US businesses and consumers pay 90% of tariff costs, New York Fed says

2026-02-1215:32372325www.ft.com

Central bank’s research undercuts Trump’s claims that foreign companies will pay for levies

$409 $149 for your first year

Delivery Monday - Saturday, including FT Weekend and FT Digital Edition: all the content of the FT newspaper on any device. Savings based on annual price.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By SunshineTheCat 2026-02-1216:5018 reply

    Everyone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China" or fill-in-the-blank on what country we're "getting" with them.

    The reality is that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tariff is.

    There is a reason you will find tariffs drop off after the great depression. They make everything more expensive for businesses and in turn, the end consumer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_Unit...

    "Fighting" China with tariffs is like fighting your neighbor who's dog keeps peeing in your yard by lighting your own couch on fire.

    • By taeric 2026-02-1217:116 reply

      It is baffling to me, as it is no different than thinking that "sugar taxes" are taxes that soda companies pay. There is even a straight forward analysis that shows it does impact the soda companies rather heavily. But it is objectively paid by the consumers. And nobody is really confused by that.

      • By tialaramex 2026-02-1217:513 reply

        Right, and sugar taxes are an example of a tax where there's a clear objective. To avoid the tax, don't put sugar in things if you can help it. Result: Products which had sugar because it was cheaper don't any more because of the tax, it's not cheaper now.

        These tariffs have a huge red flag because there's no objective. Onshoring? No, wait, we got a new deal the tariffs are removed. New trade deals? No, wait, somebody wrote a mean Tweet about Donald so the tariffs are back and the deal is off.

        • By munk-a 2026-02-1218:272 reply

          Tariffs to produce market effects (like onshoring) only work if those tariffs are observed to be durable (in four years all these tariffs will evaporate) and are strengthened by being paired with other encouragement (i.e. industry development subsidies).

          These tariffs are arbitrary and capricious and no business would rationally respond to them with any kind of long term investment. People just want to weather the storm of the mad king and international partners are developing alternative relationships to seek more stability.

          • By bigbadfeline 2026-02-1221:10

            > Tariffs to produce market effects (like onshoring) only work if those tariffs are observed to be durable

            Tariffs do produce immediate market effects - inflation and shortages, which we do observe.

            In order to produce positive market effects tariffs must be gradual, differentiated, measured, negotiated and communicated well in advance.

          • By thatfrenchguy 2026-02-1220:46

            You still have to be way more strategic so the inputs of your new factories don’t get tariffed as well, otherwise your higher labor costs will kill any desire to actually do onshoring.

        • By ourmandave 2026-02-1218:211 reply

          And if tariffs don't work, he'll just defund whatever aid you're receiving or project you're building or life saving research you're doing or critical job you're performing.

          And if the cost if lives or dollars or reputation is enormous, he'll still sleep like a baby.

          • By munk-a 2026-02-1218:28

            It's cool though, you can probably get a few billion in funding if you "lobby" a few million to the right people. The tariffs exist, imo, primarily as a threat to induce bribes for loopholes (e.g. the smartphone loophole).

        • By rubyfan 2026-02-1218:072 reply

          I think you sum up exactly why they will be found illegal.

          • By Anonbrit 2026-02-1218:261 reply

            Found to be illegal when? 3 decades after they've done their damage?

            • By munk-a 2026-02-1218:302 reply

              There's a case in process that'll likely resolve in the next two months. Quite a few companies have filed suite banking on getting their fees reimbursed.

              In the current political climate nothing is certain - but this will likely come to a resolution in the near term.

              • By martin8412 2026-02-1218:442 reply

                Okay, so if they lose that case, Trump will just pass a new executive order that once again takes months to resolve.

                • By vkou 2026-02-1218:54

                  The solution, of course, is to never vote R again, for any office.

                  You have to punish anyone supporting this insanity.

                • By jimmydddd 2026-02-1220:401 reply

                  Just wanted to point out that this is the first instance of a correct spelling of "lose" I've seen on the Internet in the last three years.

                  • By ChoGGi 2026-02-1314:01

                    You're loosing your mind Jimmy

              • By treetalker 2026-02-1221:06

                And, if Treasury must refund to the companies that "paid" the tariffs, the companies will keep the refunds despite consumers' having actually carried the burden by paying higher prices and suffering attendant inflation. A win–win for the Epstein class!

          • By rjbwork 2026-02-1218:22

            Phew, good thing this regime is super into following the law and listening to courts.

      • By SoftTalker 2026-02-1217:423 reply

        Pretty much every tax is ultimately paid by the consumer, because all the suppliers have to make a profit or they won't stay in business. The point of an import tariff isn't to make anything cheaper, it's to level the market in the presence of a foreign supplier who has much lower costs (e.g. sweatshop labor, state-supported industry, etc.) that are not available to domestic suppliers.

        • By bobthepanda 2026-02-1218:521 reply

          The problem is that the tariffs are so broad in ways that don’t help US industry; and there are few supply chains wholly within the US so you end up hurting US manufacturing as well.

          It doesn’t really make sense, for example, that we slapped tariffs on Madagascar, when the primary reason we run a trade deficit with them is that they grow vanilla which cannot be grown in the US.

          • By Aloisius 2026-02-1221:092 reply

            Several species of vanilla are indigenous to Puerto Rico. Indeed, Puerto Rico used to be the ninth largest vanilla producer in the world.

            Vanilla will happily grow in parts of Florida and the USVI as well.

            • By ncruces 2026-02-1222:151 reply

              So that's the goal?

              Onshore vanilla production, now cheaper than Madagascar given the 47% tariff? No wait; the tariff was reduced to 10%, maybe 15? Something.

              • By AngryData 2026-02-1222:52

                It seems doubtful considering the immense labor cost of vanilla production combined with the persecution of people most willing to do those jobs.

            • By bobthepanda 2026-02-1320:09

              Given the current discourse around recent events involving Puerto Rico I highly doubt encouraging things there is the intended point of anything.

        • By fmobus 2026-02-1218:55

          If the supplier is forced to leave the business, that is a form of paying. They are losing a source of income and will have to pick a different activity that they are not efficient at. In the case of tariffs on international trade, the supplier loses a chunk of market - in the case of the US, one that was wealthy - and that always means a loss for the business.

          The burden of ALL taxes falls on both sides of the transaction. The proportion of the burden varies with market conditions, the most important being elasticity.

          That's why studies like the OP are necessary, to determine how much the proportions are. Honestly I am not surprised with the result, tariffs are objectively bad. Curbing trade is bad by default.

        • By alright2565 2026-02-1218:30

          I would love to see joint tarrifs, together with US allies, to fight against things like sweatshop labor, state-supported industry, etc. That would really send a signal that those things are unacceptable, and lead to change.

          That's not what we have here, and that's not what the Trump tarrifs are perceived as internationally.

      • By amiga386 2026-02-1218:273 reply

        The trouble with sugar taxes is it does drive soda-company behaviour. A. G. Barr killed the real Irn Bru in 2018 to avoid the Scottish sugar tax.

        It could've passed on the tax to the consumer, but it didn't. It has ceased making its iconic beverage and now only sells a variant that tastes crap. No amount of money can bring the good stuff back. The sugar tax killed it. The world is now a slightly worse place, thanks to government interference.

        (I'm sure there's a way to extrapolate this anecdote back to tariffs)

        • By taeric 2026-02-1219:04

          The sibling point that talks about the goal of the tax hits the idea you are talking about, I think. And this is what I meant saying you can show they can impact the soda companies. But regardless of any downstream effects of the tax existing, the tax is paid by the consumer.

