Trump’s Idiot Tariffs Would Bankrupt Poor People
Donald Trump’s plan to get tough with China, Japan and Mexico could cost the average U.S. household more than $6,000 a year if carried to its logical extreme, with the burden falling hardest on households with the lowest income, according to a new report from the National Foundation for American Policy, which describes itself as a nonpartisan research group.
“We find that a Trump tariff proposal against all countries would cost U.S. consumers $459 billion annually and $2.29 trillion over five years,” David Tuerck and Paul Bachman, a pair of economists at Suffolk University in Boston, write in the report. “Our analysis finds that the Trump tariffs would manifest themselves as a 30.5 percent increase in the price of competing domestic producer goods and therefore, as a cut in real wages.”
The economists looked at two scenarios to arrive at their calculations. First, based on statements Trump has made in the campaign, they modeled the effect of a 45 percent tariff on imports from China and Japan and a 35 percent tariff on imports from Mexico. That would cost the average American household more than $2,200 annually with those households in the lowest income brackets feeling the greatest pinch.
Duh. I don’t feel like re-arguing protectionism. Search my archives if you have questions about this. But tariffs make poor people poorer. Period. Simple enough for you?
if you don’t have job because your job went overseas you are already bankrupt fool. tariffs are not enough make it here or you don’t sell it here. then the jobs will come back. I would like job filling lime pits ayn randist free traders are swimming in!
fair trader (26fc09) — 5/13/2016 @ 1:01 amAs goes Wal*Mart, so goes the poor. Very much like, “What is good for GM, is good for America.” in the 50s. Between tariffs and absurd minimum wage mandates, you can basically say goodbye to Wal*mart as we know it.
Can the days of government cheese being distributed out the back of semis be far behind? ‘Tis a shame we won’t be able to call the coming homeless encampments, Obamavilles. He’s gonna escape all blame.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 5/13/2016 @ 1:13 am…But…. but… 1 out of 50 unemployed workers will get a full time job out of it!! So it balances out!!
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 5/13/2016 @ 2:53 amTraitor Ryan had only 45 minutes to meet with the next president, because he had 2 1/2 hours of phone time- lying to the donor class for money to combat his future loss in the house.
mg (31009b) — 5/13/2016 @ 3:04 amIntuitively, I know you are correct. How do you respond to those who say this will be offset by increased employment at home?
Dan (eb8a97) — 5/13/2016 @ 3:39 amWe find that a Trump tariff proposal against all countries
where has Mr. Trump ever suggested tariffs against all countries?
the assumptions the authors make are fundamentally dishonest
happyfeet (831175) — 5/13/2016 @ 4:25 amIt will give a giant boost to retail sales, better than Black Friday, as people rush to empty the store shelves of durable goods before the tariffs raise the prices. And that will make Tiny Donnie’s Goldy-Sack cronies very happy, and they will buy extra diamonds for their Slovenian “models”.
nk (dbc370) — 5/13/2016 @ 4:51 ami went to tranny target last night and got bolillos
they had these really cool stainless steel martini glasses
but i boycotted them cause of I don’t really have a lot of extra cabinet space right now
happyfeet (831175) — 5/13/2016 @ 4:56 amRealpolitik. Poor people, meaning those getting government aid, won’t be voting for Trump anyway.
So the choice seems to be to vote for Hillary so that the number of poor can be even greater as they sit next to the transgendered in the Target store?
cedarhill (4535ba) — 5/13/2016 @ 4:59 amThat’s nice, happyfeet.
Importers who think ahead, like Jeff Bezos and Tiny Donnie’s kids and cronies, will stock their warehouses chock-full with pre-tariff durable goods. Then sell them at post-tariff prices. That will also give a better than Black Friday boost to Chinese manufacturing.
