Higher China tariffs could cost Americans $767 per year

So let's see - Trump gives tax cuts for billionaires, which drives up the deficit. Now he imposes trade tariffs, which will bring money into the treasury, but it will inevitably come out of the pocket of the average American.

Higher China tariffs could cost Americans $767 per year - CBS News

A good amount, apparently. Taken together, the tariffs -- levies paid by consumers and companies, not China -- could cost an average family of four $767 a year, one study from a group called the Trade Partnership estimated in February. The group also forecast the tariffs would cut U.S. employment by 934,000 people and subtract roughly 0.4 percentage points from U.S. GDP.

I'm absolutely ok with that. In fact, it's great. That $767 will then circulate ideally around the United States - staying in OUR economy. That also is a week or two pay for lower or lowest level blue collar jobs for Americans - so it's a double WIN!

Prices to consumers should at least cover a minimal living working wage for an American worker.

Media_Truth said:

So let's see - Trump gives tax cuts for billionaires, which drives up the deficit. Now he imposes trade tariffs, which will bring money into the treasury, but it will inevitably come out of the pocket of the average American.

Higher China tariffs could cost Americans $767 per year - CBS News

A good amount, apparently. Taken together, the tariffs -- levies paid by consumers and companies, not China -- could cost an average family of four $767 a year, one study from a group called the Trade Partnership estimated in February. The group also forecast the tariffs would cut U.S. employment by 934,000 people and subtract roughly 0.4 percentage points from U.S. GDP.

Click to expand...

Let me know when there are several "studies" which looked at the same situation, and then the meta-study which provides a summary of all the studies results.

Meanwhile one study from some "special interest group" like the "Trade Partnership" is not dispositive. It is merely what those (paid?) researchers think they have discovered based on whatever parameters set and data they collected...touched perhaps with a little confirmation bias. :shrug:

Media_Truth said:

So let's see - Trump gives tax cuts for billionaires, which drives up the deficit. Now he imposes trade tariffs, which will bring money into the treasury, but it will inevitably come out of the pocket of the average American.

Higher China tariffs could cost Americans $767 per year - CBS News

A good amount, apparently. Taken together, the tariffs -- levies paid by consumers and companies, not China -- could cost an average family of four $767 a year, one study from a group called the Trade Partnership estimated in February. The group also forecast the tariffs would cut U.S. employment by 934,000 people and subtract roughly 0.4 percentage points from U.S. GDP.

Click to expand...

Products already subject to the 10 percent tariffs that are set to rise to 25 percent on Friday:

Shampoo
Dog leashes
Refrigerators
Bicycles
Some kinds of fish
Fruit
Nuts
Some furniture
Backpacks
Purses
Some luggage
Wallets

None of these items are essential and certainly, there are other countries besides China where these products are made.

I'll add Chinese crap isn't cheap. Their junk is the most expensive of all - because it is crappy you have to buy the same thing over and over and over - because it's crap that doesn't last long - so you have to buy it again. For example, a machinist quality drill bit will cost up to 10 times the best Chinese crap drill bits they sell at Home Depot or Lowes.

Not only will it cut thru steel plate with ease - where it would take 20 times as long with the Chinese bits - mostly due to how many times you had to change drill bits - but also last 25 times as long as the Chinese drill bit - meaning unless you are a machinist (or lazy ass who doesn't use oil) that fine drill bit will last you a life time - pass it on to your kids.

I read a study some years ago that claimed the wealthy spend less on furniture than working people, although furniture of the wealth cost MUCH more. Why?

Cheap veneer over non-water resistant Chinese particle board furniture isn't going to last long. Water destroys it. The joints tear out easily. The veneer doesn't like to stick on very long. No used value, just junk at the street - quickly.

But the same piece of a rich person - solid hardwood with professional wood and glue joints finely fitted will last a lifetime - will hold value fairly well - and very possibly some of it was one of their grandparent's furniture and will the furniture of their grandchildren - possible worth many times more than was paid for it. Over the same time, 300 Chinese particle board exact furniture would have long decayed in landfills.

