Trade Wars and Tariffs

#5,851
#5,851
beginning at 1:20 mark, seems like I said something similar to this a few months ago....




from GROK:

  • At the 1:20 mark, Victor Davis Hanson discusses how foreign competitors, such as Japanese, Chinese, and European entities, might have calculated that a 15% profit margin is sufficient to make money in the U.S. market without raising prices for American consumers.
  • He suggests that these competitors are willing to pay tariffs as an "entry charge" to access the vast U.S. consumer market, implying a strategic decision to accept the tariffs as part of their business model.
  • Hanson questions the conventional wisdom that tariffs would lead to higher prices for Americans, arguing that foreign entities might still find it profitable to operate under these conditions.
  • This perspective is set against the backdrop of recent trade negotiations between the U.S. and the EU, where a 15% tariff on EU exports to the U.S. was agreed upon, a significant increase from pre-2017 rates [The Guardian, 2025-07-28].
  • The discussion also relates to Hanson's personal experience with the raisin market, where EU subsidies in the 1980s led to market distortion, a concern that remains relevant given the lack of specific provisions for raisins in the new trade deal [EveryCRSReport.com, 2011-03-21].
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dalton_vol
#5,852
#5,852
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The EU has a $200B+ trade surplus with the US. Belgium individually hasn’t had a billion/month deficit for almost 2 years.

Verhofstadt is criticizing the entire US-EU deal, not Belgium’s slice.

He should be grateful. How much has Belgium benefited from US protection? They have spent well below the 2% they’re supposed to. Brussels also is headquarters of NATO - they might even be making a profit.
Click to expand...
you said "if BELGIUM doesn't like it they can kick rocks"

get your talking points right before you go parroting whatever Trump regeritates to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#5,854
#5,854
jmacvols1 said:
beginning at 1:20 mark, seems like I said something similar to this a few months ago....




from GROK:

  • At the 1:20 mark, Victor Davis Hanson discusses how foreign competitors, such as Japanese, Chinese, and European entities, might have calculated that a 15% profit margin is sufficient to make money in the U.S. market without raising prices for American consumers.
  • He suggests that these competitors are willing to pay tariffs as an "entry charge" to access the vast U.S. consumer market, implying a strategic decision to accept the tariffs as part of their business model.
  • Hanson questions the conventional wisdom that tariffs would lead to higher prices for Americans, arguing that foreign entities might still find it profitable to operate under these conditions.
  • This perspective is set against the backdrop of recent trade negotiations between the U.S. and the EU, where a 15% tariff on EU exports to the U.S. was agreed upon, a significant increase from pre-2017 rates [The Guardian, 2025-07-28].
  • The discussion also relates to Hanson's personal experience with the raisin market, where EU subsidies in the 1980s led to market distortion, a concern that remains relevant given the lack of specific provisions for raisins in the new trade deal [EveryCRSReport.com, 2011-03-21].
Click to expand...

He's assuming that the exporter is paying that 15% tariff rather than the importer and I'm not certain that he's accurate with that
 
#5,855
#5,855
Thunder Good-Oil said:
They can kick rocks.

My aren’t you triggered by the trade deals being a yuge success?
Click to expand...
what makes you think I am triggered? you made a bad point, and I called you on it.

I am old enough to remember government "deals" that never came to fruition. I tend to wait until after the headlines have faded to see if anything happens before I claim victory.
 
#5,856
#5,856
Sea Ray said:
He's assuming that the exporter is paying that 15% tariff rather than the importer and I'm not certain that he's accurate with that
Click to expand...

The importer will now pay 15% to the Treasury and 85% to the exporters instead of 100% to the exporters.

If the tariffs are 50% or more the exporter may not have enough profit margin to cover it. So we stop buying those goods. Same result as an embargo. Cheating needs to be punished instead of enabled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#5,857
#5,857
LouderVol said:
what makes you think I am triggered? you made a bad point, and I called you on it.