See, not everybody has to lose money. Every crisis is an opportunity knocking.
nk (dbc370) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:10 amNk:
In a skeptics view, a choice between a Venezuela weekend or a Venezuela decade?
urbanleftbehind (178195) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:13 amThere are a lot more Trumpkins on government aid than there are People For Bernie, BTW. By a ratio of 3:1 at least. Senator Byrd had a pet name for them.
nk (dbc370) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:13 amDid the Japanese and Germans compete with American manufacturers only on price or did they compete on quality too? Because, lately, I’m seeing higher quality in Chinese-made goods than in American-made goods. It will take a generation, if ever, to rebuild American manufacturing with a conscientious workforce that make things people want to buy over Chinese stuff, in my estimation. And we will probably need to import that workforce.
nk (dbc370) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:20 amfailmericans make crappy products they can’t even make twinkies
it’s sad cause the fat-ass union thugs try really hard for like the first hour of their shift, but they get discouraged cause of they’ll hit a snag or a glitch and they can’t read the manual cause of the illiteracy
happyfeet (831175) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:37 amcarly pupperoni says we need moar boats
I’m not sure how that will help though
happyfeet (831175) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:39 amAnd then they’ll go and vote for a Badgerhead because a boss can get more work out of a Mexican than out of five of them.
(I’ll let the “union thugs” slide as one of the things that has gotten you voted Mr. Congeniality ten years in a row.)
nk (dbc370) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:46 amI like sadfeet’s rants better. Happyfeet is just poop-stank whenever anyone criticizes his Donald.
This is obvious to anyone who does the analysis.
Simon Jester (65fb2d) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:50 ami find them distasteful and malodorous Mr. nk, these poopy union thuggies
there’s a rat on wabash his name is scabby
he’s got his own posse of thugs that service his needs and I have to walk past these losers every day
it’s disheartening to the people, that they have to be exposed to this petulant indolence on their way to work
happyfeet (831175) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:52 amHeh! happyfeet is about ten times more free market than Patterico who is at least ten times more free market than I am. But I can face facts.
nk (dbc370) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:55 amretail sales numbers are out in like 2 min
happyfeet (831175) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:57 amoh they’re here i still haven’t mastered this time zone
happyfeet (831175) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:59 amThere are unions and there are unions. Like the union that raided my parents’ pension plan so Martin Scorsese could make “Casino”. Or the Chicago Teachers Union which makes me want to picket their pickets with a sign “Save Our Schools, Fire The Teachers”. And the unions that won a war on two oceans, put men on the moon, and made unskilled one-income earners home-owners with two cars in the garage and three kids in college.
nk (dbc370) — 5/13/2016 @ 5:59 amok that makes sense given what we learned about consumers charging up their credit cards last week
happyfeet (831175) — 5/13/2016 @ 6:02 ami’ll picket the teachers with you!
i’ll make up some chants and stuff
happyfeet (831175) — 5/13/2016 @ 6:10 amSo it’s a pro amnesty site, with Rubio advisory conda, and dinosaur guy van der jact
narciso (1b4366) — 5/13/2016 @ 6:17 amThis kind of argument is an example of innumeracy. The bottom line reason this cannot improve the living standards for the masses is that the only jobs that could come back are ones where it costs more to make it here, so they’d have to cost more – maybe a lot more. Probably “fair trader” (who I believe is the same person who has posted under various other names) understands that much but doesn’t grasp the implications of that because of his innumeracy.
Consumers only have a certain amount of money to spend. Making people make stuff here doesn’t magically create money. If some jobs got created making stuff that’s made overseas now, then others would have to be destroyed as people buy less stuff overall. Or it would tend to push wages down at industries that are already making things here. Some combination of the two. Wages in total would not increase above inflation. This is just basic mathematical logic.
Furthermore, many of the new jobs making cheap low-tech stuff would have to be at or near the bottom of the pay scale. Over the last 4-5 decades as people like fair trader have complained about jobs “going overseas”, the US economy has actually created lots of new jobs, until the Obama years anyway. Job creation hasn’t really been a problem with the US economy over most of that time. The complaint has been that they are low paying hamburger flipper jobs (not at all correct if you have the right skills but never mind that). So this would actually just create more of those kinds of jobs.
Gerald A (945582) — 5/13/2016 @ 6:22 am. It will take a generation, if ever, to rebuild American manufacturing with a conscientious workforce that make things people want to buy over Chinese stuff, in my estimation. And we will probably need to import that workforce
Yes. And of course the environmentals will block all and any attempts to build manufacturing facilities.