        • By optionalsquid 2026-02-137:261 reply

          > It has ceased making its iconic beverage and now only sells a variant that tastes crap.

          It looks like they reintroduced the original recipe in 2021 (and previously as a limited release in 2019), under the name Irn Bru 1901. Or does that version still differ from the version of Irn Bru the low-sugar Irn Bru replaced?

          • By amiga386 2026-02-1313:44

            Yes. I want the 2017 recipe, not the 1901 recipe.

            The 1901 recipe has 11g sugar per 100ml. Also it lacks caffeine.

            The 2017 recipe had 35g sugar per 100ml.

            The 2018 recipe has 4.5g sugar per 100ml.

            The sugar tax is £0.18 per litre for 5-8g sugar per litre, and £0.24 per litre for >8g sugar per litre.

            Irn-Bru has many price points depending on form factor and location, but a 2 litre bottle today typically costs £2.10. The sugar-free variant costs the same. If the full sugar tax applied, it'd cost £2.68 (22.8% higher price).

            Coca-Cola is so expensive with the tax, they don't even sell it in 2 litre bottles anymore, just 1.75 litre bottles. Coca-Cola "Original Taste" is £2.55 for 1.75l (£1.46/l) while Coca-Cola Zero is £2.15 for 2l (£1.08/l), a difference of £0.38 per litre, of which £0.24 is sugar tax.

        • By rlpb 2026-02-1219:291 reply

          Destroying demand for sugary drinks was exactly the intent, though.

          • By amiga386 2026-02-1223:401 reply

            Yes, but if there's an axe murderer in my house, I don't care how much he intends to murder me. I don't want him to murder me.

            The government has a variety of aims and objectives. Certainly, shooting for a more healthy population is good. Convincing those that drink a lot to drink less would be one way. Permanently making the drinks awful for the entire population, no matter how many or few they drink, and ensuring what was once good never ever comes back... is another way.

            • By jemmyw 2026-02-134:171 reply

              But the government didn't make the drink awful. They only set the tax. Your position is that you'd have paid more anyway but now tis not an option. That seems like a business decision. Maybe the old version has so much sugar it was untenable with the tax... how sugary was it?

              • By amiga386 2026-02-1313:212 reply

                That's a motte-and-bailey argument.

                The government set out to reduce consumption of high-sugar drinks. They had choices on how to do that e.g. they could've targetted demand. They chose to target supply with a "sin tax".

                Private companies then, for no reason whatsoever, of their own free will, decided to eliminate high-sugar drink options. They would not have done so had the government not imposed the tax. If you then blame the government for their action, they'll want to say "oh I only set the tax", despite knowing they set the tax intentionally to engineer this outcome.

                https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/irn-bru-dri...

                > The reduction in Irn-Bru’s sugar content from 8.5 teaspoons to four, taking a can from just under 140 calories to about 65 calories

                The old (2018) Irn-Bru had about 35g of table sugar per 330ml, it now has 14.85g. Coca-Cola has 35g, Pepsi has 15g. Both those multinational companies still sell their full-sugar drinks, at a much higher price with the sugar tax applied, though they also sell sugar-free alternatives (Max, Zero), as does Irn-Bru (Xtra). Coke and Pepsi have a much larger sales volume and can afford to make less sales on their full-sugar product, and keep them in their product line-up. I don't think Irn-Bru can.

                The UK government ruined Irn-Bru. I still drink as much as I normally do, which is about 12 litres a year; I am well under the intended beneficiary of this war on sugar, the sort of people who drink >100 litres a year, but when I do have it, it now tastes of sadness and lamentations for better times in the past, and I just feel anger for those who wrecked it for everybody.

                • By rlpb 2026-02-1315:321 reply

                  > I still drink as much as I normally do, which is about 12 litres a year; I am well under the intended beneficiary of this war on sugar, the sort of people who drink >100 litres a year…

                  It sounds like Irn-Bru was only viable _because_ of the sort of people who drink >100 litres a year. You were benefitting from that viability thanks to the very people you admit were being targeted by the tax. If they had stopped their high consumption for some other reason, availability of the original Irn-Bru would have suffered the same result due to the same drop in demand. The tax isn’t directly to blame here. The direct cause is the original motivation itself, regardless of how it was implemented. Considering only this specific example you cannot reject the tax without also rejecting the motivation.

                  • By amiga386 2026-02-1316:59

                    That's a very good argument!

                • By jemmyw 2026-02-169:01

                  > they could've targetted demand. They chose to target supply with a "sin tax".

                  I think you've got that back to front. A higher price reduces demand. There is still the capability to supply, but the demand is no longer there.

      • By mmooss 2026-02-1218:44

        > It is baffling to me, as it is no different than thinking that "sugar taxes" are taxes that soda companies pay. There is even a straight forward analysis that shows it does impact the soda companies rather heavily. But it is objectively paid by the consumers. And nobody is really confused by that.

        Businesses like to say that, to get consumers to back them politically, but it's not at all true:

        When input costs increase, a seller must decide whether to take the extra expense out of their profit or to increase the price (or some mix of the two).

        Taking the extra cost out of their profit obviously decreases profit.

        Raising the price decreases sales (consumers won't buy as much at a higher price), which decreases profit. The change is not linear (look up demand curves). The seller, if they are smart, already found the price that maximizes revenue. Therefore changing the price will reduce revenue.

        In reality, it's not such a science and there are other factors. Another fundamental factor is price elasticity of demand, which is how much a change in price affects demand. For sugary drinks, quite a bit - people can forgo them. For lifesaving healthcare, elasticity is less, for obvious reasons.

      • By TheJoeMan 2026-02-1217:502 reply

        If rent or business taxes go up, the business may either eat the cost or eventually raise the main price, they don’t tack a “rent offset fee” on the final bill. But with tariffs, up to a point the business dgaf because they just pass it through as a separate “junk fee” line item.

        • By ryandrake 2026-02-1218:52

          > If rent or business taxes go up, the business may either eat the cost or eventually raise the main price, they don’t tack a “rent offset fee” on the final bill. But with tariffs, up to a point the business dgaf because they just pass it through as a separate “junk fee” line item.

          It's always kind of enlightening to see exactly what things businesses choose to explicitly pass on to the customer, and what things they just eat as a cost of doing business. It's often very political and performative.

          Some restaurants in California have taken to adding a "Living Wage Fee" to restaurant bills as a way to protest having to pay their employees proper wages. They could have just eaten the cost and raised their food prices slightly, but instead they chose the passive-aggressive route, complaining about it via the bill, which the customer sees. Presumably to try to convince the customer that "Living Wage" politics are bad and that they visibly raise the price the customer pays.

          But, when the county raises their property taxes, the same restaurants just eat the cost. They don't add an "Unfair Property Taxes" line item to their diners' bills.

        • By philipallstar 2026-02-1217:59

          Yeah, it's like VAT or state taxes.

      • By alistairSH 2026-02-1217:392 reply

        And nobody is really confused by that.

        Yet that's not what the administration says about the subject. They're either confused or they're lying (and the people who support them and regurgitate their talking points are confused).

        • By John23832 2026-02-1217:441 reply

          > They're either confused or they're lying

          The belief that they are confused is a generosity that we should really be disabused of at this point.

          • By taeric 2026-02-1219:07

            I don't think I can beat the drum of "they are liars" heavily enough. It remains frustrating to see so much accidental carrying of water for them as people look for a hint of legitimacy.