I am old enough to remember government "deals" that never came to fruition. I tend to wait until after the headlines have faded to see if anything happens before I claim victory.
Click to expand...
It’s hilarious claiming these deals are a huge success anyway. Across the board tariffs have gone from low single digits to upper teens. “The exporter will pay the costs and there are no price increases!” Hill posts data showing the costs are split 59/31/10% by importer/consumer/exporter. And my favorite “there wasn’t any inflation from Trump’s first term we only got inflation when Biden hit office!” So to explain away why there won’t be any inflation from these tariffs after only four months they point to Trump’s first term timeline that showed… inflation lagged spending easily by half a year to a year 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#5,858
#5,858
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The importer will now pay 15% to the Treasury and 85% to the exporters instead of 100% to the exporters.

If the tariffs are 50% or more the exporter may not have enough profit margin to cover it. So we stop buying those goods. Same result as an embargo. Cheating needs to be punished instead of enabled.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't the importer pay 115% percent as in 100% to the exporter and 15% to the US treasury?

Let's use a $100 bottle of French wine as an example. I'm saying that the wine store in the US that imports it will pay $100 to the French winery and $15 to the US treasury. You're saying that the American wine store will now pay $85 to the winery and $15 to the US treasury. I don't think that's correct
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#5,859
#5,859
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The importer will now pay 15% to the Treasury and 100% to the exporters instead of 100% to the exporters.

If the tariffs are 50% or more the exporter may not have enough profit margin to cover it. So we stop buying those goods. Same result as an embargo. Cheating needs to be punished instead of enabled.
Click to expand...
FYP. Damn you suck at math.

And yes Hill posted data showing the tariff payment breakdown was 59/31/10 by importer/consumer/exporter
 
#5,860
#5,860
LouderVol said:
what makes you think I am triggered? you made a bad point, and I called you on it.

I am old enough to remember government "deals" that never came to fruition. I tend to wait until after the headlines have faded to see if anything happens before I claim victory.
Click to expand...

You wish it was a bad point. Verhofstadt is criticizing the deal. Our economy isn’t dependent on the (SHRINKING) surplus with Belgium. They can kick rocks.

So did you wait before criticizing all of the trade deals until the administration had negotiated them?
 
#5,862
#5,862
NorthDallas40 said:
FYP. Damn you suck at math.

And yes Hill posted data showing the tariff payment breakdown was 59/31/10 by importer/consumer/exporter
Click to expand...

The math is apparently over your head. The exporters can cover a 15% tariff by lowering the price as long as there’s room in their profit margins now.

Whether it’s the importer or exporter making the actual remittance to the Treasury is semantics. Cost to the importer - 100%. Revenue to the Tewasury - 15%. Revenue to the foreign exporter is now 85%.

If imported goods now cost 115% then the domestic producer becomes more competitive.

Another positive, the importer pays income tax on their profits and the US workers do as well.
 
#5,863
#5,863
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The math is apparently over your head. The exporters can cover a 15% tariff by lowering the price as long as there’s room in their profit margins now.

Whether it’s the importer or exporter making the actual remittance to the Treasury is semantics. Cost to the importer - 100%. Revenue to the Tewasury - 15%. Revenue to the foreign exporter is now 85%.

If imported goods now cost 115% then the domestic producer becomes more competitive.

Another positive, the importer pays income tax on their profits and the US workers do as well.
Click to expand...

Taxes are never a positive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh and NorthDallas40
#5,864
#5,864
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The math is apparently over your head. The exporters can cover a 15% tariff by lowering the price as long as there’s room in their profit margins now.

Whether it’s the importer or exporter making the actual remittance to the Treasury is semantics. Cost to the importer - 100%. Revenue to the Tewasury - 15%. Revenue to the foreign exporter is now 85%.

If imported goods now cost 115% then the domestic producer becomes more competitive.