Meanwhile, all those people who lose jobs because people can’t buy overtariffed Chinese goods will be so pleased.
kishnevi (28fa9f) — 5/13/2016 @ 6:23 amAnd yet the Chinese have high tariff walls which do eventually fail like the miti induced property bubble in the 90s.
narciso (1b4366) — 5/13/2016 @ 6:38 amUnions in now way “one a war on two oceans”. Matter of fact, during the war unions had to be forced back to work for the war effort dozens of times when they struck. And unions didn’t put anything on the moon, American ingenuity, technology and free market capitalism did in spite of the constantly striking unions concerned only with their own power. And they made all those “unskilled one-income” home-owners priced so out of the market in hourly wages, vacation, health and retirement benefits that millions and millions of jobs that would still be here manufacturing those same low-skilled products moved to China and Asia to get away from the unions.
Today public employee unions are committing financial murder against the taxpayers and doing their best to insure democrat dominance for decades. Yea, unions?
In an America of OSHA, EEOC and a dozen more worker directed government agencies designed for the advancement and protection of the American laborer, unions add only cost, control and competition killing socialist demands. And the worst union of all is the Teacher’s Union.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (734193) — 5/13/2016 @ 6:48 amYeah, well, millions of poor Americans may go bankrupt.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 5/13/2016 @ 7:09 amBut Trump had 4 bankruptcies, and look well he rebounded! (LOL)
Spoken like a boss, Hoagie. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 5/13/2016 @ 7:16 amThis logic supports a federal bailout of literally any company going bankrupt.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 5/13/2016 @ 7:45 amthis article is really dumb but i checked the googles and usually these guys do better work
maybe they were in a hurry
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/13/2016 @ 8:00 amWell nk, the old fables about the noble unions fighting against the powerful and corrupt robber barons have little basis in fact. Unions in America were designed not to back “the little guy” against the overwhelming power of a corrupt capitalist system. They were created to keep blacks from getting “white men’s jobs” by working for less. So in effect, they were born out of racism, weaned on communism and have matured into a corrupt government voting block favoring public employees and the democratic party. If you’re for unions, you’re for democrat hegemony.
Unions today are at the forefront of the $15 minimum wage in an attempt to price out entry level employment and force people into collectives, er, I mean unions as well as raising wages for union jobs based on the minimum wage.
Observe what the democrats and their public employee unions have done for/to Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Camden, Wilmington etc, etc.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (734193) — 5/13/2016 @ 8:05 amoh these failamerican products are terrible
these union thugs who love trumpadump and don’t work and want high wages and high tariffs and no work just to make fail products
poo-stank will change things for sure, much better than pee-stank
poo-stank will get some extra nice high tariffs going for these failunions who make terrible products
it’ll be great because we’ll have more failproducts and higher prices all alright
it’ll be great great great
sadfeet (ddead1) — 5/13/2016 @ 8:37 amfree enterprise lol
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/13/2016 @ 8:46 amIf you say so, Hoagie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
Or if you think the bosses built the manufacturing behemoth that made Yamamoto say, “I have seen their factories. I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve”, all with their very own American ingenuity-filled bare hands.
nk (dbc370) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:03 amWe currently have 99 CHAPTERS of tariffs in effect for the United States. Are these tariff’s responsible for the poor remaining poor in the US?
https://hts.usitc.gov/current
Bill (375c3f) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:21 amTrump is a long-time liar who wants to use his campaign (and government, if he wins) to get even. No wonder he likes Hillary.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:24 am“Unions in America were designed not to back “the little guy” against the overwhelming power of a corrupt capitalist system. They were created to keep blacks from getting “white men’s jobs” by working for less.”
– Rev. Hoagie
They should be another natural Trump voting bloc, then – since Trumpkins are so interested in effective means of keeping brown people from getting “white mens’ jobs” by working for less.
Leviticus (efada1) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:33 amIt would cost a lot more than that, as the global supply system broke down. Just try to get brake shoes for your car, RAM for your computer, or a compressor for your A/C. It would take several years before the wave of bankruptcies and other dislocations subsided and things got back to “normal” with suboptimum alternatives.
Not that Congress would pass these, and if Trump imposed them by fiat he’d be impeached and removed once the people felt the pain.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:35 amOf course, I can see the UAW membership getting behind Trump for this.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:38 amMr. Trump is a good American and I’d like to have him over for dinner on the porch one time this summer
we’ll start with that watermelon caprese salad we’ve talked about
catfish and greens will be the entree, with a bottomless basket of jalapeno cornbread muffins on the table too
the secret to collard greens is to get the pre-washed kind in the bag – otherwise you have to rinse and rinse and rinse and rinse
some people say you have to blanch them but you really don’t
just throw some butter in a wok or big skillet and get it hot – you gonna cook these babies high and fast
throw your greens in and toss so they all get a lil buttered up
then you put the lid on for just a minute
now you’re almost done
to bring it on home i drizzle on a hoisin / honey sauce
it really makes them greens sing
after that we probably do hummingbird cake
i’m pretty stoked
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:40 amTraitor Ryan had only 45 minutes to meet with the next president, because he had 2 1/2 hours of phone time- lying to the donor class for money to combat his future loss in the house.