        • By ToucanLoucan 2026-02-1218:02

          I don't think they're confused or lying. I think they're ideologically driven buffoons, the preferred recruits of all fascist administrations. They don't care about American manufacturing, and they don't understand economics. They want to advance their agenda.

          Like, even the propaganda by fascists claiming fascism makes for good policies is bad. Germany under the Reich, completely setting aside the human atrocities, was a fucking SHIT SHOW of a nation state.

    • By phkahler 2026-02-1217:4213 reply

      No. The point is to make foreign goods more expensive in order to bring production back to the US. People who don't realize this point out who is actually paying and claim its a problem.

      Will this bring manufacturing back? It seems to be working to some extent, but its a risk to manufacturers because the whole thing could get reversed after an election.

      • By steveBK123 2026-02-1217:501 reply

        The whole thing could get reversed on a daily basis as this admin commits massive graft, carving out loopholes & rollbacks for their buddies companies/industries/etc..

        Not to mention the incoherence that one day its a tool to bring jobs back, the next day its just a negotiation tactic so they get reduced/dropped on a country by country basis over and over.

        • By nucleardog 2026-02-1218:241 reply

          > Not to mention the incoherence that one day its a tool to bring jobs back, the next day its just a negotiation tactic so they get reduced/dropped on a country by country basis over and over.

          I thought it was retaliation for Canada not doing enough to stop their 20-odd kilogram contribution to the 4 tons of fentanyl smuggled in every year? [0]

          (Which is to say I agree with you. Just trying to support your point that the reasoning has been so completely all over the map that anybody trying to assign any real meaning seems delusional. At this point I think most people have entirely forgotten half the reasons that have been made up along the way.)

          [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/07/fact-sheet-pr...

          • By steveBK123 2026-02-1218:59

            Yes, it's all kayfabe.

            The "smart MAGA" guys always crack me up because by the time they craft an intellectual justification for his previous moves, he has pivoted/reversed and pantsed them once again.

            Frequently we get the "he's been poor advised" fallback as well.. Good Czar, Bad Boyars.

        • By neilwilson 2026-02-1217:571 reply

          That doesn’t mean manufacturing is down, if new output is automated.

          The trade deficit is shrinking, and which necessarily means there is more domestic flow as foreign hoards of dollars are liquidated. That flow has to go somewhere.

          Could be straight to the tax cuts of course.

          • By hackyhacky 2026-02-1218:031 reply

            > That doesn’t mean manufacturing is down, if new output is automated.

            You are correct. Of course, if new output is automated, then the purported goal of the tariffs (more manufacturing jobs!) is defeated.

            The fact that any new manufacturing will of course be automated shows how little thought went into designing these tariffs and how transparently false the administration's promises are.

            > The trade deficit is shrinking

            This is totally irrelevant. The size of the trade deficit does is a red herring.

            • By bubbadog77 2026-02-1218:09

              The trade deficit is shrinking because fewer goods are being imported. Producing countries are finding alternate markets that are outside of the US' punitive tariffing.

        • By phkahler 2026-02-1217:561 reply

          Perhaps because the inputs to domestic manufacturing are currently more expensive. Actually increasing manufacturing capacity first requires construction and capital expenditure. I'm not sure how those metrics are doing.

          • By hackyhacky 2026-02-1218:051 reply

            > domestic manufacturing are currently more expensive

            Because factory machines and raw materials are being tariffed. Also because a source of cheap labor (immigrants) is being excised.

            > Actually increasing manufacturing capacity first requires construction and capital expenditure.

            It certainly does. And companies are rightfully hesitant to invest, because the legally dubious basis for the tariffs may not survive this month, much less into the next administration.

            • By bojan 2026-02-1219:15

              There are a lot of people in this thread that sound certain there will be a meaningful next administration.

              Yet history teaches us that the sort of people this administration consists of never relinquish power without a fight.

      • By SunshineTheCat 2026-02-1217:54

        That is one of the given reasons, but as with everything else about these tariffs, it's nonsensical:

        1. It isn't now, nor has it ever been, the role of the federal government to dictate what types of jobs exist in the private sector. 2. Even if this was the end goal, making it easier and more affordable to manufacture in the US would be far better for all parties involved rather than brute forcing it through arbitrary taxes.

      • By IncreasePosts 2026-02-1218:45

        I'll use China as an example.

        If China and the US were producing the same things but the US version was just a bit more expensive, then sure, consumers might switch yo the US version if the Chinese version overnight became the more expensive one.

        But that isn't what's happening generally. China is producing stuff that the US simply doesn't produce, and so consumers just need to pay the increase out of their own pockets for the same Chinese product. It takes multiple years lead time to set up a manufacturing operation for anything of note, and I doubt many people are convinced of the stability of the tariffs to make that leap.

      • By iaaan 2026-02-1218:541 reply

        My spouse and I regularly import vintage toys and collectables from Asian countries. We've paid hundreds of dollars in tariffs on items that this point about manufacturing doesn't apply to at all

      • By K0nserv 2026-02-1218:092 reply

        There are a few problems with how Trump is going about this:

        1. The tariffs are too broad, they don't target a single or a few industries.

        2. Trump has gone back and forth many times on them, using them as negotiating leverage, not as long term incentives.

        3. They are on very shaky legal grounds and will likely end up getting reversed by either the Supreme Court or the next president.

        If you want to use tariffs to encourage on-shoring you make them targeted and pass them with bipartisan support through congress. Companies need stability and long term guarantees for the kind of capital expenditure that is needed. Even better if you use a mix of carrot and stick, rather than all stick

        • By mancerayder 2026-02-130:58

          I agree that's actually the problem. The problem with discourse in the US is that it comes in soundbites, division and confusion. This predates, arguably ENABLED Trump.

          There could have been an argument for tariffs, done rationally and with a very specific program to rebalance trade. I'm not saying it's necessarily correct, but it could have entered as an option for voters to consider. But that's an alternative universe to people at this point, and we end up with an unpredictable waffling that scares businesses and doesn't appear to have obvious aims at this point beyond petty attacks.

        • By bubbadog77 2026-02-1218:26

          Very well put.

          And with China a key target in the Trump Tariff debacle, China is punching holes in these punitive tariffs. Besides shipping goods to intermediary countries that are not as heavily tariffed then exporting to the U.S., China is taking ownership stakes in American businesses, thus circumventing the whole tariff thing. And the beauty of this is, they can take advantage of U.S. taxpayer benefits, such as an R&D tax credit, to sweeten the deal.

      • By sjsdaiuasgdia 2026-02-1217:50

        Tariffs can be used to support domestic production. But not with how Trump is implementing them. Pointing out that tariffs can be used this way is ignoring what's actually happening.

        > its a risk to manufacturers because the whole thing could get reversed after an election.

        It's a risk to manufacturers when Trump might wildly change tariffs for a country / set of goods / whatever, up or down, at any time, because someone said something he didn't like somewhere, or some other non-economic rationalization.

        The instability and lack of cohesive direction mean it's impossible for manufacturers to respond to tariffs with investment even within Trump's term.

      • By FuriouslyAdrift 2026-02-1217:503 reply

        I work at a manufacturing supplier (packaging and logistics) and our business has been on fire since the trade war kicked off. Pre-COVID we were at ~$25MM yearly and now we are $150MM+ and growing steadily.

        We just bought a million sq ft building (that was an old RCA plant) and millions in new machinery to keep up.

        We are only a regional player, too.

        • By dalyons 2026-02-1217:522 reply

          It’s not entirely clear to me why tariffs would help your local logistics businesses? Doesn’t the same amount of stuff get moved around , just changes origin? I believe you I just would like to understand

          • By Symbiote 2026-02-1217:59

            I was shocked when I last visited the USA (from Europe) and saw things like Walmart paper bags labelled "Made in Germany".