Another positive, the importer pays income tax on their profits and the US workers do as well.
Click to expand...
Look up one post at the table. Womp womp 🤡
 
#5,865
#5,865
Thunder Good-Oil said:
You wish it was a bad point. Verhofstadt is criticizing the deal. Our economy isn’t dependent on the (SHRINKING) surplus with Belgium. They can kick rocks.

So did you wait before criticizing all of the trade deals until the administration had negotiated them?
Click to expand...
I have been criticizing the celebrations of them. especially when they lead to worse tariffs than were there before.

you had a bad point because you assumed belgium had some big trade imbalance over the US that was being "corrected" by the deal. the reality wasn't anywhere close to that.

he is right to complain because there is now more money wasted on the government instead of being spent where it is actually needed. regardless of who actually pays what it is less money in the actual economy and more money for Trump's new air force 1 that won't be available until 10 years after he is probably dead. I don't call that "winning"
 
#5,872
#5,872
jmacvols1 said:
beginning at 1:20 mark, seems like I said something similar to this a few months ago....




from GROK:

  • At the 1:20 mark, Victor Davis Hanson discusses how foreign competitors, such as Japanese, Chinese, and European entities, might have calculated that a 15% profit margin is sufficient to make money in the U.S. market without raising prices for American consumers.
  • He suggests that these competitors are willing to pay tariffs as an "entry charge" to access the vast U.S. consumer market, implying a strategic decision to accept the tariffs as part of their business model.
  • Hanson questions the conventional wisdom that tariffs would lead to higher prices for Americans, arguing that foreign entities might still find it profitable to operate under these conditions.
  • This perspective is set against the backdrop of recent trade negotiations between the U.S. and the EU, where a 15% tariff on EU exports to the U.S. was agreed upon, a significant increase from pre-2017 rates [The Guardian, 2025-07-28].
  • The discussion also relates to Hanson's personal experience with the raisin market, where EU subsidies in the 1980s led to market distortion, a concern that remains relevant given the lack of specific provisions for raisins in the new trade deal [EveryCRSReport.com, 2011-03-21].
Click to expand...


Japan, China and Europe are just gonna eat the new tax? History begs to differ. Your Trump mouthpiece there is an ass clown.

Per Grok:

Are japanese, chinese and european businesses going to raise prices due to president trump's new tariffs on these countries?

Yes, Japanese, Chinese, and European businesses are likely to raise prices due to President Trump’s new tariffs, though the extent and timing depend on various factors. Here’s a breakdown based on available information:

Japanese Businesses​

  • Impact of Tariffs: Trump’s tariffs, including a 24% reciprocal tariff on Japanese goods and a 25% tariff on automobiles and parts (reduced to 15% for Japanese cars after negotiations), significantly affect Japan’s export-heavy economy, particularly its automotive sector, which accounts for 20% of its exports to the U.S.. For example, Toyota projected a $1.3 billion profit hit in April-May 2025 due to these tariffs, and companies like Honda and Nissan are facing similar pressures, with Nissan considering plant closures in Japan.nytimes.comnytimes.comnytimes.com
  • Price Increases: The 15% tariff on Japanese cars could add substantial costs to vehicles sold in the U.S. For instance, a luxury car could see a price hike of $15,000 or more. Japanese firms may pass these costs to U.S. consumers to maintain profitability, especially since the automotive supply chain is deeply integrated and reliant on U.S. markets. Additionally, Japan’s Nikkei 225 fell 7.8% on April 7, 2025, reflecting market concerns about higher costs and reduced competitiveness.nytimes.comen.wikipedia.org
  • Mitigation Efforts: Japan has approved a $6.3 billion spending package to support businesses and households affected by tariffs, which may temporarily absorb some costs. However, analysts estimate a potential 0.8% reduction in Japan’s GDP, suggesting that price increases are likely as companies cannot fully absorb these costs long-term.nytimes.comen.wikipedia.org