Yeah, let prices go way up. Fire American industry back up. Penalize the hell out of taking money out of the USA. ANYTHING sold in the USA is USA taxable - none of this foreign HQ crap. Sold here? It's taxed here. End the breaks to the super rich - meaning we will NOT subside their employees and they have a race of which of them can pile up more billions fastest and which of them will spend the next record breaking hundreds of millions of dollars on a painting?

Isolationism? Not at all. We'll make any deals with anyone that benefit US. If the deal benefits them from their perspective, then we'd have a foreign trade deal. Otherwise, no.

OMG if this means you can only buy a new Iphone every other year costing more being American made. At least it'd last two years, particularly if made in an AMERICAN UNION SHOP FACTORY with great pay, great benefits and great job security.

joko104 said:

I'll add Chinese crap isn't cheap. Their junk is the most expensive of all - because it is crappy you have to buy the same thing over and over and over - because it's crap that doesn't last long - so you have to buy it again. For example, a machinist quality drill bit will cost up to 10 times the best Chinese crap drill bits they sell at Home Depot or Lowes.

Not only will it cut thru steel plate with ease - where it would take 20 times as long with the Chinese bits - mostly due to how many times you had to change drill bits - but last 25 times as long as the Chinese drill bit - meaning unless you are a machinist (or lazy ass who doesn't use oil) that fine drill bit will last you a life time - pass it on to your kids.

I read a study some years ago that claimed the wealthy spend less on furniture than working people, although furniture of the wealth cost MUCH more. Why?

Cheap veneer over non-water resistant Chinese particle board furniture isn't going to last long. Water destroys it. The joints tear out easily. The veneer doesn't like to stick on very long. No used value, just junk at the street - quickly.

But the same piece of a rich person - solid hardwood with professional wood and glue joints finely fitted will last a lifetime - will hold value fairly well - and very possibly some of it was one of their grandparent's furniture and will the furniture of their grandchildren - possible worth many times more than was paid for it. Over the same time, 300 Chinese particle board exact furniture would have long decayed in landfills.

Yeah, let prices go way up. Fire American industry back up. Penalize the hell out of taking money out of the USA. End the breaks to the super rich - meaning we will NOT subside their employees and they have a race of which of them can pile up more billions fastest and which of them will spend the next record breaking hundreds of millions of dollars on a painting?

Isolationism? Not at all. We'll make any deals with anyone that benefit US. If the deal benefits them from their perspective, then we'd have a foreign trade deal. Otherwise, no.

OMG if this means you can only buy a new Iphone every other year costing more being American made. At least it'd last two years, particularly if made in an AMERICAN UNION SHOP FACTORY with great pay, great benefits and great job security.

Click to expand...

People that pay $1,000 for an iPhone are nuts.

Media_Truth said:

So let's see - Trump gives tax cuts for billionaires, which drives up the deficit. Now he imposes trade tariffs, which will bring money into the treasury, but it will inevitably come out of the pocket of the average American.

Higher China tariffs could cost Americans $767 per year - CBS News

A good amount, apparently. Taken together, the tariffs -- levies paid by consumers and companies, not China -- could cost an average family of four $767 a year, one study from a group called the Trade Partnership estimated in February. The group also forecast the tariffs would cut U.S. employment by 934,000 people and subtract roughly 0.4 percentage points from U.S. GDP.

Click to expand...

Did you think China was just going to give in without being pressured? Of course they are not going to do that. They have been getting away with financial murder for years because no other administration had the backbone to try to force them to change. Millions in trade deficit is not good for the U.S and changing it isn't easy.

Integrityrespec said:

Did you think China was just going to give in without being pressured? Of course they are not going to do that. They have been getting away with financial murder for years because no other administration had the backbone to try to force them to change. Millions in trade deficit is not good for the U.S and changing it isn't easy.

Click to expand...

If the Tax Cuts for the Billionaires didn't precede this action, I might be more willing to support it. As it is, the end result is simply that he skyrocketed the deficit, by rewarding Billionaires, and now the Middle Class has to fund that shortfall.

Captain Adverse said:

Let me know when there are several "studies" which looked at the same situation, and then the meta-study which provides a summary of all the studies results.

