Benefits of Trump’s Tariffs? (1 Viewer)

[diz]

In my view Democrats could have had a winning issue with regard to Trump's tariffs if they hadn't continued his tariffs when they took over and added a bunch of other government mandated industrial policy on top of them.

Also would help if Kamala wasn't talking about fixing grocery prices, mandating higher wages and other heavy handed anti-market policies.

If you want to appeal to free market types, support free market policies always and everywhere. Else it doesn't feel like principled objection it feels like preying on ignorance and poll driven partisan hackery.

 

[NatMorton]

Another absurd argument.
The corporate entity for BMW in the United States is BMW of North America LLC. located in NJ. They are the corporate entity responsible for sales and services for BMW in North America as the name implies.

There isn't any corporation named BMW Global either. There is BMW Group. BMW Manufacturing falls under BMW Group headquartered in Germany. The Spartanburg plant falls under the BMW Manufacturing division or BMW Plants Group which falls under BMW Group.

If complete cars are imported to the US from Germany they would be subject to tariffs charged to BMW of North America LLC. If parts were imported to the BMW plant in Spartanburg, the plant importing would be subject to a tariff.

As such the tariff is still charged to either BMW of North America LLC for cars or motorcycles and the tariff on parts would be charged directly to the plant in Spartanburg.

My example was more generic and I just use BMW as a recognized brand.

That said, BMW USA is a subsidiary of BMW AG.
Source: https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/company/locations.html

In other words it's still a tariff paid by the importer and then passed on to the customer.

Of course. I’m not arguing that the cost isn’t passed on the customer.

In neither case does it "roll up" into an expense for BMW Group or BMW Global which does not exist in any event. It is either in the financials for BMW of North America LLC for completely assembled products that are imported or in the financials for a manufacturing plant importing parts and completing assembly here in the US.

Yes, it does roll up. BWM is a global corporation.

Just as you erred in putting federal income taxes under COGS, you have erred again in defining a line on the financial statement that does not exist for BMW Group.

I never said taxes are COGS. I said taxes affect net income. Do you believe they do not?

 

[jnug]

In my view Democrats could have had a winning issue with regard to Trump's tariffs if they hadn't continued his tariffs when they took over and added a bunch of other government mandated industrial policy on top of them.

Also would help if Kamala wasn't talking about fixing grocery prices, mandating higher wages and other heavy handed anti-market policies.

If you want to appeal to free market types, support free market policies always and everywhere. Else it doesn't feel like principled objection it feels like preying on ignorance and poll driven partisan hackery.

You appear not to understand the difference between strategically targeted tariffs and the broad based Tariffs Trump is proposing. Will all Americans fall into the same bucket? Will some fall into that bucket and some not? Will no Americans fall into that bucket. I don't know.

Whatever.....it does not impugn the argument Dems are making, that being that Trump is now proposing broad based tariffs that are not strategically targeted.

 

[jnug]

My example was more generic and I just use BMW as a recognized brand.

Which you misidentified

That said, BMW USA is a subsidiary of BMW AG.
Source: https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/company/locations.html

There is no such thing as BMW USA. Even the link you attached does not identify a BMW USA.

Of course. I’m not arguing that the cost isn’t passed on the customer.

Then what the hell point are you trying to make? Let me guess....no point at all.

Yes, it does roll up. BWM is a global corporation.

The tariffs do not occupy a line on BMW Group's financial statement. Hence they do not just "roll up" to BMW Group.

I never said taxes are COGS. I said taxes affect net income. Do you believe they do not?

You literally posted a piece of a financial statement trying to imply that income taxes fell under COGS.

Where you hoping that we don't know how to read financials? Well Trumphumpers might not know how to read financials.

 

[diz]

You appear not to understand the difference between strategically targeted tariffs and the broad based Tariffs Trump is proposing. Will all Americans fall into the same bucket? Will some fall into that bucket and some not? Will no Americans fall into that bucket. I don't know.

Whatever.....it does not impugn the argument Dems are making, that being that Trump is now proposing broad based tariffs that are not strategically targeted.

Again, leave off the partisan hackery for a moment and account for the reality:

DC slammed Trump’s tariffs. Biden’s decision to keep them draws a very different reaction.​

Back in 2018, lawmakers of both parties greeted President Donald Trump’s decision to slap tariffs on Chinese imports with widespread derision.