            Perhaps some of that has been replaced by "Made in USA".

            (Day-to-day, I generally don't buy things not made in the EU — packaging, for example, will typically be from Sweden, France or Poland.)

          • By FuriouslyAdrift 2026-02-1219:521 reply

            Because it made it possible for domestic production to increase.

            • By dalyons 2026-02-133:051 reply

              Of what? Other stuff? Or packing materials? Or

              • By FuriouslyAdrift 2026-02-1314:52

                Packaging is a support industry (other than stock boxes which are bulk manufacturerd for things like moving companies, etc).

                So... the more companies making things or shipping things, the more boxes are needed. Financial and govt analysts use the packaging industry as kind of a canary for the general health of mnaufacturing and retail as it is on the end of the long tail for supply chains. Packaging is the first to decline and the last to pick up with the cycles of the economy.

        • By neilwilson 2026-02-1217:541 reply

          What has been the impact on the distribution in the firm. Have more staff been hired, have more supply contracts been handed out, have worker bonuses increases or has it all flowed to the bottom line?

          This is the other side of tariffs that few discuss. It may put import prices up, but it also increases the domestic flow of income.

          Which means that those who rely solely on imports pay the cost and those who make the domestic supply get an increase in income as an offset.

          • By FuriouslyAdrift 2026-02-1220:01

            We've doubled (or more) in headcount. Mostly in the 'special projects' area (complex shippers, partitions, pallets, parts movers, etc) and truck drivers (we have our own trucking company)

            Our prices are primarily pegged to what brown paper is (used to make corrugated) which ebbs and flows. Our prices were affected a little because a lot of pulp and raw material comes from Canada (they sell soft wood incredibly cheap... it's actually been a point of contention in our treaty for decades) but the cost change has been fairly slight (close to inflation).

            Labor prices have gone up a decent amount and so has health care. We've found savings in increased efficiency due to scaling up production (there are some big fixed costs wrt machinery that becomes a smaller piece of the pie with increased production).

            Nobody imports boxes... cost of transport is more than the product which is why almost all box makers have regional plants.

        • By cheema33 2026-02-1218:471 reply

          > Pre-COVID we were at ~$25MM yearly and now we are $150MM+ and growing steadily.

          And you think this is due to tariffs? If so, please provide some details.

          • By FuriouslyAdrift 2026-02-1219:541 reply

            Manufacturing is booming in the Midwest which is the region we service. They have more business, we have more business.

            • By bubblewand 2026-02-1316:341 reply

              Given the sheer volume of cheap stuff that had been coming straight from China, and the end of de minimus, my first guess would be the majority of this is Chinese and other foreign goods that are now being imported in bulk to minimize duties and costs of handling paperwork, then distributed state-side. Lots of new business (and resulting extra costs to consumers) in logistics, without as much of an increase on the manufacturing side.

              I mean, it’s not like US clothes manufacturers, for example, can compete with East Asia even with 100% tariffs (on the wholesale price). Not even close. Ditto electronics, most toys, et c. Lots and lots of really high-volume stuff that was getting drop shipped through e.g. Amazon sellers, not to mention lots of traditional US brands that were shipping straight from overseas warehouses.

              • By FuriouslyAdrift 2026-02-1320:181 reply

                our main customers are industrial manufacturers (the midwest is the heart of manufacturing and warehousing for the US)

                some of our clients are Tesla, Toyota, Thyssenkrup, Caterpillar, Amazon, Rolls Royce Allison, Cummins.

                • By bubblewand 2026-02-1321:31

                  Ah, mostly big, durable stuff. Interesting, that’s a very different sort of thing than the cheap consumer goods I had in mind.

      • By mikeg8 2026-02-1217:50

        That’s not the way they are presented at all. And making foreign goods much more expensive when we don’t currently produce enough of those products domestically to offer actual alternatives is a clear harm to consumers, not a boon to domestic manufacturing.

      • By bubbadog77 2026-02-1218:07

        Of course, with the on/off again nature of these tariffs, the Supreme Court challenge and the fact that practically every country is being tariffed, uncertainty in the business world is epic right now. This uncertainty makes it difficult for manufacturers to see out 6 months, nevermind years down the road. Besides, it would take years to re-shore most manufacturing operations, some supply chains are very complex and the result of years of tuning and adjustments. This is not an overnight migration, as is being intimated. Frankly, I wonder if this is just a money-grab at the expense of the American consumer.

      • By embedding-shape 2026-02-1217:54

        > It seems to be working to some extent

        To what specific extent is it working? Not that I don't believe you, just curious how much it's changed already and in what way.

      • By throw0101a 2026-02-1217:59

        > No. The point is to make foreign goods more expensive in order to bring production back to the US.

        Nikon (for one) had to raise US prices on their digital cameras to handle tariffs:

        * https://www.dpreview.com/news/7688376775/tariff-watch-nikon-...

        Is the US administration hoping to increase (digital) camera production in the US? Camera lenses? Is there a moribund American camera industry that could thrive if given a chance?

        During Trump 1.0 he raised tariffs on steel and got 1k job in steel manufacturing… but lost 75k jobs in manufacturing that used steel as an input:

        * https://www.investopedia.com/metal-tariffs-cost-at-least-75-...

        > It seems to be working to some extent […]

        US manufacturing job numbers are down:

        * https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-factory-headcount-fallin...

        * https://www.wsj.com/economy/u-s-manufacturing-is-in-retreat-...

      • By SonOfKyuss 2026-02-1218:00

        I think the issue is that the people implementing the tariffs continue to deny what you’re saying so people feel the need to point it out.

    • By hackyhacky 2026-02-1217:282 reply

      > Everyone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China"

      Everyone? No, only the willfully ignorant.

      • By gdilla 2026-02-1217:31

        well it's a cult, after all.

      • By phkahler 2026-02-1217:445 reply

        Right. They're on goods from China. The intent is to make that stuff more expensive so we can compete.

        • By hackyhacky 2026-02-1217:505 reply

          > The intent is to make that stuff more expensive so we can compete.

          This would seem to be an admission that the domestic product is inferior, otherwise why would it be necessary to burden the import with tariffs?

          In any case, if that's the intent, it's not working out for fairly predictable reasons. Lots of imported goods have no domestic equivalent. The factories required to make them require years of investment, which is not forthcoming, because the longevity of these tariffs is highly dubious and the government is doing nothing to encourage business development. And even if there were new factories, they would have to import machines and raw materials, which are of course tariffed, driving up the cost of domestic goods, and defeating the alleged purpose of the tariffs.

          There's no just explanation that can make the tariffs look useful to anyone. Like everything from this administration, it's about the appearance of action.

          • By wrs 2026-02-1218:09

            There’s plenty of action. Actions have amply demonstrated that the purpose of the tariffs is to extort other concessions from countries, or simply to punish them for perceived insults against our leader. This is pretty obvious based on how they are set at arbitrary levels, deadlines are set and deferred, amounts are set and changed unrelated to any economic explanation (“I didn’t like the way she talked to us”), etc.

            They’re just an easy cudgel to use against an entire country at whim, at least until the rest of the government delegitimizes the “emergency” excuse being used to impose them.

            Essentially the President regards everything as either a zero-sum no-holds-barred negotiation with him as the primary beneficiary, or as some kind of real-estate deal (see his Davos speech about how we’re “leasing” Greenland). Tariffs are just a great general-purpose stick he found a way to wield.

