the U.S. is only between .26 and 3.6% .

    His tariff rate isn’t based on the actual tariffs other countries are imposing, but is instead being based on trade deficits.  The “Charged Tariffs” numbers on his chart are garbage.  So the idea that this is just us demanding fairness from other countries who’ve been tariffing the crap out of us doesn’t really hold up.

    • #105
  16. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I am concerned about the balance of trade as an indicator of how much we import. Most economists have abandoned it as a useful tool, but I still look at it from time to time because, for me, it’s part of a larger picture. All things in moderation–including globalization. It’s great until it isn’t.

    When we look at the sanctions the United States has levied over the years to try to exert some sort of control over the actions of foreign countries, it seems to me that it is only a matter of time before some country does that to us.

    I am concerned about our financial health as a country.

    But I do respect the people on Ricochet who have stopped worrying about the trade imbalance.

    Rush Limbaugh used to talk about the national debt and why he wasn’t worried about it. I’ve forgotten his reasoning exactly, but it was certainly a credible position, and it made sense.

    But I also know that change occurs, that what was good at one time and in a certain amount isn’t good past that point. I know we are resilient–we certainly saw that during the pandemic. We were the only country in the world that weathered that financial storm.

    The question we all ask ourselves when national or international events occur is, “How bad is it?” It’s a reflex. Are there illegal aliens everywhere causing harm and mayhem? Depends on whom you ask.

    For me, the balance of trade is an indicator of our internal health, our ability to take of ourselves on our efforts and resources.

    I know that I tend to worry about this more than most people do. Buying American-made products whenever I can has been a habit and a mindset for me as long as I’ve been an adult. We aren’t nutty about it, and I’ve certainly bought a lot of things made elsewhere, but my husband and I don’t mind spending more for products made in this country, and we’ve been doing that throughout our married life and we do it as much as we possibly can. We want to “shop local” and support Americans as much as we can.

    But I also want to say that I realize there are compelling arguments on both sides of these tariff issues.

    If it makes you feel any better, the U.S. only imports 14% of our goods and services. Everything else we buy is made here. It is the result of our huge manufacturing output which puts every other single country to shame.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?locations=US

    I did not know that. That’s impressive. :)

    Does that number include parts of things or only finished goods?

    If true, it’s certainly not evenly distributed. Has anyone seen only 14% imports at Walmart etc?

    I would also want to see it broken down by product, not just price/cost. If the US produces one $1 Million machine, and that’s offset by a million $1 imported items sold at Walmart, is that really a healthy economy?

    It probably looks that way to you because the most expensive things we export are million-dollar airplanes and military jets. They don’t sell any of those at Wal-Mart. What seems unhealthy about that to you?

    I’ve already explained it. More than once. Importing so much, just because it’s “cheaper,” is not tenable. No matter how much expensive high-tech stuff we might produce and export, it doesn’t support enough jobs and other economic activity to support a large population, very little of which is engaged in high-tech production.

    What are you talking about? We’ve had unemployment at around 4% or below for nearly ten years, and going back 40 years we’ve only had a few bumps over 7%. There are plenty of jobs for people. In fact we are in the middle of a worker shortage for the last 15 years.

    There’s also problems with education, not having enough children, etc, that need to be addressed.

    Yeah, we also have a problem with crime and transgender dysphoria but what does that have to do with foreign trade?

    Telling people to buy more cheaper imported stuff with money they don’t have, isn’t a solution.

    Who is telling people to buy cheaper imported stuff with money they don’t have?!

    cEntRal pLAnNing MakEs oUr liVEs beTTEr

    We could have propellerheads force everything around with colored pieces of paper.

    • #106
  17. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I am concerned about the balance of trade as an indicator of how much we import. Most economists have abandoned it as a useful tool, but I still look at it from time to time because, for me, it’s part of a larger picture. All things in moderation–including globalization. It’s great until it isn’t.

    When we look at the sanctions the United States has levied over the years to try to exert some sort of control over the actions of foreign countries, it seems to me that it is only a matter of time before some country does that to us.

    I am concerned about our financial health as a country.

    But I do respect the people on Ricochet who have stopped worrying about the trade imbalance.