Six years later, most members of Congress are applauding President Joe Biden’s extension — and in some cases, expansion — of those tariffs, if not calling for him to go even further.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/15/biden-tariff-reaction-trump-00158043

You might do better job of convincing people you are against Trump's tariffs if you had gotten rid of them last time you said you were against them.

 

[jnug]

Again, leave off the partisan hackery for a moment and account for the reality:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/15/biden-tariff-reaction-trump-00158043

You might do better job of convincing people you are against Trump's tariffs if you had gotten rid of them last time you said you were against them.

None the less, the tariffs that are in force now are targeted tariffs and Trump is now proposing broad based tariffs that are not targeted.

 

[diz]

None the less, the tariffs that are in force now are targeted tariffs and Trump is now proposing broad based tariffs that are not targeted.

So what? Why would a believer in the benefits of free trade prefer one and not the other?

Are you just repeating what your party told you to say?

How do I know they're not going to tell you to say something else after the election?

It's not like you got rid of Trump's tariffs last time, you know.

 

[jnug]

So what? Why would a believer in the benefits of free trade prefer one and not the other?

You can't be serious. Strategically targeted tariffs protect a strategically important product or manufacturing activity. Broad based tariffs cover everything soup to nuts whether it is strategically important or not.

If you don't understand the difference, I can't help you.

Are you just repeating what your party told you to say?

No, are you? I don't have a party.

How do I know they're not going to tell you to say something else after the election?

See above

 

[diz]

You can't be serious. Strategically targeted tariffs protect a strategically important product or manufacturing activity. Broad based tariffs cover everything soup to nuts whether it is strategically important or not.

If you don't understand the difference, I can't help you.

No, are you? I don't have a party.

See above

Yes, I'm quite serious.

Broad based tariffs are economically inefficient and lower the standard of living.

"Strategically targeted tariffs" are economically inefficient and lower the standard of living plus they offer opportunities for graft, corruption, lobbying and mismanagement. You seem to be entirely ignorant of economic and political history. Declaring commodities "strategic" and setting up protections and subsidies has long been a way for lobbyists to drain the taxpayers of money.

 

[jnug]

Yes, I'm quite serious.

Broad based tariffs are economically inefficient and lower the standard of living.

"Strategically targeted tariffs" are economically inefficient and lower the standard of living plus they offer opportunities for graft, corruption, lobbying and mismanagement. You seem to be entirely ignorant of economic and political history. Declaring commodities "strategic" and setting up protections and subsidies has long been a way for lobbyists to drain the taxpayers of money.

Where did you get this crap from?

As for opportunities for graft, they about everywhere. Strategically targeted tariffs at least have a rational purpose. Broad based boundless tariffs are simply a disaster under any circumstances and in any context.

 

[George50]

Do you imagine you side doesn't really want to tell you stuff that is not beneficial to Harris? Because they do.

In any case, thank you for the links. A few thoughts.

1. We have free trade agreements with many countries.

20 out of about 200.

Trump can't impose tariffs in them, so his talk is more like Harris promising to go after "price gougers". She can't. She doesn't have the authority. Not that your side will tell you that.

Side doesn’t want to tell us that? What side? With all the people who have studied Trump’s plans on both “sides” if free trade agreements were really a problem that Trump could not get around it would be common knowledge but it’s not. Trump put steel tariffs on, for example, Canada using the ridiculous reason of national security even though we had a free trade agreement with them.

2. Do you know who pays for a tariff? Ultimately no one. That's the point of a targeted tariff. It's not to raise money. It's to sanction the country the tariffs are placed on. People will not just pay the tariff anyway. They are rational and will look for non-tariff alternatives.

That might be true if Trump was not planning on putting tariffs on all imports. There will be no non-tariff options and the US is not in a position to replace all imports.

3. The world has become a much more dangerous place. There's a BRICS conference going on in Russia right now. Xi was recently caught saying to Putin on a hot mic that "this is a once-in-a-century opportunity" and "we need to drive change". We are not ready for the next war.

Heaven help us if we ever have a war with a nuclear power.

We outsourced too much of our manufacturing to China and other countries and we need to incentivize bringing that back. Especially essential and upcoming technologies things like medicine, EV, semiconductors, etc.

