Trump Tariffs would increase laptop prices by 45%(tomshardware.com)
tomshardware.com
Trump Tariffs would increase laptop prices by 45%
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/trump-tariffs-increase-laptop-electronics-prices
31 comments
It feels rather like Brexit. Economists: “If you do this, the obvious things will happen.” Brexiteers: “Project fear! Sunlit uplands!” [… the obvious things happen] Brexiteers: “How could Europe do this to us?!”
If he gets in and actually brings in these tariffs (there’s a non-zero chance he’s just talking about it to appeal to idiots), then he will blame everyone but himself when the obvious happens, and the idiots will believe it. So there will be no _personal_ consequences to him, therefore it is fine.
If he gets in and actually brings in these tariffs (there’s a non-zero chance he’s just talking about it to appeal to idiots), then he will blame everyone but himself when the obvious happens, and the idiots will believe it. So there will be no _personal_ consequences to him, therefore it is fine.
>The only ways I can see supporting these wild numbers are either 1) assuming he's joking, or 2) being truly financially illiterate.
He's a master at getting publicity by saying outrageous stuff. Which then gets mostly forgotten about. Remember 'build that wall'? I'm not sure you'd call it a joke but it got lots of publicity and didn't happen. This is probably similar.
He's a master at getting publicity by saying outrageous stuff. Which then gets mostly forgotten about. Remember 'build that wall'? I'm not sure you'd call it a joke but it got lots of publicity and didn't happen. This is probably similar.
> I don't have a high opinion of Trump but I also can't believe he's that stupid.
And that's why he gets away with all these ridiculous outbursts.
Remember how he suggested to inject disinfectant against covid?
Sometimes the simple answer is correct: he's that stupid.
And that's why he gets away with all these ridiculous outbursts.
Remember how he suggested to inject disinfectant against covid?
Sometimes the simple answer is correct: he's that stupid.
He didn't actually say that. He said
"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."
Ie. he asked if there was something that could be injected that would kill the virus.
I'm not a Trump fan but many people on the left seem to think saying he said stupid stuff he didn't say is a sure fire way to stop him being elected but you know people see through it.
"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."
Ie. he asked if there was something that could be injected that would kill the virus.
I'm not a Trump fan but many people on the left seem to think saying he said stupid stuff he didn't say is a sure fire way to stop him being elected but you know people see through it.
> Ie. he asked if there was something that could be injected that would kill the virus.
There's a word for making charitable interpretations: sanewashing.
> I'm not a Trump fan but many people on the left
I'm neither on the left or an American.
There's a word for making charitable interpretations: sanewashing.
> I'm not a Trump fan but many people on the left
I'm neither on the left or an American.
There is no end game other than trump knows the people who support him don't understand how tariffs work, so they believe that he is supporting an America first policy.
Isn't a tariff bad for consumers of foreign products but good for domestic manufacturers and workers?
Yes --- the obvious problem is that virtually everyone in the USA is a consumer of foreign products --- including domestic manufacturers and workers.
In other words, virtually everyone will pay more. The only real winner is government which gets a new income stream.
Simple minded solutions for simple minded folks.
In other words, virtually everyone will pay more. The only real winner is government which gets a new income stream.
Simple minded solutions for simple minded folks.
yes, baby boomers lived well, but that was a different world and a different economy. and that analogy fits really well because i think that's where trumps appeal lies, "let's get back to how the boomer generation lived (Make America Great Again)" but the reality of the present is that the nation and the world have moved on from there. to go back would require a feat of economics that i'm not sure is survivable.
To go back would require a destruction of the rest of the world's manufacturing capability, like what happened during WWII.
Boomers refuse to admit how much the destruction caused by WWII made their lives better.
Boomers refuse to admit how much the destruction caused by WWII made their lives better.
i dont believe it’s a deliberate stance. I think there’s a human tendency to do the best you can in the moment that you have, and then reflect on that with some fondness.
The baby boomers lived well, before so many industries and jobs were offshored.
And before labor unions were suppressed ... and before executives started consuming almost all the increases in productivity ... and before the education system produced a mindless generation that can't think for themselves.
In other words, the Boomers lived well until the Boomers screwed it all up. Now they're whining about the mess they made for the rest of us to deal with.
Just whining wouldn't be much of a problem.
The problem is they think they have found a simple minded shortcut back to the good ole days.
The reality is you can never go back and trying what looks like a shortcut will only make things even worse.
The problem is they think they have found a simple minded shortcut back to the good ole days.
The reality is you can never go back and trying what looks like a shortcut will only make things even worse.
good point on executive salaries.
> During his current campaign, the GOP candidate and 45th president has promised to impose massive tariffs of 10 to 20% on goods from all countries plus a special 60% rate for those from China
If you work for one of the many, many American companies that makes stuff solely from inputs from America, which themselves are American all the way down, then sure, might be good (provided you only buy American stuff). If you work for an American company which needs to buy stuff (surely there are very few of those), then, well, not so great.
And tariffs tend to breed retaliatory tariffs.
Realistically the only way heavy protectionism can work (for some value of ‘work’; the quality of goods in such countries tends to be very low due to lack of competition) is if you’re verging on an autarky. This is, well, something that is generally imposed on countries, not something that they opt for themselves because it sounds nice.
If you work for one of the many, many American companies that makes stuff solely from inputs from America, which themselves are American all the way down, then sure, might be good (provided you only buy American stuff). If you work for an American company which needs to buy stuff (surely there are very few of those), then, well, not so great.
And tariffs tend to breed retaliatory tariffs.
