USeless

[Berzerker]

VAT doesn't discriminate foreign or domestic. If you tried to replace a VAT with tariffs you'd need to "tariff" your domestic production as well as imports. (There are other differences, tariffs are much more prone to corruption and gaming, and invite retaliatory tariffs. Tariffs are just horrible in almost every case.)

You are right that our screwed up healthcare system disadvantages US businesses. Along with everyone else other than big pharma/insurance.

the vat sounds better and if applied to all sales I wouldn't view it as a tariff. We tax the sale of imports without calling it a tariff.

[Geronimo]

Right, because you were the one who believed Trump when he said he didn't know what project 2025 was, and that he wasn't going to surround himself with them.

The group he seems to be surrounded with seems to believe that manufacturing left the US because they have to pay too high salaries for too little work, and have to give those employees to much security and in general can't just dump crap anywhere.

I predicted plenty of project 2025 people would end up in his administration because there's nowhere else they could go and Trump would regard that as guarantee of loyalty which he values above all other qualities. I also predicted that project 2025 would prove useless for predicting Trump's goals because he won't "follow" its or anyone else's "goals". I also highly doubt Elon Musk and all of the rest of the appointees with no project 2025 buy in can be relied on to follow its goals, especially to follow goals that are only "documented" in dog whistle form or in the form of project 2025 opponents telling us what they are "really" aiming for.

[N35t0r]

For companies that sell domestically all of that discretionary income being diverted to tariffs will cut sales. For companies that sell exports all of those tariffs paid by themselves when importing their materials will either directly cut their bottom line or put them at a competitive disadvantage that costs them market share if they pass the expense on to their consumers. The only companies that would not be expected to underperform in response might be those that have little to no imported materials and overwhelmingly serve a domestic market. Surely that represents a relatively small share of the investment in the US. I don't understand how you imagine greater consumer pain in the US will somehow shield companies from all of this?

https://www.tomshardware.com/laptops/acer-ceo-10pc-price-rise-tariffs

Acer to increase all their laptops by 10% starting March.

[Geronimo]

https://www.tomshardware.com/laptops/acer-ceo-10pc-price-rise-tariffs

Acer to increase all their laptops by 10% starting March.

I don't understand why this is in a reply to my post. You thought I was saying that somehow only companies would pay for the tariffs and consumers would be somehow insulated? I was not. I expect almost across the board price hikes like these. No. I was wondering why capital didn't seem to be fleeing the US when materials of all kinds and indeed any inputs to process that can contain an import would be expected to become dramatically more expensive. For companies that largely rely on US consumers business will be worse as consumers bleed income to the tariffs and for companies that export they will lose customers due to the less competitive pricing. There isn't a formula where the US consumers lose a lot of money while the US companies retain their revenue.

[Berzerker]

Countries that already subsidize exports would probably expand that support if faced with tariffs. If a US export of grain was hit by a tariff I'd expect the lobbyists and politicians to increase domestic subsidies. Ofc that all depends on other market factors but a tariff on Chinese imports doesn't necessarily mean American consumers pay more, China might absorb some or all of the hit.

[Dauphin]

Countries that already subsidize exports would probably expand that support if faced with tariffs. If a US export of grain was hit by a tariff I'd expect the lobbyists and politicians to increase domestic subsidies. Ofc that all depends on other market factors but a tariff on Chinese imports doesn't necessarily mean American consumers pay more, China might absorb some or all of the hit.

If Chinese exporters can’t export to the U.S. due to a tariff, sure, the Chinese government may subsidize the exporter, reducing their export price to maintain revenues. But those exports won’t just go to US as before. Everyone globally gets that discount. So while the U.S. has become unprofitable due to tariffs, the subsidy allows borderline profitable markets to now be exploited more fulsomely. Or in other words, the market will shift to other countries rather than the US. US consumers get next to none of the relief of those subsidies - consumers in other countries will.

[N35t0r]

I don't understand why this is in a reply to my post. You thought I was saying that somehow only companies would pay for the tariffs and consumers would be somehow insulated? I was not. I expect almost across the board price hikes like these. No. I was wondering why capital didn't seem to be fleeing the US when materials of all kinds and indeed any inputs to process that can contain an import would be expected to become dramatically more expensive. For companies that largely rely on US consumers business will be worse as consumers bleed income to the tariffs and for companies that export they will lose customers due to the less competitive pricing. There isn't a formula where the US consumers lose a lot of money while the US companies retain their revenue.