    Rush Limbaugh used to talk about the national debt and why he wasn’t worried about it. I’ve forgotten his reasoning exactly, but it was certainly a credible position, and it made sense.

    But I also know that change occurs, that what was good at one time and in a certain amount isn’t good past that point. I know we are resilient–we certainly saw that during the pandemic. We were the only country in the world that weathered that financial storm.

    The question we all ask ourselves when national or international events occur is, “How bad is it?” It’s a reflex. Are there illegal aliens everywhere causing harm and mayhem? Depends on whom you ask.

    For me, the balance of trade is an indicator of our internal health, our ability to take of ourselves on our efforts and resources.

    I know that I tend to worry about this more than most people do. Buying American-made products whenever I can has been a habit and a mindset for me as long as I’ve been an adult. We aren’t nutty about it, and I’ve certainly bought a lot of things made elsewhere, but my husband and I don’t mind spending more for products made in this country, and we’ve been doing that throughout our married life and we do it as much as we possibly can. We want to “shop local” and support Americans as much as we can.

    But I also want to say that I realize there are compelling arguments on both sides of these tariff issues.

    If it makes you feel any better, the U.S. only imports 14% of our goods and services. Everything else we buy is made here. It is the result of our huge manufacturing output which puts every other single country to shame.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?locations=US

    I did not know that. That’s impressive. :)

    Does that number include parts of things or only finished goods?

    If true, it’s certainly not evenly distributed. Has anyone seen only 14% imports at Walmart etc?

    I would also want to see it broken down by product, not just price/cost. If the US produces one $1 Million machine, and that’s offset by a million $1 imported items sold at Walmart, is that really a healthy economy?

    It probably looks that way to you because the most expensive things we export are million-dollar airplanes and military jets. They don’t sell any of those at Wal-Mart. What seems unhealthy about that to you?

    I’ve already explained it. More than once. Importing so much, just because it’s “cheaper,” is not tenable. No matter how much expensive high-tech stuff we might produce and export, it doesn’t support enough jobs and other economic activity to support a large population, very little of which is engaged in high-tech production.

    What are you talking about? We’ve had unemployment at around 4% or below for nearly ten years, and going back 40 years we’ve only had a few bumps over 7%. There are plenty of jobs for people. In fact we are in the middle of a worker shortage for the last 15 years.

    There’s also problems with education, not having enough children, etc, that need to be addressed.

    Yeah, we also have a problem with crime and transgender dysphoria but what does that have to do with foreign trade?

    Telling people to buy more cheaper imported stuff with money they don’t have, isn’t a solution.

    Who is telling people to buy cheaper imported stuff with money they don’t have?!

    The people who insist all lower-cost importing is good, even when it means that our own people don’t have those jobs, and may not be qualified for or capable of anything else.

    cEntRal pLAnNing MakEs oUr liVEs beTTEr

    • #107
  18. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I’m not quite following your train of thought.  Tariffs are imposed on the seller when they cross the border, not when they are sold to the consumer.  And then how does the U.S. retailer absorb the price hike?  Just by taking a financial hit for the benefit of patriotic Americans?  That is asking a lot from millions of retailers, besides, what if the price hike is larger than their profit margin?

    Before the products are sold? That’s what I didn’t know.

    I would think they want their prices to remain competitive. That’s why I’m wondering if only a small fraction of the tariff would be passed along to the consumer. They wouldn’t take the hit for altruistic reasons. I’m thinking they would take it to remain competitive. 

    • #108
  19. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs… (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I have another central planning question. The government gives money all of the time to these colleges and universities that have these gigantic endowments and they charge the hell out of their students for tuition.

    Who makes those decisions? Does any of that come out of the private sector? How much of it comes out of tax money? It looks like graft and central planning hell to me. What if we just said the private sector had to do it and cut those taxes? Make them beg for the money and then make the colleges beg for the money from them.

    As a general rule I oppose government grants for research into things that don’t kill enemies, foreign and domestic.

    I think part of what needs to happen is the bottom 50% of colleges need to tell the accreditation system to go screw itself. If you don’t want to take liberal arts classes, you shouldn’t have to take them. Or alternatively, they should be a lot cheaper. 