          • By newfriend 2026-02-1218:083 reply

            If one country has labor protection and pollution regulations, and another country has near-slave labor and dumps chemicals into rivers, would you consider the former inferior? Unable to compete?

            • By hananova 2026-02-1218:192 reply

              It’s fairly funny to a european that it isn’t immediately clear which half of the comparison is intended to apply to the US, and which half is supposed to apply to China.

              • By nickff 2026-02-1218:43

                If you think that labor in the USA and China are treated similarly, you really need to pull your head out of the sand.

              • By irishcoffee 2026-02-1218:43

                It's funny as an American that Europeans are either this ignorant or think this kind of comment is clever.

            • By hackyhacky 2026-02-1218:14

              Most consumers don't care about the conditions under which a product is made. Whining about labor practices is just an excuse for making an inferior product.

            • By ndsipa_pomu 2026-02-1311:53

              Pollution regulations?

          • By josefritzishere 2026-02-1219:58

            Their argument is so fundamentlaly false though. If the idea is to make American businesses more competitive, why tariff raw materials? That raises the cost of American goods. It makes us less competitive. They are either very bad at this, or the purpose of the tax is different than advertised.

          • By throw0101a 2026-02-1218:52

            > This would seem to be an admission that the domestic product is inferior, otherwise why would it be necessary to burden the import with tariffs?

            There are valid reason and particular instances for when tariffs are good/useful:

            * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good

            It's just that the those instances are not applicable for what Trump is currently doing.

          • By FpUser 2026-02-1218:091 reply

            >"Like everything from this administration, it's about the appearance of action."

            Actually people are being murdered for real, lots of other real stuff as well

            • By hackyhacky 2026-02-1218:13

              > Actually people are being murdered for real, lots of other real stuff as well

              They are. My point is not that the administration isn't having a real impact, but rather that they the administration doesn't care about the real impact, positive or negative. They care only that they get the headline.

        • By danesparza 2026-02-1218:26

          "They're on goods from China".

          And at least 60 other countries

          "The intent is to make that stuff more expensive so we can compete."

          Who is the 'we' in that sentence? If it's US citizens, then how is making US citizens pay more money helping US citizens compete?

        • By nazgob 2026-02-1219:11

          Why tariff former European allies then? Why tariff Canada?

        • By throw0101a 2026-02-1218:51

          > Right. They're on goods from China.

          And Afghanistan, Botswana, Cameroon, Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nauru, Serbia, …

          * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_ad...

          Also, let's not forget about 'penguin island':

          * https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly8xlj0485o

        • By acdha 2026-02-1220:13

          That’s not the intent. It could be a more defensible intent if it was paired with a Biden-style program to develop domestic manufacturing capabilities, but that never happened and if it did it would be targeted. Raising taxes on chocolate, vanilla, and coffee, for example, doesn’t affect China and doesn’t change the fact that those don’t grow well in the continental United States (and Hawaii / Puerto Rico don’t have the capacity).

          What’s worse, this often raises domestic prices: unless we have robust competition, taxing imports just raises the ceiling for what an existing manufacturer can charge while the uncertainty discourages investment in new capacity: moving entire supply chains takes years and the tariffs changing frequently means that anyone financing it has to price in their competitive edge disappearing if the right cryptocurrency purchase gets the tariff rescinded.

    • By testing22321 2026-02-1217:043 reply

      I can’t help wondering if the biggest problem in the US right now is that a majority of people having a “fundamental misunderstanding” about many, many very important things.

      Maybe it’s because of propaganda, mis information, social media, education or because they’re too busy and tired trying to make ends meet so they don’t have time to research issues for themselves.

      It feels like it will be very difficult to course correct when so much money and power wants it this way.

      • By Jordan-117 2026-02-1218:191 reply

        Reminds me of the staggering number of people who don't get marginal tax rates, even thinking they should pass up certain raises so they don't get pushed into a higher tax bracket and pay a higher rate on their whole salary.

        • By pwg 2026-02-132:55

          Or the staggering number (likely a very large overlap with your group) who appear to see their tax refund as "free money back from the government" instead of what it really is: "you are simply getting back money you loaned to the government interest free for up to a year".

      • By stevenjgarner 2026-02-1217:144 reply

        Most people here in the US that I talk to understand that the additional tariffs imposed by the Trump administration are an attempt to get domestic US industries to produce the items that are now being imported subject to the tariff. In some cases that has been successful. In many cases not. Many industries are virtually impossible to de-globalize.

        • By fnordsensei 2026-02-1217:44

          Step 1: put tariffs on coffee and bananas. Step 2: pump out CO2 until climate is appropriate for growing coffee and bananas. … Step n: Load profits onto your scavenged freight boat and try to find Dryland.

        • By jleyank 2026-02-1217:301 reply

          The end result is still higher prices for the end-consumer... If the local businesses were unable to compete with a foreign supplier w/o the tariff, they'll be unable to do it with the tariff. So the consumer will end up paying less than (foreign + tariff) but higher than (foreign).

          • By temp8830 2026-02-1217:552 reply

            Yes, and the gamble is that the positives from boosting domestic industry will outweigh the negatives from higher prices. The only people confused about this are NPR-constructed strawmen.

            • By salawat 2026-02-1218:18

              There is no domestic industry, it all moved overseas, and the existential risk to cessation of fiscally enabling tariffs within 4 years (assuming set and forget; note, business's ideal outcome), means most of the money will just find something else to chase for modest returns for 4 more years. Nevermind everything else going on poisoning goodwill toward the U.S. currently. The absolute, unmitigated stupidity on display currently is nothing less than I expected from a population without a Great Depression under their belt. We truly, truly, are too dumb as a society to have learned and internalized a goddamn thing.

            • By spacechild1 2026-02-1218:082 reply

              Except Trump himself repeatedly claimed that the exporting country is paying the tariffs and that the US is earning billions of dollars. And many of his followers seem to believe this.

        • By CamperBob2 2026-02-1217:161 reply

          No, the tariffs are just a grift designed to force CEOs to pay tribute to Trump.

          If the tariffs were "an attempt to get domestic US industries to produce items now being imported," they wouldn't be levied on manufacturing inputs.

          • By stevenjgarner 2026-02-1217:302 reply

            I agree the administration tariffs "wouldn't be levied on manufacturing inputs" if they really wanted to help domestic industries. I'm not saying they're doing the right thing, I'm just saying that most Americans I talk to understand the INTENTION is ancient protectionist logic, but the Fed report is evidence that this logic is currently failing to produce the administration's intended "manufacturing miracle". It is so inconsistent, being successful in very specific niches (like some domestic textile or furniture segments), but the Fed notes that nearly half of all businesses reported a decrease in their bottom lines due to the policy.

            • By temp8830 2026-02-1218:02

              Manufacturing miracles aren't instant: it takes a lot less effort to import something than to invest into manufacturing. The inconsistencies mirror this perfectly: the industries where startup costs are lowest see the boost.

            • By triceratops 2026-02-1217:41

              > I'm just saying that most Americans I talk to understand the INTENTION is ancient protectionist logic,

              Then their understanding is incorrect because that isn't even the INTENTION.

        • By alistairSH 2026-02-1217:47

          ...get domestic US industries to produce the items that are now being imported...

          But, that's (corporate) socialism, and that group of people (mostly) claim to hate socialism.

          There's a time and place for tariffs. Protecting "all" domestic industries via global trade war is (IMO) not it. Nor is wielding tariffs as a punishment simply because a foreign leader wasn't docile and subservient enough for Trump.