Meanwhile one study from some "special interest group" like the "Trade Partnership" is not dispositive. It is merely what those (paid?) researchers think they have discovered based on whatever parameters set and data they collected...touched perhaps with a little confirmation bias. :shrug:

Click to expand...

If you don't like that article, here is a NY Times article. Auto Parts and furniture are among the goods that are affected.

How Trump’s Tariffs on Chinese Goods Will Hit Your Shopping Cart - The New York Times

The National Retail Federation warned this week that consumers would bear the costs of an abrupt increase in the taxes on those goods.

“A sudden tariff increase with less than a week’s notice would severely disrupt U.S. businesses, especially small companies that have limited resources to mitigate the impact,” said David French, the federation’s senior vice president for government relations. “If the administration follows through on this threat, American consumers will face higher prices and U.S. jobs will be lost.”

Bucky said:

People that pay $1,000 for an iPhone are nuts.

Click to expand...

I have a flip phone. $17.00 from WalMart. $50 a month Verizon plan.

When we gave one of our child their phone, it was a flip phone She wanted an iPhone. Sure. As soon as she saved up enough by working her job to get one, maybe she could do that. But maybe she's want to spend HER money SHE earned on other things or even save a little for college. She kept the flip phone. Interesting how it changed when it became about her money she had to make somehow. :lol:

We have a moral obligation to cripple the Chinese economy. They cheat us on trade and are an evil authoritarian power that threatens global peace. I hope the tariffs force companies to change manufacturing of products to other countries instead of China.

Integrityrespec said:

Did you think China was just going to give in without being pressured? Of course they are not going to do that. They have been getting away with financial murder for years because no other administration had the backbone to try to force them to change. Millions in trade deficit is not good for the U.S and changing it isn't easy.

Click to expand...

Some people can't deal with it's a poker game. China has more to lose, but the Chinese government has more control over its people who are used to suffering great hardships. For Americans, the mere prospect of a shortage of avocados on a border shut down merited national news of an impending disaster and a thread start as breaking news on this forum. Our leadership / Trump will face far greater political problems much sooner than the leader of China - appointed for life over an authoritarian government of total police state power if need be.

And that's the poker game. At least Trump's playing it rather than just saying "If you'll loan us the money we'll forever pay you interest on, we'll do whatever you want" - with China using the debt value to literally buy up the United States property and assets - as have presidents in both parties before him. If this doesn't stop, China will own the mortgages on the next generation of American homeowners and renters residences with Ford, GM and Chrysler owned by China. Americans in the USA will be increasingly working in foreign owned companies and factories.

It really shocked me to learn that EVERY major beer company of "American beers" - Bud, Miller, Coors etc - have been bought out by foreign companies.

How much more will the Chinese made MAGA hats cost ?

Logician Man said:

How much more will the Chinese made MAGA hats cost ?

Click to expand...

If there actually was an American company that actually could make them, what Trump sells them for would probably be the same since they are radically marked up and everyone knows it - no secret - and probably at least twice as much to make.

Maybe you should look. If you can find an American company that actually makes and assembles that type cap made solely using American materials, you should send the President a letter informing him of this.

Logician Man said:

How much more will the Chinese made MAGA hats cost ?

Click to expand...

Like this one...

Media_Truth said:

Like this one...

View attachment 67256540

Click to expand...

:lol:

It will take a while for decent assessments of the actual impact of the newly-imposed tariffs to emerge from the fog of political spin. Even then, we'll do well to remember that economics lacks the prediction ability of the hard sciences.

Meanwhile, we can make note of the fact that the US, through its present federal administration, has chosen not to avail itself of the court of the World Trade Organization. This, though the US has fared well in past instances of bringing trade matters before it. It's amusing to speculate on why the present course was chosen; in particular, the part played by assessment of the extant data vs. the effect of the personality of the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump.

The same people complaining about the tariffs have no problem buying a foreign made car instead of an American made one.