    • #109
  20. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Well, that has been one of the biggest talking points of Trump supporters, and it sounds very reasonable and fair.  However, before the Trump Tariffs were revealed on Tuesday, Israel announced it would drop every single tariff on products coming from the United States (their tariffs were insignificant to begin with), and Vietnam announced a drastic cut to its tariffs, also.  Trump completely ignored this and slapped a 17% tariff on Israel and 46% tariff on Vietnam, thereby completely destroying the notion that these tariffs were meant to create free trade between our countries.

    I would imagine the administration will simply remove those tariffs then for Israel and Vietnam. That seems like a clerical error, easily fixed. 

    • #110
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    Also, it appears that the tariff-rates being imposed by the U.S. are not actually based on what tariffs other countries impose on us, but just on trade deficits:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-trumps-tariff-table-was-made/

    It’s immediately clear that the “tariffs charged” are not actually tariffs charged, because even countries with which the U.S. has free-trade agreements are listed as having very high tariff rates. It says South Korea, for example, charges 50 percent tariffs on U.S. imports, when in reality, nearly all trade between South Korea and the U.S. is duty-free.

    Enterprising folks on X figured out how the White House got these numbers. It turns out that they don’t have anything to do with tariff rates. The administration simply took the U.S. trade deficit in goods with each country, and then divided it by the amount of imported goods the U.S. buys from that country. The U.S. tariff rate is then “discounted” by dividing that result in half.

    In 2024, U.S. goods imports from South Korea were $132 billion. The trade deficit was $66 billion. So, $66 billion / $132 billion = 50 percent. Then, divide by 2 to get the U.S. “reciprocal” rate of 25 percent, just like the table says. Ryan Petersen, the CEO of logistics firm Flexport, posted that this methodology predicts the tariff rates just about perfectly for every country (the only differences are for rounding).

    So if National Review has this right, there are countries that put up practically no trade barriers with us but we’re still going to target them just because we buy more from them than they buy from us?

    Not a fan of the idea.

    Country-to-country is different from person-to-grocery-store etc.

    Explain.

    • #111
  22. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I understand the theory, but I’d say that the past few decades haven’t proven it. And it’s ultimately probably not sustainable, but when it stops working it might easily hurt us the most.

    You’ve literally not made one specific point here. I will make it for you. We get stuff cheaper from overseas and then the federal reserve can’t accept this so they keep creating inflation. It’s stupid.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    We may not be able to get cheap gew-gaws from China, but China will still have the warships etc they’ve built with our money.

    Trading with the Chinese mafia is and was patently stupid. We can import deflation from anybody else that isn’t going to attack us.

    But if China is cheaper…

    Then we get the better of the deal………

    Does this “we” you keep speaking of include the people and communities devastated by loss of jobs to China?

    I think the “lost jobs” thing has been kind of a myth. The jobs that are supposedly lost to China have simply been exchanged for different jobs in the U.S. The U.S. has had some of the lowest unemployment numbers in the past ten years that we have ever had since they started measuring it. In fact we are in the midst of a 15-year shortage of workers. Just about anybody who wants a job can find one these days. What has caused the upheaval has been the radical shift of manufacturing to automated processes requiring fewer human beings, but creating more products. That puts a definite burden on those whose jobs were in the manufacturing industry, but whole new industries and other jobs have opened up to take their place.

    It can be difficult for many people to adapt, but they can learn new skills and take the jobs that are available, which many employers are desperate to fill. This process has been going on since the dawn of civilization, though the changes seem like they are happening faster now.

     

    We will switch to deflation the hard way. You can’t keep making this work. 

    • #112
  23. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I’m not quite following your train of thought. Tariffs are imposed on the seller when they cross the border, not when they are sold to the consumer. And then how does the U.S. retailer absorb the price hike? Just by taking a financial hit for the benefit of patriotic Americans? That is asking a lot from millions of retailers, besides, what if the price hike is larger than their profit margin?

    Before the products are sold? That’s what I didn’t know.

    I would think they want their prices to remain competitive. That’s why I’m wondering if only a small fraction of the tariff would be passed along to the consumer. They wouldn’t take the hit for altruistic reasons. I’m thinking they would take it to remain competitive.

    No point in being competitive at a major loss.  Lower losses at having no sales and attempting to wait it out.  