      • By Refreeze5224 2026-02-1217:081 reply

        Flat out lies about how tariffs work from the leader of the country might be part of it.

        • By ohyoutravel 2026-02-1217:131 reply

          Yes, but people have to have a modicum of awareness of how things work, even though the administration is lying.

          • By ourmandave 2026-02-1218:34

            Or take the easy way and just assume that everything the admin says is a lie and can't be trusted.

    • By danesparza 2026-02-1218:191 reply

      I have definitely had to pay tariffs on goods I have ordered from the UK. They arrive as a separate bill, and with the threat that if I don't pay them in within a certain time (usually a week) that the good will be returned to the seller.

      US Tariffs only hurt US citizens. Anything else is simply the stuttering of a simpleton.

      • By munk-a 2026-02-1218:23

        Even if it isn't as clearly separately billed - the market works the way it does and that cost is going to be passed onto the consumer unless the seller just decides to eat the cost (and I am aware of several small businesses that are eating the costs to try and avoid any PR backlash with the hope that this is a temporary situation).

        And if the tariffs are ruled invalid you're free to speculate whether target is going to send you a check for what you effectively paid or just pocket the difference.

    • By ranger_danger 2026-02-1217:154 reply

      I think the misunderstanding is in a combination of wording + practical application.

      Tariffs in the legal sense are technically paid by the importer who sells a product. It's their responsibility to pay it... always.

      The importer could technically eat that cost, and the consumer wouldn't see a difference on their price tag.

      But what happens in practice, the vast majority of the time, is the importer passes that extra cost on to the consumer by raising the price they're selling it for. This is technically a business decision made by every importer individually, it is not a requirement.

      The people saying tariffs are paid by the importer, or tariffs are paid by the consumer, are both right, but within different perspectives and depending on how each importer chooses to handle their tariffs.

      • By SunshineTheCat 2026-02-1217:191 reply

        I know of a 10-12 employee business in my town who custom-designs kids products that are manufactured in China because they want to keep their products affordable for parents. Getting them manufactured in the US (even though they wanted to) was way too expensive and would require them to charge way above retail just to stay open.

        Once the tariffs dropped, their cost of goods more than doubled.

        Their business in that capacity, was gone overnight.

        It's easy to think in some vacuum businesses can just "absorb" costs, but as many businesses know, this is rarely the case.

        • By temp8830 2026-02-1217:402 reply

          OK, so the custom-designed kids product becomes a luxury item and the business has to charge above retail. The kids learn that adults time is too valuable to be spent on manufacturing trinkets that get thrown away. They take better care of the few toys they do own. There is less plastic crap in landfills. Seems like a win all around?

          • By JoshTriplett 2026-02-1217:51

            > so the custom-designed kids product becomes a luxury item

            No, it becomes a non-existent item.

            > Seems like a win all around?

            If you burn your neighbor's house down, it's possible that what will get built in its place will be nicer. That doesn't make it a "win all around".

          • By SunshineTheCat 2026-02-1218:09

            These products were specifically designed to help care for kids with special needs. And the goal was to keep the items as affordable as possible because their customers were often on a shoestring budget for one reason or another.

            Genius, though. Just have them pay more for their "luxury" items! Why didn't they think of that! They would be glad to know helping kids with special needs is a "luxury."

      • By kspacewalk2 2026-02-1217:231 reply

        Tariffs can be paid by the seller/exporter. If a very significant part of a company's business is done in the US, and the tariff is sufficiently high, they will lose market share if the customer eats the entire cost of the tariff (which is the whole point of the exercise in the first place). So they may decide to socialize this cost a little bit, by increasing prices in all countries, by a lot less than the tariff, and making customers in other markets in effect subsidize the Americans. Everyone except Americans .pays a bit more, prices don't rise as much for Americans.

        It's interesting to see how little of that is going on, empirically, by looking at these kinds of quantitative studies.

        • By jleyank 2026-02-1217:282 reply

          Without coercion today, why would anybody try to give the US a break at the cost of its other trading partners...?

          • By kspacewalk2 2026-02-1218:091 reply

            Because a corporation doesn't have trading partners, it has a mission to sell to customers. If customers are disproportionately in the US, which happens quite often, then you can entirely rationally decide that pissing them off with a big price hike is worse for the bottom line than pissing everyone off a little.

            https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/global-reta...

            • By nullocator 2026-02-1219:22

              Why would they be pissed off at the business for not absorbing the tariff? The business didn't arbitrarily enact them, Donald Trump and ipso facto his supports did.

          • By charcircuit 2026-02-1217:391 reply

            Because the US has the strongest economy in the world.

            • By leptons 2026-02-1217:45

              Or, it's the biggest house of cards.

      • By leptons 2026-02-1217:441 reply

        A part costs what a part costs, and the consumer is always going to be the one who pay for that. If tariffs raise the price of the part, then the consumer pays more for the product the part is used in. The cost of the part goes up (because tariffs), the price of the product goes up too. It's really that simple.

        No "importer" is going to eat the cost of the tariffs, and it is ridiculous that anyone would think that.

        • By ranger_danger 2026-02-133:541 reply

          > No "importer" is going to eat the cost of the tariffs, and it is ridiculous that anyone would think that.

          I know several who do exactly that.

          • By leptons 2026-02-1318:48

            I'm going to call bullshit on that. They likely had stock on-hand that they purchased before the tariffs.

            I have a hardware startup (parts imported from China, assembled on-shore), and I guarantee you that my customers are paying for every cent of the tariffs that make my product cost ~30% to 100% more (depending on the whims of an imbecile). No way am I paying it. I can't afford it. The parts cost what they cost, and there simply is no alternative part that can be purchased locally. If my customers can't swallow the extra cost, then I have less customers, which hurts my small business. If you were my customer, you would be paying for the tariffs.

      • By gtowey 2026-02-1217:281 reply

        IMO the people claiming that "technically the importer pays the tariff" are deliberately using the letter of the law to confuse and distract the main thrust of the arguments.

        What we mean when we ask who is paying the tariff is this: when we increase tariffs, who becomes poorer?

        And the answer to that is obvious.

        • By hammock 2026-02-1217:391 reply

          What’s obvious about it? Tariffs mean more money stays in the U.S.

          • By amanaplanacanal 2026-02-1217:52

            Tariffs mean money is transferred from the consumer to the government.

    • By engineer_22 2026-02-1217:30

      > There is a reason you will find tariffs drop off after the great depression.

      The reason is, the whole world's manufacturing base had been destroyed in the War and the USA was the only man left standing!

      We didnt need tarriffs because we were already winning the trade balance. Tarriffs made it harder to repatriate overseas gains.

      https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2019/may/historica...

    • By cucumber3732842 2026-02-1217:13

      >There is a reason you will find tariffs drop off after the great depression.

      Alternatively: You don't need tariffs when you're the only industrial nation not bombed into oblivion.

      >They make everything more expensive for businesses and in turn, the end consumer.

      Agreed

    • By amelius 2026-02-1217:002 reply

      It could work if you put the couch in your neighbor's yard first.

      • By nixosbestos 2026-02-1219:41

        I'd prefer to not give JD Vance any reason to visit my neighbor.

      • By SunshineTheCat 2026-02-1217:011 reply

        True but you still lose your couch! >:(

        • By amelius 2026-02-1218:04

          Yes, but it's the optics that matters.

    • By mathgradthrow 2026-02-1217:211 reply

      A tariff can only cost as much to the consumer as an embargo.

      • By throwup238 2026-02-1217:39

        So practically infinite downside?