The only rat-bastard traitors are those who voted for Trump.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:40 ami’m a need a porch though
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:44 am5. Dan (eb8a97) — 5/13/2016 @ 3:39 am
that probably requires higher mathematics, but it is illogical taht there could be anet benefit. It’s like any other kind of price supports.
This makes about as much sense as the claim that Henry Ford paid his workers $5 a day starting in 1914 so he could sell more cars. (which some descriptions of this come close to saying)
He paid them so they wouldn’t quit, and it enabled them to buy the cars they were making, buut he couldn’t make a net profit out of that)
Some people will benefit from higher prices, especially those who might lose a lucrative income other, and everybody else will lose. There is lower productivity per person.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:45 amThat means if applied to all countries, not just China, Japan and Mexico. But if were not applied to all low wage countries at least, then that shouldn’t work, because they would just manufacture the goods, pretty soon, in other foreign countries. (Although actually this is limited by the presence of absence of business contacts)
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:49 am“Ludlow Massacre” my behind. The “victims” were engaged in an open criminal enterprise to violently obstruct workers going about their lawful business, and it was the government’s duty to clear them out by whatever means necessary, including deadly force. If these criminal parents chose to use their children as human shields, the children’s deaths were the parents responsibility, exactly as if a bank robber uses a hostage who is killed.
Milhouse (87c499) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:53 amBut if were not applied to all low wage countries at least, then that shouldn’t work, because they would just manufacture the goods, pretty soon, in other foreign countries.
well then hello?
that supports Mr. Trump’s argument that punitive tariffs work and in the long run won’t damage the consumer
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:53 amAs Milton Friedman said, free trade is the one subject on which all economists, from right to left, are in agreement. There is no such thing as a protectionist economist. Protectionists are only to be found among the ignorant and among cynical politicians.
Milhouse (87c499) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:54 amHuh? I know you know better than that.
Milhouse (87c499) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:57 amSF: But if were not applied to all low wage countries at least, then that shouldn’t work, because they would just manufacture the goods, pretty soon, in other foreign countries.
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/13/2016 @ 9:53 am
No, that doesn’t.
Punitive tariffs either work AND damage the consumer, or they DON’T damage the consumer, and DON’T work in terms of creating jobs.
Now actually what would happen is that you would get some of maybe three things.
Some manufacturing not leaving the United States. (more not leaving than coming back)
Some moving to third countries.
Some automation or increased efficiencies. Not damaging the consumer, but NOT HELPING people GET high paying JOBS either.
IKf you want to create jobs you need to support the creation of new and small businesses, they are not efficient in the use of labor. As businesses get bigger and get older they tend to be more efficient in the hiring of people, unless of course, it’s managed carelessly.
To create more new businesses, you need more bank lending officers and more (small) banks.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:04 ami heart free trade more than beans
but it was silly for the authors to assert that we would have to apply the tariff to every country (a policy Mr. Trump has never advocated)
This is sophistry.
Mr. Trump’s thinking is that we need to secure a better unilateral deal with specific countries.
And the authors of the piece are granting him his assumption that yes, these tariffs would cause production to shift from the targeted countries to other countries. It’s not even hard – importers could “simply” turn to other suppliers they say.
Which means the authors are validating the idea that tariffs targeted against specific countries are effectively punitive and thus can be used as a form of leverage.
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:04 amIt certainly isn’t helping.
Come on people its basic economics. Raise the price of something- which is what tariffs do- and that means less can afford it. Just because it then make it cost the same from here or there doesn’t mean it will help anybody but a few select people making those products.
Remember, the people who buy a product outweigh the people who make it. And if it now costs more- despite some small extra jobs- its now more expensive for everybody. There is also the issue that maybe its cheaper in another place for a reason- because they have the supplies and/or experience to make it faster, better, cheaper.