      

    • #113
  24. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I understand the theory, but I’d say that the past few decades haven’t proven it. And it’s ultimately probably not sustainable, but when it stops working it might easily hurt us the most.

    You’ve literally not made one specific point here. I will make it for you. We get stuff cheaper from overseas and then the federal reserve can’t accept this so they keep creating inflation. It’s stupid.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    We may not be able to get cheap gew-gaws from China, but China will still have the warships etc they’ve built with our money.

    Trading with the Chinese mafia is and was patently stupid. We can import deflation from anybody else that isn’t going to attack us.

    But if China is cheaper…

    Then we get the better of the deal………

    Does this “we” you keep speaking of include the people and communities devastated by loss of jobs to China?

    I think the “lost jobs” thing has been kind of a myth. The jobs that are supposedly lost to China have simply been exchanged for different jobs in the U.S. The U.S. has had some of the lowest unemployment numbers in the past ten years that we have ever had since they started measuring it. In fact we are in the midst of a 15-year shortage of workers. Just about anybody who wants a job can find one these days. What has caused the upheaval has been the radical shift of manufacturing to automated processes requiring fewer human beings, but creating more products. That puts a definite burden on those whose jobs were in the manufacturing industry, but whole new industries and other jobs have opened up to take their place.

    It can be difficult for many people to adapt, but they can learn new skills and take the jobs that are available, which many employers are desperate to fill. This process has been going on since the dawn of civilization, though the changes seem like they are happening faster now.

     

    It’s more complicated than that, which you should know. Just for one, there are a lot of open jobs for which there may not be nearly enough QUALIFIED workers. Because they require degrees in engineering or something, which many people don’t have, and which many people couldn’t get no matter how hard they tried.

    Engineering Market in the Detroit Metro Area truly sucks right now.   I think you should look at LinkedIN ,  Glassdoor,  Indeed and ZipRecruiter before making these blanket statements .   There are a ton of qualified people out there,  and a shortage of jobs.   Many of the same listings are getting posted over and over again.   You have no idea about what you are talking about.   And guess what — many employers are instituting hiring freezes until the tariff spasm blows over.

    • #114
  25. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    If we’re going to do Tariffs (a big if, although I will admit I’m much less of a free trade absolutist than I was in my youth), they need to come from an act of Congress, not from the whim of the Executive.

    True.    This is a fake emergency that is being used to justify emergency powers.  There is no emergency.    Similar to the abuse of power under Covid.  At worst,  we have a small chronic problem being treated as an emergency to get around congress and the constitution.

    • #115
  26. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    Metalheaddoc (View Comment):

    Times like this…I wish I could download Thomas Sowell into my brain.

    Ask and ye shall receive.

    I saw that earlier today. But note that Sowell does NOT claim that ALL tariffs are ALWAYS bad ALL THE TIME.

    No, he does not claim that. However I do think his tone towards the current situation is one of deep concern and trepidation, not optimism, particularly given how broad and far-reaching these tariffs and how fickle Trump appears in making these rules/policies.

    What, you want Trump to put on tariffs and keep them on, regardless of the target maybe removing their tariffs?

    Otherwise you would consider Trump to be “fickle?”

    No, I’d be happy for him to take them off if others remove their tariffs. But I’d have rather we not gotten into this game of trade-war chicken in the first place.

    Sure, but, wouldn’t that depend more on THEM, than on US?

    Well, I guess if this triggers another recession we can all take solace knowing it’s the rest of the world’s fault, not ours.

    That would still mean that THIS didn’t really cause it; what THEY did, caused it.

    Or are you also one of those people who claims that Ukraine defending themselves, is what caused Russia to invade?

    Eh, I think Trump could have been more temperate and surgical in his approach to other countries’ tariffs, particularly in regards to countries that we have long been allies with. But I know that’s not really his style.

    If prices go up and stay up, I don’t think any argument you have about who’s really to blame for all this will dissuade the electorate from giving Congress back to the Democrats.

    Like the Democrats will do better.

    “And stay up” is a bit ambiguous too. As mentioned previously, the status quo has largely existed for decades. If people think 2 or 4 years is just too long to wait for a correction, once again, they deserve what they get, good and hard.

    So the American People should be punished for not wanting Tariff Idiocy?    You want pain for the American People?