Under the Biden administration significant steps have been taken to accomplish your primary goals. As you will see below rapid progress is being made. This process is far superior to starting an economic war on the rest of the world!

If you are pro EV, don’t forget that:

Donald Trump has for months denigrated electric vehicles, arguing their supporters should “rot in hell” and that assisting the nascent industry is “lunacy”.

And that he has changed his tune after Musk offered him $100 million plus!:

He now appears to have somewhat shifted his view thanks to the support of Elon Musk, the world’s richest person.

“I’m for electric cars, I have to be because Elon endorsed me very strongly,” Trump, the Republican nominee for US president, told supporters at a rally in Atlanta, Georgia, on Saturday.



The Biden administration worked with Congress to pass two major bills that have helped to supercharge investment in EVs and the infrastructure necessary to support them. These are the Infrastructure bill (remember infrastructure week? It was always two weeks away) and the Inflation Reduction Act (they really needed a better name).

The following shows how EV investment took off after these two bills were passed.



On semiconductors the administration has worked with Congress to pass the Chips and Science Act.

Thus far, the CHIPS Program Office (CPO) has announced $33.7266 billion in grant awards and up to $28.8 billion in loans to 20 companies across 32 projects in 20 states. These projects include total investment of more than $380 billion over two decades, with the vast majority invested by 2030. The projects are also expected to create over 124,000 new jobs – over 40,000 manufacturing jobs and over 82,000 construction jobs.​

Semiconductor Supply Chain Investments - Semiconductor Industry Association

America’s Chip Resurgence: Over $540 Billion in Semiconductor Supply Chain Investments Last updated March 7, 2025 The Advanced Manufacturing Investment Credit (Section 48D) and manufacturing grant incentives have sparked substantial investments in the U.S. In fact, companies in the semiconductor...

www.semiconductors.org

And

“Our investments in leading-edge logic chip manufacturing will put this country on track to produce roughly 20% of the world’s leading-edge logic chips by the end of the decade,” Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said during a Feb. 23 speech. “That’s a big deal,” Raimondo added. “Why is that a big deal? Because folks, today we’re at zero.”

CHIPS and Science Act: Breaking down the law’s impact 2 years later

Passed in August 2022 to boost U.S. competitiveness in chip manufacturing, the law has spurred billions of dollars in semiconductor production nationwide.

www.manufacturingdive.com

 

[George50]

The people who want a return to American manufacturing I suppose.

Also anyone who buys into the fact that if we produce things here, we are not beholden to other countries ...

Again the problem is that we can’t manufacture everything here. We either import products or do without.

 

[George50]

Pass on a 30% price increase? How does that work in a competitive market?

If the tariffs were targeted that would be a good question. The problem is Trump wants to put tariffs on every country and since we can’t make everything here we either pay the 30% or do without.

 

[George50]

I'll believe you on the above, but the bolded simply isn't true.

You are using the wrong u number to make that analysis. Plenty of people simply aren't looking for work, or are underemployed which isn't caught by the 'full employment' number.

Again, I won't pretend to know exactly how many that is , but it is fairly substantial.

Technically depending on how you measure it you may be correct, but we are at very low unemployment numbers with recently recording the longest stretch of below 4% since the 1960s so there isn’t much left.

Of the people not in the workforce 95% don’t want a job. 3% say they want one but aren’t looking. I don’t know why. I imagine one reason is that jobs are not distributed evenly across the country so some areas may be job deserts and they don’t want to move where the jobs are. In any case, 3% not looking represents 3 million people and there are currently 8 million jobs open. So either they don’t want to move where the jobs are or the they don’t have the skills or they don’t really want a job or????

As far as the underemployed goes I would be surprised if working in a factory or
farm to produce what is currently imported would satisfy them.

 

[George50]

Sometimes, just the threat of using a weapon will give countries pause and cause them to rethink their actions. We saw this in that Mexico example I mentioned.

Sometimes targeted use of a weapon is what it takes. We saw this when Trump forced China to the negotiating table.

Sometimes...simply refusing to fork over US money is necessary. We saw this when Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Accords and TPP.

Regardless what campaign rhetoric Trump is using right now, he won't "put a tariff on all goods from all countries".