Acer is happy with whatever fewer laptops they will sell due to the hike. They're apparently not even willing to consider eating into their profit margin in order to win market share, so they must think that their sales won't be affected as much. This is for a product that is 100% imported, so fully affected by the tariffs.

Clearly companies are still confident that they will be able to make bank, and even a US population with 10% less disposable income is a good market? Why would they flee the US?

[Berzerker]

If Chinese exporters can’t export to the U.S. due to a tariff, sure, the Chinese government may subsidize the exporter, reducing their export price to maintain revenues. But those exports won’t just go to US as before. Everyone globally gets that discount. So while the U.S. has become unprofitable due to tariffs, the subsidy allows borderline profitable markets to now be exploited more fulsomely. Or in other words, the market will shift to other countries rather than the US. US consumers get next to none of the relief of those subsidies - consumers in other countries will.

A subsidy can apply to a specific tariff/country. Other consumers w/o the tariff could end up paying more as the producer shifts costs to maintain access to the US market.

[Dauphin]

A subsidy can apply to a specific tariff/country. Other consumers w/o the tariff could end up paying more as the producer shifts costs to maintain access to the US market.

There would be no commercial incentive to do that. You would subsidise enough to support your industry. You would not pay a $100 per unit subsidy to sell to the US, when you can instead pay a $10 per unit subsidy to sell to literally anyone else.

[Geronimo]

Acer is happy with whatever fewer laptops they will sell due to the hike. They're apparently not even willing to consider eating into their profit margin in order to win market share, so they must think that their sales won't be affected as much. This is for a product that is 100% imported, so fully affected by the tariffs.

Clearly companies are still confident that they will be able to make bank, and even a US population with 10% less disposable income is a good market? Why would they flee the US?

wouldn't any capital flight from the US for its colossal trade stupidity be expected to be *to* companies like Acer anyway? How do their price hikes explain a lack of capital flight from the US? fat and happy Acer thriving in the face of US tariffs still doesn't explain anything.

[Berzerker]

There would be no commercial incentive to do that. You would subsidise enough to support your industry. You would not pay a $100 per unit subsidy to sell to the US, when you can instead pay a $10 per unit subsidy to sell to literally anyone else.

You would pay that if you made a profit and/or deterred startup competition and if need be you would raise the $10 cost to everyone else. Wiki data is a few years old but it shows the USA is lower than China and Canada. Trump said he wanted reciprocal rates.

[Dauphin]

You would pay that if you made a profit and/or deterred startup competition and if need be you would raise the $10 cost to everyone else. Wiki data is a few years old but it shows the USA is lower than China and Canada. Trump said he wanted reciprocal rates.

I have no idea what you are talking about now.

[N35t0r]

wouldn't any capital flight from the US for its colossal trade stupidity be expected to be *to* companies like Acer anyway?

To a company that's, according to you, about to lose an important market? Why would capital invest in them if so?

How do their price hikes explain a lack of capital flight from the US? fat and happy Acer thriving in the face of US tariffs still doesn't explain anything.

If Acer thinks it can increase prices, why wouldn't other, US-based companies, not be able to do the same? Acer, a company that sells 100% imported products , so one which gets hit with the worse of tariffs, doesn't seem too worried.
And soon, with no IRS, it's even more profits for us companies! What's not to love?

I seriously think you're just trolling at this point.

[Geronimo]

To a company that's, according to you, about to lose an important market? Why would capital invest in them if so?



If Acer thinks it can increase prices, why wouldn't other, US-based companies, not be able to do the same? Acer, a company that sells 100% imported products , so one which gets hit with the worse of tariffs, doesn't seem too worried.
And soon, with no IRS, it's even more profits for us companies! What's not to love?

I seriously think you're just trolling at this point.

hold on. Are you saying that you think it follows that if a company feels it can increase prices in a given market that this demonstrates that the market must remain a good investment opportunity so we shouldn't expect to see capital flight out of that market?

[Berzerker]

I have no idea what you are talking about now.

you said there was no incentive to pay a heavy subsidy, I can see a few - making a profit and/or deterring competitive start ups in the USA and acquiring greater marketshare. But that means the tariff has to be paid in other ways, increased domestic subsidies and/or charging more to other consumers. My point is a tariff will be paid for in several ways and not necessarily by the consumer. My taxes subsidize exports now to lower the cost of products for consumers in other countries. The USA pays thru the nose to the drug dealers partly because other markets restrict prices, European 'tariff's' on drugs translate into higher costs in the USA.