    • By culi 2026-02-1217:231 reply

      The fighting part isn't just us tariffing China, it's bullying other countries to do the same.

      That's how the US won the first trade war under trump 1 (and continued by Biden). Now Trump 2 tried to ramp it up and this time its backfired because other countries have refused to go along. Many have even been pushed to collaborate more closely with China. China's exports have only grown to record highs

      • By mindslight 2026-02-1217:311 reply

        > other countries have refused to go along

        Trump failed to convince other countries to continue going along because he's a simplistic zero-sum bully who barks orders, expects others to fall in line, and then throws a tantrum when they don't - rather than a tactful leader capable of maintaining the trust of a voluntary positive-sum coalition. That he's also been overtly attacking allies at the same time doesn't help convince anyone either - the new regime was attacking Canada straight out of the gate, and it's hard to explain attacking Greenland any other way than a Putin-favored plan to drive a wedge between us and our traditional allies.

        • By culi 2026-02-1223:001 reply

          > Trump failed to convince other countries to continue going along because he's a simplistic zero-sum bully who barks orders, expects others to fall in line, and then throws a tantrum when they don't

          All of these things were true in 2016 as well yet other countries went along then.

          • By mindslight 2026-02-130:58

            I think there were more adults in the room, more legal checks, plus a lack of experience holding Turmp back. Foreign leaders also held their nose thinking he was an aberration that would pass.

            Whereas in 2025 his sponsors had their plans set and ready to go out of the gate, the Supreme Council had fully burnt a good chunk of our Constitution, and the fact that the American people choose this idiot a second time reflected upon the whole country.

    • By curun1r 2026-02-1217:433 reply

      What’s obnoxious about them isn’t tariffs conceptually, it’s the implementation.

      There’s an argument that some sort of tariffs are actually necessary. The world is changing and the US has become reliant on countries who increasingly have divergent interests from the US. Additionally, some countries have aging populations that will make them more and more unreliable places to manufacture stuff in the next couple decades. It’s entirely reasonable to believe that it’s pretty critical for the US to begin the process of re-industrializing as soon as possible and tariffs are a crucial lever to make that happen.

      But…how you do that matters. Re-industrialization is a process that will take decades and the businesses doing that need to be fairly sure of the government’s policy for most of that period. If Trump had built a broad consensus with Democrats for the tariff policy so that businesses could have understood that a future Democratic president or congressional majority would continue the tariff policy, then businesses would be able to plan accordingly and begin the massive capital outlays that come with re-shoring manufacturing. And the tariffs would strategically exclude certain items like the steel that would be necessary to build factories. And, lastly, you wouldn’t pick now to go on a deportation spree when a sizable chunk of the nations construction workers are undocumented immigrants, since all those factories will need to be built by someone and there aren’t enough Americans to do it.

      But instead of the sane and well-reasoned way to do it, we’ve got Trump’s shoot-from-the-hip chaos version. The tariff policy changes weekly, so businesses can’t predict it, let alone rely on it in the way they would need to to spend the collective trillions of dollars on manufacturing infrastructure that need to be spent. And he’s antagonizing Democrats to such and extent that any future Democratic administration will drop the tariffs on day one. The result of which is that businesses, understandably, are hunkering down until he’s out of office. Instead of spurring the massive investment we need, his policies have chilled spending on manufacturing. The only thing we’re really building at the moment are data centers.

      So there’s this narrative that tariffs are awful now that’s really the result of someone incompetently deploying them. Some sort of tariff policy would actually be a necessary medicine for the country to help heal the damage from an over reliance on a globalized system that is going to crumble in the coming decades. It won’t be easy, but the earlier the country starts to address it, the better the outcome will be. But it needs to be done intentionally, in a bi-partisan way and through acts of Congress, not in a scattershot fashion where Congress is a bystander and a single deranged lunatic pulls tariff percentages out of ass whenever the mood strikes him.

      • By bubbadog77 2026-02-1218:32

        Excellent points! But at the end of the day, Trump's tariffs seem more like an ego-driven money-grab rather than a sincere move to motivate re-shoring of manufacturing. I really suspect the whole manufacturing renaissance the administration cites as the key reason for this policy is really a ruse.

      • By pirate787 2026-02-1218:332 reply

        Plenty of Americans are ready and able to do the work if the conditions and wages are at the market rate. We're addicted to abusing the illegal immigrant underclass. Returning undocumented people to their homes is the moral issue of our time; Trump is ending a system of neo-slavery.

        • By throwworhtthrow 2026-02-1219:01

          Trump denigrates immigrants daily and stuffs them in squalid camps or prisons. Wouldn't you say that undermines the idea that he's actually acting on a moral obligation to protect immigrants from exploitative labor?

          See also his brief hesitation only when his farming and hospitality CEO buddies ask him to leave some illegals for their business needs.

        • By maxerickson 2026-02-130:36

          What's the market rate?

    • By nixosbestos 2026-02-1218:43

      Sure I understand why you'd write "Everyone" on HN.

      But no, some of us have had functional brains for a while. Thanks.

      EDIT: to be fair, if you were even slighly more specific about the shit-eating morons that ate this illogical, stupid rhetoric, it would be too political and, at best, result in your comment getting clobbered so.... "everyone" it is. Can't make the dumb****s that led us here feel bad.

    • By nitwit005 2026-02-1218:50

      > Everyone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China" or fill-in-the-blank on what country we're "getting" with them.

      I suspect very few believes the claims other countries are paying the tariffs anymore. People are just saying that's true to stick to the party line.

      Unfortunately, saying plainly untrue things has become a major part of US politics.

    • By mandeepj 2026-02-1217:51

      > Everyone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China" or fill-in-the-blank on what country we're "getting" with them.

      Just like Mexico will pay for the wall?

      > The reality is that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tariff is.

      Nope! It's a politician talk! People fall for lies whenever they are sold wrapped in a label of "cheap prices".

    • By LastTrain 2026-02-1217:391 reply

      Very, very few people believe that. This is how it works: Republicans willfully lie to their supporters, who know it is lie, and they then knowingly pass on the lie to you. This could be your conservative friends, family, co-workers. They are all knowingly lying to you. This is a pretty simple form of debasement and a loyalty test - will you repeat this lie for me? The bigger the lie, the more loyal.

      • By JungleGymSam 2026-02-1217:513 reply

        you don't actually believe that is a one sided thing do you?

        • By amanaplanacanal 2026-02-1217:53

          What's the other side, do you think?

        • By LastTrain 2026-02-1219:191 reply

          Predominately, yes. It has been weaponized by the current Republican party. I'm not saying Democrats never ever do it, just that it isn't part of their MO like it is in the current Republican party.

          Let me propose a game. You name a bald-face lie told by the last administration. A bald-face lie is one where the person telling the lie knows its a lie, and knows that the people they saying the lie to knows that it is a lie. Got it? Bald face lies are generally only told by sociopaths. So, you do that, and I will give you 5 told by this admin. I will include at least one from the last month. We'll keep going back and forth and keep a tally. With you getting a 5x handicap.

          Now, do you think you will win that game? Do you think it will even be close? Be honest with your answer.

          • By tw85 2026-02-1220:392 reply

            [flagged]

            • By LastTrain 2026-02-1221:29

              Do you know what a quote is? It isn't paraphrasing what you vaguely remember someone telling you. Of course you know that, but here you come in bad faith anyway.

            • By DeRock 2026-02-1221:16

              Where are these quotes from? They appear to be made up by you.

        • By nixosbestos 2026-02-1219:42

          What, on Earth, do you mean? lmfao.