I see you have invoked the last step of what is now being called the Republican Playbook when defending Trump. I can’t say I remember all the steps exactly but it goes something like this:

1. Try to deflect to another topic.
2 When that doesn’t work claim he never said it.
3. When pressed with an actual quote, say it really means something else.
4. Under continued pressure say he doesn’t really mean it.

But...Trump knows that tariffs are a very good stick to be used to get other countries to make deals. Once he gets them to agree to talk, he can work to get the best deal he can for the US.

 

[George50]

We're going to see 15-20% inflation over the next two years regardless of who is elected. The President doesn't have as much power as you seem to think. Pay attention to the banking commission, whom btw you can't vote for.

What is your source or logic behind your prediction?

 

[Teatime]

What is your source or logic behind your prediction?

I have to retract this statement. Forbs and Federal Planning Bureau forecast 5% at worst. I'm not sure where I got 20% from.

I maintain, however, that the President has little if any impact on what inflation will be, because the President does not set fiscal policy. That's Congress.

 

[Quag]

Try comprehending the topic.

Imports not exports, say it with me.

Yes they have no connection to each other
Is lack of education a prequisite for the cult or does the Kool-Ade rot the brain?

 

[Quag]

He wants tariffs added to all imports, not just China.

He also believes there will be no retaliatory tariffs

 

[OrphanSlug]

Almost 200 posts in the thread and still the disinformation campaign rages on.

All tariffs are a tax, paid by the importer at the time of import. It does not matter that the tax is a different type, the application of being inflationary to the product being imported is the same having the exact same net effect as any other tax. And that is by design, tariffs are intended to be inflationary to protect domestic production of the same or similar product at a higher price. Odds are because of materials, or labor, or something to that end in the nation implementing the tariff.

It matters not if the exporter and importer strike some deal on handling that tax, the impact is the same. It matters not if the political argument is protectionism of something, labor or a domestic business or whatever, the impact is the same.

Ultimately the increased costs associated with production of a product, no matter if entirely domestic at a higher price or via tariff and imported, is inflationary to the consumer. You cannot avoid that no matter how clever the political argument.

Trump's proposals are neither a guarantee of protecting domestic production of products, nor can he guarantee price controls because of that tariff, nor can he guarantee there will not be retaliation from the nations who are trade impacted by the tariff.

All of this is econ 101.

 

[Cope]

Again the problem is that we can’t manufacture everything here. We either import products or do without.

If there is a demand to be met, someone will meet that demand.

 

[NatMorton]

Which you misidentified

There is no such thing as BMW USA. Even the link you attached does not identify a BMW USA.

Then what the hell point are you trying to make? Let me guess....no point at all.

The tariffs do not occupy a line on BMW Group's financial statement. Hence they do not just "roll up" to BMW Group.

You literally posted a piece of a financial statement trying to imply that income taxes fell under COGS.

Where you hoping that we don't know how to read financials? Well Trumphumpers might not know how to read financials.

Just because you don’t understand the point doesn’t mean I’m not making one.

To spoon feed you, there are those here arguing that the cost of tariffs are passed on to the consumer (and I agree with them) but that somehow other forms of taxation, e.g. corporate income taxes, aren’t passed on to the consumer. I disagree with that. There are still others implying that because taxes aren’t classified as COGS (which is correct) that somehow taxes don’t affect net income. Those saying this are dead wrong.

Do you have a problem with any of that?

 

[ClaraD]

He also believes there will be no retaliatory tariffs

some folks believe in fairies too....Trump certainly is lost if he believes countries won't retaliate with their own tariffs.

 

[NatMorton]

some folks believe in fairies too....Trump certainly is lost if he believes countries won't retaliate with their own tariffs.

I don’t support his tariffs, but it would be naive for most nations to think they could get into a tariff war with the US and win.

I think a likely outcome is that it’s sub-optimal for us and possibly a disaster for the trading partner. None of that is good.

 

[ClaraD]

I don’t support his tariffs, but it would be naive for most nations to think they could get into a tariff war with the US and win.

I think a likely outcome is that it’s sub-optimal for us and possibly a disaster for the trading partner. None of that is good.

No one wins....and we would cause ourselves a lot of pain by instituting tariffs on imported goods...many of these countries import a lot less than we do. China would certainly win and cripple us economically.