Realistically the only way heavy protectionism can work (for some value of ‘work’; the quality of goods in such countries tends to be very low due to lack of competition) is if you’re verging on an autarky. This is, well, something that is generally imposed on countries, not something that they opt for themselves because it sounds nice.
Depends on where the worker is in the supply chain. For example:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-american-steel-protectionism-h...
"Numerous economic analyses have shown that these measures raise domestic steel prices and harm steel-consuming U.S. manufacturers, including by disadvantaging them against foreign competitors with access to lower-cost (less-tariffed) steel inputs."
I suppose there's something to the argument that steel is a security priority and protecting it is worth some cost, but there is definitely a cost.
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-american-steel-protectionism-h...
"Numerous economic analyses have shown that these measures raise domestic steel prices and harm steel-consuming U.S. manufacturers, including by disadvantaging them against foreign competitors with access to lower-cost (less-tariffed) steel inputs."
I suppose there's something to the argument that steel is a security priority and protecting it is worth some cost, but there is definitely a cost.
I'm not an economist but I think that's true if there is enough domestic competition for foreign products. If a majority of things the average consumer in the US buys are foreign made then the tariffs would hurt more than help, at least that's what makes sense to me.
According to Trump, "... the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff".
His second most beautiful word must be "stupid" --- because it describes his followers who obviously don't understand that "tariff" is really a tax on them.
His second most beautiful word must be "stupid" --- because it describes his followers who obviously don't understand that "tariff" is really a tax on them.
the "pro" argument is that it reinforces him as the most patriotic leader available, primarily with nationalists. i agree with you that he's not that stupid, but i believe that he's counting on his audience to either be that economically illiterate, or to be so rabidly supportive of him that they'll go along with it.
to wit, a few conversations with some red hats that i've had:
"tariffs will put america first and make us be more dependent on american-made goods and services" "but, at least in the near-term, tariffs will also create shortages AND further price increases, which is a major sticking point for you with 'bidenomics'" "no they wont"
"i'm happy to see that trump is putting america first and seeking to level the economic playing field with other nations. globalization has been a setback" ... (establish that they're talking about tariffs) "until the us can get up to speed with the raw materials and manufacturing of things that we've traditionally imported from these companies, there will likely be shortages and price increases" "that is a small price to pay. sometimes you have to make sacrifices to do what is right."
i'll reserve judgment on these conversations outside of the assessment that trump is hoping that the majority of his supporters fall into a category such as one of the two above.
to wit, a few conversations with some red hats that i've had:
"tariffs will put america first and make us be more dependent on american-made goods and services" "but, at least in the near-term, tariffs will also create shortages AND further price increases, which is a major sticking point for you with 'bidenomics'" "no they wont"
"i'm happy to see that trump is putting america first and seeking to level the economic playing field with other nations. globalization has been a setback" ... (establish that they're talking about tariffs) "until the us can get up to speed with the raw materials and manufacturing of things that we've traditionally imported from these companies, there will likely be shortages and price increases" "that is a small price to pay. sometimes you have to make sacrifices to do what is right."
i'll reserve judgment on these conversations outside of the assessment that trump is hoping that the majority of his supporters fall into a category such as one of the two above.
odd that this was downvoted considering it has no emotional component and was a neutral assessment.
I think the "pro" argument is that, if you make imports too expensive, we will have to revert to domestic manufacturing. Even if that leads to higher prices, it also leads to more domestic jobs and more domestic companies. That might be a net win, even with the higher prices.
The "con" reply to the "pro" argument is that, even if that's all true, the prices still go up, and that's probably a losing political argument if people actually understood what it was going to mean.
The "con" reply to the "pro" argument is that, even if that's all true, the prices still go up, and that's probably a losing political argument if people actually understood what it was going to mean.
> I also can't believe he's that stupid
His staff had to steal papers off his desk to prevent him from signing stupid shit that would hurt the US and its allies.
https://www.axios.com/2018/09/07/trump-bob-woodward-south-ko...
If he's re-elected, he'll be surrounded by sycophants this time, and no one will be there to stop him.
His staff had to steal papers off his desk to prevent him from signing stupid shit that would hurt the US and its allies.
https://www.axios.com/2018/09/07/trump-bob-woodward-south-ko...
If he's re-elected, he'll be surrounded by sycophants this time, and no one will be there to stop him.
Totally false, that never happened.
I offer no supporting evidence for my claim.
No, he really is that stupid. See the recent interview with Bloomberg's editor, who actually pushed him on the idea of tariffs, and he just threw a tantrum rather than admit he didn't actually understand how tariffs work.
If Trump implements his proposed tariffs of 10 / 20 % on all countries and 60% extra on China, consumers would lose $90 billion in purchasing power.
That’s just the start of it. There is approximately no significant manufacturing enterprise anywhere in the developed world which does not use at least some foreign imports or equipment. Prices for domestically produced goods would also rise, significantly.
The US would also face retaliatory tariffs.
The US would also face retaliatory tariffs.
What about second-order effects? If Trump does these tariffs, then other countries are likely to do the same to US exports. If that happens, how much do Americans lose in earning power? Has anyone done that analysis?
[deleted]
Edit: I also note that the tariff levels he's talking about are absolutely beyond sanity. I saw an interview where he said "100%, 200%, even 2000%" when throwing out numbers for EV tariffs on China. I have to assume this is hyperbolic but he's talking about it as if he's serious. The only ways I can see supporting these wild numbers are either 1) assuming he's joking, or 2) being truly financially illiterate.