this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
179 points (94.5% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

16982 readers
2 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 33 points 6 months ago

Tariffs aren't charged to the country or corporation the product came from. They are charged to the importer. It's literally a fee at customs to release the item into the country. Some companies take care of this for you if you're buying personally from overseas. Some do not and it is more transparent

Let's use alcohol as an example because I like scotch and some stores in the UK do and some don't. The ones that take care of customs for me would just show me a price of 68.75£ along with a warning that the exchange rate may cause a minor shift in price. The ones that do not would show a price of 55£ along with a warning about the exchange rate and that I need to deal with customs. Customs sends me a letter when the bottles arrive in the country saying I need to pay 17.26 US Dollars (about 13.75 in British money) to clear customs.

So that's why Trump's Tariffs are actually a sales tax on Americans. But why are countries going to retaliate?

That's because industry owners in affected countries are going to complain to their government about our government making their products more expensive in our country. It's okay if you need to read that a couple times, I did when I was learning about international economics. This is going to affect the trade balance between the two countries if they don't retaliate. It will make American goods cheaper and thus give them an advantage on the world stage because they always have a protected market at home to profit from.

This is especially disastrous when the countries are dissimilar in size. Like the US and UK. Take two producers of Soybeans. In the US they have twice the available production capacity (arable fields) and a protected market six times the size of the UK by population. So if the UK producer can only sell at market rate to 60 million people and the American producer can sell at market rate to 330 million people, the American producer can make more money before we even talk about international markets. So the American company has more money than the UK company to operate internationally.

Between the two countries specifically this means that without retaliatory tariffs the American company could even buyout or bankrupt the British company and replace it in British stores, without hiring British workers. That's an extremely important point in an economic system based on selling your labor. And why the workers will also demand retaliation.

I could keep going, there's a lot that goes into this but at the end of the day everyone's economy gets hurt. And the biggest thing to know is that there are two giant weak points in a trade war. Being a manufacturing country that exports a lot of stuff, (Mexico), and being a food importer, (USA). You'll notice I didn't mention China. That's because they import food mostly from Africa and export goods to Russia, Europe, and the rest of Asia. Our tariffs are not going to meaningfully hurt them. As far as Mexico, you may be thinking we'll just tariff their manufactured goods, but not their food. Well, let me introduce you to Exit Tariffs. They can make their food more expensive only in the US as a retaliation. Is that a bit self harming? Yeah, but what's worse? Less income or Less food?

And that's why Trump can't possibly win his Trade War.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The dumbest thing Democrats did was not referring to tariffs as an Import Tax. A tax you pay to import the goods.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Harris/Walz referred to tariffs as a tax over and over again. None of his supporters listened or cared.

Many of them could have been personally taken to dinner by a nobel winning economist and would have still have shouted "fake news!" when they were told how tariffs work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I mean, I wouldn’t say it is the dumbest thing, but it sure is up there.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Tarrifs are paid by the importer and cost passed on to the consumer. The idea is to make it comparatively cheaper to buy local and reduce dependency on China. The problem with it is that other countries will impose tarrifs on US exports as well so a lot of people will lose their jobs and prices go up but it will increase local manufacturing jobs on the other hand.

Generally speaking people are better off when there are no tarrifs

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It will increase automated manufacturing. We manufacture about 3 times as much stuff today in the US as we did in 1970. The problem is that we are doing it with 1/1000 the workforce. It will add very few jobs, just a lot more robots.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Very few is key here. The robots have to come from somewhere so those people win. A lot of those types of robots are bespoke for the location and even if they also have tariffs on getting them it's an upfront cost and will be only paid once so there is a huge difference between a single purchase, and sourcing product or material for your own manufacturing or sale

Robots will need maintenence so theres some jobs production jobs converted to maintenence, and that will be better for those specific jobs, but not to everyone else

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

Yes it will absolutely raise virtually all consumer prices, across the board. Some more than others.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The tariffs will be paid by the importing companies, and then it will cause the prices of those goods to rise.

The hope is that this will incentivize and result in more development of the American manufacturing sector, resulting in medium and long term gains.

Short term there will definitely be a cost, paid by us.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The hope is that this will incentivize and result in more development of the American manufacturing sector

Tariffs alone are not enough. Expanding production is a long term investment, but there's no guarantee a tariff will still exist in 4 years. Its risky to invest capital to meet tariff-induced demand when that demand might disappear before your new factory is even finished being built.

Uncle Sam can mitigate that risk by subsidizing the construction of new factories while the tariffs are in place.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

According to this video, Biden maintained at least some of the targeted tariffs Trump put in place before. So there might be some bipartisan support for tariffs across multiple Presidencies.