If you want to make things cheaper here, reduce the regulations on businesses.
Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:05 amThe analysis above by the National Foundation for American Policy assumed the high tariff would be applied across the board, even though Donald Trump may not be proposing that, but only targeting specific countries. (It’s a theoretical analysis of the idea)
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:06 amSuch tariffs on China would probably cause an economic and political collapse there. They probably would not go quietly. They have nuclear weapons. They might not use them, but might well hide behind them as they attempted to save themselves through military adventures, with the invasion of Taiwan for starters. Nothing left to lose.
The economic upheavals of the 1930s had a LOT to do with the war that came after. What was the cost of the second world war?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:06 amPatrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:05 am
We have lots of legislation based on taht premise.
Licensing requirements. Limits on taxi competition. These all help incumbents, and maybe there’s a value to that, but it can’t help the economy as a whole. The whole economy is helped by people getting more and more value for their money. (and people getting other jobs. Now a problem: some people can’t get as good jobs, maybe most people)
The way almost all politicians talk, you wouldn’t think so.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:11 amWhat exactly do we need to negotiate though?
And even if suppliers could change countries, that ignores the fact of the time it will take to switch and the possibility that it will be impossible to switch. And of course, what if those countries are doing the same thing as the original country, which is why it may be cheap in the first placfe- wouldn’t Trump then demand the same tariffs to get the same deal?
So no, its not sophistry- its a logical extension of Trumps plan. It will hurt Americans, especially the poor.
Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:11 amYou get a little bit of all the different possibilities.
But probably the least probable possibility is that all the old jobs come back at the same wages. You could argue maybe some factories won’t close, or will close later than they otherwise would have. But it would make more sense just to subsidize the wages.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:27 amYou would get a lot of the foreign goods continuing to be be sold, but being sold at a higher price, with some of the difference going to the federal government. Maybe the workers theer might be paid a slightly higher wage, but the factory owner would benefit more.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:30 amSmart move by Shorty. A global trade war is just what we need to turn long-term recession into world-wide depression and promote military adventurism designed to force open closed markets. What an ugly world that will be.
My gut sense is that Trump is more bluff and bluster than anything else (he regularly admits as much), which is something we should all be hoping for.
ThOR (c9324e) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:36 amDon’t worry about any tariffs. It’s only a suggestion and Trump will be very flexible as President:
So Trump, like Obama, thinks he can legislate. That pesky Constitution that says Congress, not the President, “puts in” legislation doesn’t bother Trump!
DRJ (15874d) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:43 amTrump’s protectionism will be a disaster if it ever happens, but there is a positive development today:
Gerald A (945582) — 5/13/2016 @ 10:50 am42.
A Texas-Utah sickout either netting Cruz (or similar) 38 EVs outright or tossing their EVs to the red queen negates the UAW gains in Big Ten country.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/ted-cruz-donald-trump-texas-223090
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 5/13/2016 @ 11:02 amDRJ,
Any Trump utterance is to be evaluated solely upon its probable emotional impact on Slackjaw Sunglasses. Once an utterance elicits the appropriate peck and/or drool response it can be safely dropped into the memory hole. It’s not as if Slackjaw is going to mull it over.
Rick Ballard (1e7f0c) — 5/13/2016 @ 11:02 amOf course they are, but how does that support your case? The threat of punitive tariffs would certainly be effective in inducing China to make concessions, but if those concessions raised the cost of production then they would lose the trade anyway, to somewhere cheaper.
Milhouse (87c499) — 5/13/2016 @ 12:39 pmDon’t worry, he’ll change his mind at least (how many days are there between now and 20 Jan?) … innumerable times before cutting a YUUGE! deal with the Congress that he despises….and probably won’t think too highly of him either.
askeptic (02878f) — 5/13/2016 @ 1:08 pmhow does that support your case? The threat of punitive tariffs would certainly be effective in inducing China to make concessions
my case is that the study authors have no rationale for calculating the damages pursuant to tariffs set against every nation in the whole whirl like they do
it’s completely spurious
i abjure it
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/13/2016 @ 1:25 pmthis is me abjuring it
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/13/2016 @ 1:26 pm“I am totally flexible on very, very many issues, and I think you have to be that way.”
Wait until he tells Vincente Fox that he’ll “be more flexible after the election.”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/13/2016 @ 3:11 pm