How do US consumers gain from tarifs?

My company is US based with some manufacturing done in the US, some in China and some in EU. We are constantly dealing with price changes due to tarifs, and consumers are going to get hit hard once the price increases travel up the food chain to the end product.

The way tarifs are talked about by our president is laughable and sad. That is not good for the US.

Trump plans to use $12 billions to help farmers hurt by tarifs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-...

I believe that brookhaven_dude means that low US tariffs are good for US consumers because that keeps prices low for them. Whereas high foreign tariffs on US goods are in effect a tax on foreign consumers, meaning they get less for their money.

> Whereas high foreign tariffs on US goods are in effect a tax on foreign consumers, meaning they get less for their money.

When prices are higher, consumers buy less. So those foreign consumers are indeed getting less for their money- so they will buy less US Goods, reducing the money coming to US producers. Instead, those foreign consumers will buy local goods at lower prices.

Except that foreign competition will reduce prices overall. Tariffs blunt that, meaning foreign consumers will buy local goods at higher prices than they would without tariffs.

Thats your theory at least. At some point, you don't need any more cheap shit from Amazon, but you need a decent job. As a top 5%er or whatever, surely cheaper is better for you... But prob not your lower middle class neighbor who has to compete more globally in the low skill labor market, where other countries are protecting their people in that regard

In which case, I'd much rather we increased taxes on income and/or wealth to a) help workers move up the value chain, and b) provide a safety net for people who lose out on trade.

A tariff on "cheap shit from Amazon" is a heavily regressive tax, and acts to reduce total delivered value. Whereas taxing the well-off to pay for education and encourage investment increases total delivered value.

I agree with the increasing taxes on the wealth, but as a long time resident of California I've become skeptical of the government's skill and ability to provide a safety net.

In some governments somewhere in the world, these programs are effective. But there's no guarantee they will be well run and well administered.

If a government justifies taxing more heavily to fulfill those functions, it's critically important that the government actually deliver the services effectively. The government's efforts must actually succeed. Otherwise, a lot of voters become skeptical and stop believing the promises.

It'd be a bit easier if we cut the pentagon budget by 60% to match other countries of similar size.

UHC would actually save 2 trillion over 10 years (according to a very conservative Koch brothers study).

We need to end money in politics though, there needs to not be easy ways to bribe politicians.... It's becoming a circus, until corruption is tackled, nothing will function efficiently ever.

How does taxing the well-off to pay for education encourage investment?

More education = higher jobs for more people = more people have money = more people spend money at walmart/amazon/malls/movies/local restaurants/etc... Some of these people will use their money to start businesses.

Some of these people may have ended up in a poverty trap all their lives, and never contributed. One may even go on to end cancer, or do something amazing with the extra opportunity they now have.

Education ALWAYS contributes to society as a whole, not just that individual. America needs to start valuing education more, I see dumbasses on social media and elsewhere who don't fact check anything, believe everything they're told and can't even tell which side of the civil war Lincoln was fighting on.

They are the same people Jay Leno used to make fun of by asking simple questions on his Jay Walking bit.

Well, it might indirectly do it depending on the tax structure. That's why the capital gains tax is lower than general income tax, for example.

But I'm thinking we would use the money to more directly encourage investment. Small business programs are good here, including classes, mentoring, and small-business loans.

An increased supply of high skill workers? An increased supply of people who are economically secure, and thus not interested in "eating the rich"?

Publicly paying for education is one of the most fundamental kinds of investment in society

Please remember Boeing airlines, John Deere tractors, Caterpillar construction and earth moving equipment, Cisco routers, military gear -- and any number of parts and components that are made here and assembled elsewhere into finished products (and in some cases, imported back to the US).

Why aren't these things assembled in the United States as well? Cost to transport from one facility to outside the United States then back surely adds cost to the finished product, unless there are savings gained from cheaper labor or less regulation.

The cost of labor and externalized costs would be the answer.

In the US, the workers demand a livable wage and healthcare from their employer. In other countries, the definition of livable wage is quite different (lots of poor/slave labor and no rules that protect employees from age restrictions, working hour restrictions, etc.). Some countries have government provided healthcare so that is not a cost that companies need to deal with.

Additionally, companies in other countries are able to externalize some of their major costs, especially in the area of pollution. In the US, you couldn't emit extreme amounts of waste and just dump it anywhere, you have to pay to "clean" it or face penalties. Other countries don't have such restrictions and are allowed to dump waste into rivers or the atmosphere without penalty.

So in the US you'd have to build a factory that is "clean" and complies with regulations. Then you'd have to hire and pay US workers a fair wage and likely subsidize at least a portion of their healthcare. You would also have to comply with worker regulations for these employees.

It's up to you to determine whether it should be ok to externalize these costs. Treating employees as effectively slave labor and the ability to destroy the environment and the habitats of living things.

Because a lot of those products are using American parts in addition to parts from other countries. It isn’t simply sending all of the parts to China to be assembled.

You mean "at most"? I've noticed an interesting tendency to mix up "at least" and "at most" even though they are opposite in meaning. I've even heard people say at best when they mean at worst