Economic Impact of Tariffs

Graphical depiction of what happens when a tariff is imposed (i.e, the chart below shows the changes that occur upon and after a tariff has been imposed, not the state of affairs prior to and upon the tariff's imposition):

• In this case, the tariff is P1-P2.
• The tariff leads to a decline in imports. Imports were Q4-Q1. After the tariff, imports fall to Q3-Q2.
• Consumer surplus falls by 1+2+3+4
• Government raises tariff revenue of area 3
• Domestic suppliers gain an increase in producer surplus of area 1
• The net welfare loss is (1+2+3+4) – (1+3) = 2+4

The following chart illustrates a slightly different view of the impact of tariffs by including not only the information from the chart above, but also a depiction of the most extreme consequence: no import of the tariff'd good(s):

• Green area illustrates how much more in total all consumers would pay were the tariff effective enough to eliminate imports of the tariff'd product(s). Notice the green area is topped by the line called "Domestic Price Without Trade." Thus, if the tariff is "supremely" effective at protecting the domestic industry -- that is, it eliminates imports of the tariff'd good(s) -- consumers will pay not only the sum represented by the green area, but also that represented by the orange, pink and purple ones.
  
  Why? Because consumer surplus is the difference between what one must pay (at least the tariff price) and what one actually pays before or after the tariff. For instance, assume bottled water costs $2 per 16 oz. and tap water costs $1.50 per 1000 gallons ($1.50 per 8000 pints, therefore $0.0001875 per pint). A consumer who consumes/buys a pint of tap water enjoys a consumer surplus of $1.9998125; however, when s/he consumes/demands a pint of bottled water, s/he yields that surplus to the supplier of bottled water. (That yielding is why the pink, orange and purple areas are parts of the loss consumer surplus when there's a tariff; the consumer, after the tariff, has no choice but to pay the higher price.)
  • How much is that consumer willing to pay for a pint of water? As demonstrated by his/her buying a pint of bottled water, $2.00. If on some other occasion, the same consumer spends $3.00 for a pint of bottled water, we can say the consumer is willing to pay $3.00 for a pint of water.
    • That suppliers can observe consumers' behavior and thus know consumers are willing to pay $3.00 for a pint of water is why firms granted natural monopoly status are regulated. Sans that regulation, a water utility would charge one as much as $3.00 per pint for tap water. In practice, a water utility probably wouldn't charge $3.00 per pint, but it would charge a hell of a lot more than $0.0001875 per pint, which in the case of water, a "helluva lot more" is one half of one cent, which would amount to $40 per 8000 pints.
  • How much must the consumer pay for a pint of tap water? Very little: $0.0001875 per pint.

What's the be all end all? After a tariff is imposed, if one is an average income earner, one's going to feel the impact of the tariff. One is unlikely to feel it much in any one product, but across the spectrum of affected products, one'll notice one's money doesn't go as far as it used to. If one doesn't fully understand tariffs, one won't really know why, but one will gripe about higher prices and less spending power.

Logician Man said:

How much more will the Chinese made MAGA hats cost ?

Click to expand...

How much more those effing hats will cost isn't the issue. Were it just those damn hats, nobody would give a damn about the tariff. The issues are:

• What items are subject to the tariff?
  • You can see that for yourself here: "Here are all the products that will get hit."
    • The tariff won't affect the Apple Watch...I guess "Tim Apple's" lobbying effort worked...I wonder what he offered in return for the exemption? In any case, the price of the Apple Watch will increase merely because the price of its competitors' watches will increase due to the tariff. After the tariff is removed, the prices won't go down because consumers are already used to paying the higher price.
• What of the tariff'd items can one avoid buying and/or accelerate one's purchase to buy in advance the tariff?
• What firms will be driven out of business due to the tariff?
  • What specific firms cease to exist is just the start. An additional problem is that those forced out of business will have to sell their assets at "rock bottom" prices and the industry(s) in which they traded will experience consolidation, thus reducing competition even after the tariff is removed, if it even is, and further acting (1) as an even greater barrier to entry for would-be "replacement" competitors, and (2) as an impetus to keep prices at the during-the-tariff level even after the tariff is removed.

Basic Analysis of a Tariff

Tariffs in a Large Economy
-- Note: "Large" refers as much to the actual size of the economy as it does to the economy's dominance in respective markets.