Unfamiliar with this channel so I can’t vouch for accuracy.

https://youtu.be/lD3FX_wxqUI

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We can do that without import taxes. I deride Biden's CHIPs act as a giveaway to billionaires but it is certainly going to cause chip manufacturers to move their operations to the US instead of China. While I'm not excited about more low wage jobs, I'm less excited about import taxes that codify domestic monopolies and often cost jobs.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

How do you figure it would cost jobs? Just less economic activity over all? Importing business just can’t do business any more and goes under? That will definitely happen in some places, if those companies are just barely hanging on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Monopolies don't need as much manpower as companies in competition. There's less marketing, less customer service, less quality control, and ultimately less production staff. They don't care if the item gets back ordered, if you wait on hold for hours, or you think there's a better product overseas. They don't have to care.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Long term the cost will also be paid by us. Prices won't go down when we start producing locally.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The expected benefits don’t include prices going down. They include:

  • overall purchasing power going up
  • more military independence
  • more political independence
  • staying ahead in the AI race
  • more Americans get to spend their days building things
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

How is it expected for purchasing power to go up if prices increase and wages do not?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

It’s expected that wages will, as more US stays within the US economy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Compared to importing for 30% extra? The only reason that would happen is some mass market collusion. The prices will go higher, then manufacturing picks up locally, driving prices down, lower than it was previously - since you don't need to ferry them across an ocean. Foreign goods would be 30% more expensive.

At least that's the theory / how it is supposed to work. In reality, probably a shitton of issues, a new great depression and not much more manufacturing potential as a result. There will be tarrifs on the US too, needlessly closing off trade both ways.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

True. There will likely be retaliatory tariffs hurting our exports too. But our exports are smaller than our imports currently, so currently it doesn’t hurt us as much.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Your first paragraph assumes that labour costs are the same in both markets and that there is little development or tooling cost to setting up that manufacturing base locally. Both are false, and both of those are really the reason overseas manufacturing is a thing in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Depends on what you are manufacturing. Making shit with mills, CNC, lathes, injection molding? That's not a problem. CMM, EDM and very precise CNC? Yeah, that needs a machine with a high upfront cost. It all depends on if you are able to get customers and if you have the raw resources / the raw resources don't price you out of existence. Overseas manufacture is worth it because it used to be cheap labor costs. You had to fix a lot of things, but it was still cheaper than making it 100% in house. Then China started becomming less competetive and it still was cheaper, but barely. Add onto it a 30% tarrif and the entire equation changes.

Again, it probably will be painful. But we will have to see.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 6 months ago

Tariffs are not meant to be a stimulator of your own economy, they are a more so a test of it's endurance. Let me explain.

Globalism is a double edged sword. We collectively came to the agreement to put it on every country themselves to figure out what they're good at and how they can survive on the global market. It got us as far as we are today. A country can specialize creating a product from the most available resources within it's borders be it natural resources or skilled/unskilled labor. Having access to the global market means way higher profits than just selling to your own people.

The problem with globalism is that it is completely unregulated by an overseeing entity, and since recent times have shown that hostile territorial takeovers are generally frowned upon, every country is essentially stuck with the resources it already got. This means some countries have lucked out and have more resources available than others and are therefore a bigger economic power. Generally the more complex the product your country is exporting is, the higher the state of development your country has. A lot of countries struggle to build a complex industries to meet global demands (see Korea with stem cell reasearch in the 90s and 2000s).

So if territorial takeovers are a no no, then economical takeovers are the peaceful alternative. The problem is that China has the most amount of manpower in the world, it isn't exactly a small country either and therefore has a lot of natural resources. If China was a culturally open and peacefull democracy, this wouldn't be an issue, but as we all know - it isn't. If China decides to take over a market - they can. Additionally the have always been 'rules for thee, not for me', China buys up other countries property and land but doesn't allow others to do the same for it.

Yes, in the end, everybody profits from the efficiency of globalism and open trade but the scales are not evenly tipped for all. This leaves most countries vulnerable to economic attacks from bigger global players. Tariffs are in a way a bargaining chip in the global market. The idea behind it is to say 'I'll take my business else where' in the hope that being a big enough importer that jumps ship, would be enough to damage the tariffed countries economy. It's essentially an economic attack from the bottom up.

An additional reason for US tariffs being bad is that it will weaken their relationship with China, and will turn China even more towards Russia, which is presumably the whole purpose given Trumps ties to Putin. All in all the next 4 years are going to be difficult for everybody.

load more comments
view more: next ›