    • By fc417fc802 2026-02-1216:571 reply

      Subsidies are also expensive for the tax payer. Warping the market costs money. (No comment on whether it's being warped in the "right" way right now.)

      • By mindslight 2026-02-1217:151 reply

        Having the world reserve currency is an independent source of revenue for the US Government, as it allows for an amount of monetary inflation without corresponding price inflation. Through a combination of Federal Reserve policy and the political martingale of "balanced budgets", most of this revenue has been simply given away to asset holders in the form of low-interest loans. This money could/should instead be spent to purposefully mitigate the damage to domestic industry that comes from having the world reserve currency.

        • By hammock 2026-02-1217:41

          Wish this comment was higher up. A balanced, reasonable, non-partisan take

    • By engineer_22 2026-02-1217:252 reply

      Of course they increase the price of goods - that's the whole point!!!

      > is like fighting your neighbor who's dog keeps peeing in your yard by lighting your own couch on fire.

      it's more like buying your own dog to pee in your yard, and keep out the neighbor's

      What is missing from the convo is where the tarriffs go - they go to fund the federal gov't, which spends on Goods and Services for the American People (you hope).

      What you would want to see is a reduction on income taxes concomitant with the increased tarriff revenue. US Gov gets the same amount of money, US consumers pay the same in taxes + tarriffs, but American industries get protection from overseas competition, strengthening key sectors of the US economy.

      • By twoodfin 2026-02-1217:401 reply

        Generally, protective trade policies weaken rather than strengthen competitiveness in industrialized nations.

        I guess you could argue that we’re so far behind in some sector like manufacturing that we need developing-nation-like trade barriers to nurture embryonic growth, but a look at real numbers would, I think, demonstrate that’s rubbish.

        • By engineer_22 2026-02-1217:52

          > Generally, protective trade policies weaken rather than strengthen competitiveness in industrialized nations.

          Yes, that's historically been the argument used to pry open foreign markets

      • By etc-hosts 2026-02-1217:49

        Federal Gov't only spends its discretionary funds now on funding ICE with 70 billion dollars.

  • By ApolloFortyNine 2026-02-1217:177 reply

    I think blanket tariffs are dumb don't get me wrong.

    But tariffs have been used in the car industry for decades. If you got rid of them completely within 5 years the American car companies would be closing plants.

    The whole reason Japanese auto manufacturers build plants in the US was to avoid tariffs. Shipping costs are actually incredibly minimal for a vehicle.

    So in my opinion, we've seen where they can work. If you value American jobs anyways. It does get hard to math out when you have to weigh the money the average consumer would save over the 10 million auto jobs in the US.

    • By culi 2026-02-1217:262 reply

      What if, instead of all of us paying in order to have a car industry, we take that tax money and pay to an ecological restoration industry or functioning healthcare industry or whatever. Have you seen the map of superfund sites? Statistically speaking, you are almost certainly living within 10 miles of a superfund

      https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=...

      There is a LOT of other work we could be doing if we stopped trying to uphold existing uncompetitive industries

      • By ewjt 2026-02-1217:422 reply

        Transportation is like farming and yielding ownership of critical industries gives foreign adversaries too much leverage.

        I’m with you though. If humans could just get along we could build an amazing world.

        • By culi 2026-02-1218:00

          Japan, India, Germany, Mexico, etc all have massive auto manufacturing industries. If we're at war with all of those countries at the same time then maybe we deserve what's coming

          China only became an auto industry power house in the 00s.

        • By bonsai_spool 2026-02-1218:03

          I wonder if the argument turns on Michigan being a helpful state in presidential elections - many other parts of the Midwest have lost their former industry and fallen on hard times.

      • By hammock 2026-02-1217:42

        That sounds to me like spending money to fix broken windows, rather than building our own windows (and not buying the old windows that were always breaking)

    • By bootsmann 2026-02-1217:231 reply

      > It does get hard to math out when you have to weigh the money the average consumer would save over the 10 million auto jobs in the US.

      Not that hard to math out, the deadweight loss of tariffs is always non-zero. IIRC there was a pretty good paper that mathed out the impact of Obamas tire tariffs and concluded that it cost the economy significantly more jobs than it saved.

      • By ApolloFortyNine 2026-02-1217:282 reply

        That's pretty much impossible. If it costs a company 1% less to make a widget that takes 1000 hours of labor to make it overseas instead, the company is incentivized to move overseas.

        The thousand of hours labor, the material to source the widget, the real estate for the factory, the transportation now all occurs overseas.

        At the very least, you can't spew something like that then not even bother to link a source.

        • By bootsmann 2026-02-1217:51

          https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/2016/us-tire...

          Ratio of 3 jobs lost per tire job saved.

          > The thousand of hours labor, the material to source the widget, the real estate for the factory, the transportation now all occurs overseas.

          This frees up massive amounts of capital that is more effectively spent playing to Americas strengths, this isn’t a zero sum game.

        • By matwood 2026-02-1221:05

          The problem is that it's all connected. Sure, the widget company may have local jobs saved, but what about the downstream companies that buy the widget to make something else? They can't hire as much because they are paying the higher price. Look at the steel tariffs. Sure they saved some steel jobs, but were a much larger net loss for jobs impacted by the higher prices.

    • By adocomplete 2026-02-1217:263 reply

      Don't American cars have some of the lowest levels of reliability?

      I'm not super educated on all the happenings in the car industry globally, but I've seen a few videos of Chinese EVs that put anything Ford, GM or other US brands have put out to absolute shame.

      • By kelseyfrog 2026-02-1217:40

        The purpose of the US auto industry is primarily a jobs program and secondarily a way to ensure the existence of supply chains for national security. The fact that it produces cars is tertiary at best and explains the quality of vehicles it produces.

      • By 0xffff2 2026-02-1217:48

        I think American car companies are orthogonal to the question. The larger point is that _Japanese and German_ cars for the American market are largely themselves American by many important metrics.

      • By snfour 2026-02-189:46

        hi

    • By HDThoreaun 2026-02-1223:54

      Protectionism in the auto industry led to american auto makers being the laughing stock of the world. Acting like it is a good thing is absolutely insane

    • By thisisit 2026-02-1217:41

      I am confused by your logic.

      You start off with

      > I think blanket tariffs are dumb don't get me wrong.

      Then add a conjunction and use a single example to just make a point opposite to what you started with.

      > So in my opinion, we've seen where they can work.

      I can't help but think that you don't believe blanket tariffs are dumb because it worked for one industry and helps American jobs. Just start with that please.

    • By g947o 2026-02-1217:45

      Something something competition.

    • By lreeves 2026-02-1217:341 reply

      I mean no shit though? People calmly said this in Trump's first term where he (unsuccessfully) first tried to go tariff crazy. What does it add though? Nobody is freaking out saying "all tariffs are bad", they're saying "blanket tariffs for no/the stupidest reasons possible are bad".

      • By macintux 2026-02-1217:40

        And "tariffs that are utterly unpredictable and can change after barely-concealed bribery" are unhelpful to plan a business around.

  • By jihadjihad 2026-02-1217:31

    There are just so many misconceptions about how taxes, finance, economics, etc. works that it can be exhausting. And it's worse when people in positions of power make no effort, or even make an effort in the opposite direction, to educate people on how things work in reality.

    It might shock you to ask around your social circle and discover how many people would read a hypothetical headline like, "Tax Rate for Top Income Bracket Increases to 55%", and interpret it as, "Wow, so if my income was as high as that, more than half of what I made would go to the government. Crazy!"

HackerNews