Chinese Businesses​

  • Impact of Tariffs: Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods have escalated to 145% (up from 104%), targeting a wide range of products like electronics, footwear, and appliances, which make up 46.4% of U.S. imports from China. These tariffs, combined with the elimination of the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods, severely impact e-commerce giants like Temu and Shein, which rely on low-cost shipments. Nomura Holdings estimates that this could slow Chinese export growth by 1.3 percentage points and GDP growth by 0.2 points.aljazeera.comcnbc.comen.wikipedia.org
  • Price Increases: Studies from Trump’s first term (2018-2019) showed a nearly one-for-one pass-through of tariff costs to U.S. import prices, suggesting Chinese exporters are unlikely to absorb the full cost of the 145% tariffs. Companies like Apple, heavily reliant on Chinese manufacturing, may face higher production costs, potentially increasing prices for iPhones and other electronics by up to 20% unless they shift production elsewhere (e.g., to India or Vietnam). Chinese firms are also stockpiling goods in U.S. warehouses to delay price hikes, but once these reserves deplete, consumer prices are expected to rise.jpmorgan.comnpr.orgaljazeera.com
  • Retaliation and Adaptation: China has retaliated with 125% tariffs on U.S. goods, which could further complicate global supply chains and increase costs. Some Chinese companies are adapting by expanding U.S.-based distribution facilities, but this is unlikely to fully offset the tariff impact.en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org

European Businesses​

  • Impact of Tariffs: The European Union faces a 30% tariff on goods exported to the U.S. (initially proposed at 50%, delayed to August 1, 2025). These tariffs affect a broad range of products, including vehicles, machinery, and food imports. The Stoxx Europe 600 index dropped 1.7% in response to the initial tariff announcement, indicating market concerns about reduced competitiveness.en.wikipedia.orgnytimes.comen.wikipedia.org
  • Price Increases: European companies, particularly in the automotive sector (e.g., Germany’s luxury car manufacturers), are likely to pass on tariff costs to U.S. consumers. A 30% tariff could add significant costs to vehicles, with estimates suggesting luxury car prices could rise by $15,000 or more. Food imports, such as olive oil, are also expected to see price hikes as European exporters face higher duties. Businesses may delay price increases by relying on pre-tariff stockpiles, but this is a short-term strategy.nytimes.comfinance.yahoo.comnytimes.com
  • Negotiation and Retaliation: The EU is actively negotiating with the U.S. to avoid steeper tariffs, with talks involving Chinese and Japanese officials to explore trade diversion mechanisms. However, the EU has signaled potential retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods (e.g., bourbon, motorcycles) if negotiations fail, which could further drive up costs globally.en.wikipedia.orgcnbc.compbs.org

Broader Considerations​

  • Consumer Impact: Across all regions, tariffs are likely to increase U.S. consumer prices. The Tax Foundation estimates that tariffs on Chinese, Canadian, and Mexican goods alone could add $1,072-$1,300 per U.S. household annually, with similar effects expected from Japanese and European tariffs. Sectors like automotive, electronics, and food are particularly vulnerable.pbs.orgnpr.org
  • Business Strategies: Companies may mitigate costs by absorbing some losses, relocating production (e.g., to the U.S. or other countries like Vietnam), or diversifying supply chains. However, these strategies take time and may not fully offset tariff impacts, leading to higher prices in the short-to-medium term.claconnect.comnpr.org
  • Economic Risks: J.P. Morgan estimates a 60% chance of a global recession by year-end 2025 due to these tariffs, as they disrupt supply chains and reduce global trade. This could force businesses to raise prices further to cover losses from reduced demand.reuters.com

Conclusion​

Japanese, Chinese, and European businesses are likely to raise prices in response to Trump’s tariffs, as the high rates (15-145%) make it unsustainable to absorb costs fully. While some firms may delay price hikes through stockpiling or production shifts, the consensus among economists is that consumers will bear much of the cost, particularly in sectors like automotive, electronics, and food. Ongoing negotiations and potential retaliatory tariffs could further complicate the situation, but price increases appear inevitable in the near term.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top