    • #116
  27. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Knotwise the Poet (View Comment):

    Metalheaddoc (View Comment):

    Times like this…I wish I could download Thomas Sowell into my brain.

    Ask and ye shall receive.

    I saw that earlier today. But note that Sowell does NOT claim that ALL tariffs are ALWAYS bad ALL THE TIME.

    No, he does not claim that. However I do think his tone towards the current situation is one of deep concern and trepidation, not optimism, particularly given how broad and far-reaching these tariffs and how fickle Trump appears in making these rules/policies.

    What, you want Trump to put on tariffs and keep them on, regardless of the target maybe removing their tariffs?

    Otherwise you would consider Trump to be “fickle?”

    Trump’s tariffs are not based on the target countries tariffs.   They are based on balance of trade numbers.    So target countries removing their tariffs will not necessarily get Trump to remove his.    Trump’s tariffs may worsen the balance of trade,  as citizens of other countries may decide to buy anything but American out of hostility.   I know I have done my best to avoid Chinese goods for years.

    • #117
  28. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Well, that has been one of the biggest talking points of Trump supporters, and it sounds very reasonable and fair. However, before the Trump Tariffs were revealed on Tuesday, Israel announced it would drop every single tariff on products coming from the United States (their tariffs were insignificant to begin with), and Vietnam announced a drastic cut to its tariffs, also. Trump completely ignored this and slapped a 17% tariff on Israel and 46% tariff on Vietnam, thereby completely destroying the notion that these tariffs were meant to create free trade between our countries.

    I would imagine the administration will simply remove those tariffs then for Israel and Vietnam. That seems like a clerical error, easily fixed.

    I hope you are right, but presumably Trump knew about  these when he touted his big list. The dropping of their tariffs to zero  was big news, especially from Israel, our  closest ally, and Elon Musk even tweeted about it.  And two days have past so far and no correction has been issued from the White House.  As a matter of  fact, that 17% is higher than the tariffs Trump imposed on several Arab countries, including Qatar, the biggest supporter of terrorist groups, among Arab countries.  The fact that Israel had all but eliminated their tariffs on American products a couple of decades ago, made no difference.  Israelis are fuming:

    https://allisrael.com/israel-shocked-after-trump-slaps-17-tariff-on-israeli-imports-finance-ministry-to-analyze-implications

    • #118
  29. TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'. Coolidge
    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'.
    @RobtGilsdorf

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Well, that has been one of the biggest talking points of Trump supporters, and it sounds very reasonable and fair. However, before the Trump Tariffs were revealed on Tuesday, Israel announced it would drop every single tariff on products coming from the United States (their tariffs were insignificant to begin with), and Vietnam announced a drastic cut to its tariffs, also. Trump completely ignored this and slapped a 17% tariff on Israel and 46% tariff on Vietnam, thereby completely destroying the notion that these tariffs were meant to create free trade between our countries.

    I would imagine the administration will simply remove those tariffs then for Israel and Vietnam. That seems like a clerical error, easily fixed.

    Yes indeed. 

    I don’t wanna get all art-of-the-dealy here, not least because I’ve never read the book, but surely one reason to whomp up a big fat tariff is the joy of hanging out by the phone waiting for nations to call you up to talk you out of it using persuasive techniques like canceling the tariffs they have been using against you for decades. 

    And fwiw, our nation was founded on a 5% tariff. 

    • #119
  30. TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'. Coolidge
    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'.
    @RobtGilsdorf

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    TBA, sometimes known as ‘Teebs… (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I have another central planning question. The government gives money all of the time to these colleges and universities that have these gigantic endowments and they charge the hell out of their students for tuition.

    Who makes those decisions? Does any of that come out of the private sector? How much of it comes out of tax money? It looks like graft and central planning hell to me. What if we just said the private sector had to do it and cut those taxes? Make them beg for the money and then make the colleges beg for the money from them.

    As a general rule I oppose government grants for research into things that don’t kill enemies, foreign and domestic.

    I think part of what needs to happen is the bottom 50% of colleges need to tell the accreditation system to go screw itself. If you don’t want to take liberal arts classes, you shouldn’t have to take them. Or alternatively, they should be a lot cheaper.

    I could go for that if we had actual high school standards required for college entry – literacy and all that stuff. 

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.