Xelor said:

How much more those effing hats will cost isn't the issue. Were it just those damn hats, nobody would give a damn about the tariff. The issues are:

• What items are subject to the tariff?
  • You can see that for yourself here: "Here are all the products that will get hit."
    • The tariff won't affect the Apple Watch...I guess "Tim Apple's" lobbying effort worked...I wonder what he offered in return for the exemption? In any case, the price of the Apple Watch will increase merely because the price of its competitors' watches will increase due to the tariff. After the tariff is removed, the prices won't go down because consumers are already used to paying the higher price.
• What of the tariff'd items can one avoid buying and/or accelerate one's purchase to buy in advance the tariff?
• What firms will be driven out of business due to the tariff?
  • What specific firms cease to exist is just the start. An additional problem is that those forced out of business will have to sell their assets at "rock bottom" prices and the industry(s) in which they traded will experience consolidation, thus reducing competition even after the tariff is removed, if it even is, and further acting (1) as an even greater barrier to entry for would-be "replacement" competitors, and (2) as an impetus to keep prices at the during-the-tariff level even after the tariff is removed.

Basic Analysis of a Tariff

Tariffs in a Large Economy
-- Note: "Large" refers as much to the actual size of the economy as it does to the economy's dominance in respective markets.

Click to expand...

And farmers are getting hit very hard. Farm bankruptcies are way up. You would think that the Trump Admin would have taken some steps to protect farmers, prior to the tariffs. They could have suggested growing different crops or provided markets for their crops through incentive packages. He's treating the US just like his businesses, which also went bankrupt.

Bankruptcy Filings Indicate Times Are Tough For Many U.S. Farmers : NPR

Bankruptcies for farmers in the Midwest have risen sharply. Some farmers have been hit by a trifecta of bad circumstances: trade tariff disputes, continuing low crop prices and extensive flooding.

joko104 said:

I'm absolutely ok with that. In fact, it's great. That $767 will then circulate ideally around the United States - staying in OUR economy. That also is a week or two pay for lower or lowest level blue collar jobs for Americans - so it's a double WIN!

Prices to consumers should at least cover a minimal living working wage for an American worker.

Click to expand...

How do you mean the bolded? Do you believe Trump will take the tariff income and redistribute it?

Airyaman said:

How do you mean the bolded? Do you believe Trump will take the tariff income and redistribute it?

Click to expand...

It's closer to reality than what Trump thinks happens. Trump thinks China pays the tariffs to the US.

Media_Truth said:

So let's see - Trump gives tax cuts for billionaires, which drives up the deficit. Now he imposes trade tariffs, which will bring money into the treasury, but it will inevitably come out of the pocket of the average American.

Higher China tariffs could cost Americans $767 per year - CBS News...

A good amount, apparently. Taken together, the tariffs -- levies paid by consumers and companies, not China -- could cost an average family of four $767 a year, one study from a group called the Trade Partnership estimated in February. The group also forecast the tariffs would cut U.S. employment by 934,000 people and subtract roughly 0.4 percentage points from U.S. GDP.

Click to expand...

Media_Truth:

I'm Supposn said:

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.


Trade deficits indicate the nation has purchased greater values of products than it has produced and foreign products have “crowded” their nation's domestic products from their marketplaces.


If a greater proportions of what the nation spent for products had been for domestic rather than imported products, the nation's GDPs would have been greater.


Aggregate numbers of a nation's jobs and their amounts of wages, sales volumes of their domestic marketplaces all correlate with their nation's production of goods and services, (i.e. their GDP).


If the proportions of what the nation spent had rather been greater for domestic, and lesser for foreign products, nation's' annual GDPs would have then been greater (than otherwise).


These valid statements remain true during both individual nation's richer or poorer tears. Even among proponents of pure free trade, few if any credible economists refute any of these statements.


Although few if any credible economists refute any of these statements, but a majority of them contend that USA's trade deficits are small in proportion to USA's annual GDP's and are not of any economic significance. They do not argue that trade deficits per se, are net beneficial to USA's annual GDPs.


I concur with the minority of credible economists contending that USA's great chronic annual trade deficits are of economic significance and net detrimental to our nation's GDP.


I'm among those for valid reasons contending nations' trade balances contributions to trade surplus, and detriments to trade deficit nation's annual GDPs understate their effects upon their nation's GDP.


I'm a proponent of the improved policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, Supposn