this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
170 points (93.4% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

14314 readers
74 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago

Tariffs aren't charged to the country or corporation the product came from. They are charged to the importer. It's literally a fee at customs to release the item into the country. Some companies take care of this for you if you're buying personally from overseas. Some do not and it is more transparent

Let's use alcohol as an example because I like scotch and some stores in the UK do and some don't. The ones that take care of customs for me would just show me a price of 68.75£ along with a warning that the exchange rate may cause a minor shift in price. The ones that do not would show a price of 55£ along with a warning about the exchange rate and that I need to deal with customs. Customs sends me a letter when the bottles arrive in the country saying I need to pay 17.26 US Dollars (about 13.75 in British money) to clear customs.

So that's why Trump's Tariffs are actually a sales tax on Americans. But why are countries going to retaliate?

That's because industry owners in affected countries are going to complain to their government about our government making their products more expensive in our country. It's okay if you need to read that a couple times, I did when I was learning about international economics. This is going to affect the trade balance between the two countries if they don't retaliate. It will make American goods cheaper and thus give them an advantage on the world stage because they always have a protected market at home to profit from.

This is especially disastrous when the countries are dissimilar in size. Like the US and UK. Take two producers of Soybeans. In the US they have twice the available production capacity (arable fields) and a protected market six times the size of the UK by population. So if the UK producer can only sell at market rate to 60 million people and the American producer can sell at market rate to 330 million people, the American producer can make more money before we even talk about international markets. So the American company has more money than the UK company to operate internationally.

Between the two countries specifically this means that without retaliatory tariffs the American company could even buyout or bankrupt the British company and replace it in British stores, without hiring British workers. That's an extremely important point in an economic system based on selling your labor. And why the workers will also demand retaliation.

I could keep going, there's a lot that goes into this but at the end of the day everyone's economy gets hurt. And the biggest thing to know is that there are two giant weak points in a trade war. Being a manufacturing country that exports a lot of stuff, (Mexico), and being a food importer, (USA). You'll notice I didn't mention China. That's because they import food mostly from Africa and export goods to Russia, Europe, and the rest of Asia. Our tariffs are not going to meaningfully hurt them. As far as Mexico, you may be thinking we'll just tariff their manufactured goods, but not their food. Well, let me introduce you to Exit Tariffs. They can make their food more expensive only in the US as a retaliation. Is that a bit self harming? Yeah, but what's worse? Less income or Less food?

And that's why Trump can't possibly win his Trade War.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

congrats

you are correct. this is exactly what's happening with Canada and Mexico.

why do it? purely speculative, but there's some convincing evidence that he's a Russian ~~asshole~~ asset and is attempting to weaken the US.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kgb-spy-russia/

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/03/trump-russian-asset-election-intelligence-community-report.html

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 307 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (15 children)

Tariffs suck for the country implementing the tariff. But before I tell you why they suck, let me tell you the way they are supposed to help.

Here’s the way tariffs are supposed to work according to people that like tariffs (spoiler alert, this thing I’m about to describe is a fantasy and I’ll explain why).

Let’s say people in the US can make widgets for $10 and sell them for $12 and have a viable business. But mean old foreign country can make widgets for $5 and sell them for $7 and have a viable business. The foreign country sells the people of the US widgets for $7, which is great if you live in the US and want to buy a widget but sucks if you live in the US and want to make a widget.

Tariffs are supposed to protect local businesses by making foreign goods less competitive. Let’s say we pass a law putting a $10 tariff on foreign widgets. I used to import widgets from foreign country and pay the manufacturer $5 per widget and sell them to Americans for $7. Now when I import the widget from the foreign country I still pay the manufacturer $5 per widget but now I have to pay the US government a tariff of $10 per widget. Each imported widget now costs me $15 and so I have to sell them for $17 to make a profit. This now means that American made widgets are competitive again, the locally made $12 widget is a great deal compared to the $17 imported one. Great if you are a US widget maker and shitty if you are a US widget buyer.

Now you might notice the people in the US buying widgets, even in the best fantasy scenario, end up getting dicked over. The theory goes that widget making jobs are good though and if we do that enough then everyone will have to pay more for goods but we will have lots of jobs making stuff that pay ok.

Now here’s the part that really, really sucks. Let’s say you are a US widget maker and now you know that your foreign competition can’t make a widget for less than $17. You could sell your widgets for $12 and have a viable business or you could sell them for $16.99 and have a super profitable business. I’ll just gesture broadly at the sea of corporate greed we find ourselves floating in and let you decide which is more likely.

Tariffs induce even local manufacturers to raise prices because it hurts competition. It’s basically a massive transfer of wealth from local consumers to local producers by cutting out the foreign producers and the competitive pressure they exert on the market. This is why basically every economist said “do this and kill the economy”

So why do people want tariffs? Well the promise for your average voter is that the tariffs are going to bring back good solid blue collar jobs. You can go work in a factory and pump out widgets and get a nice middle class paycheck. It’s a nice sales pitch and a lot of people would really want that to be true. I suspect though that the manufacturers will automate most of this work and pocket the profits, again, gestures broadly at the late stage capitalism hellscape all around us.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 240 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

there's one layer missing, which is that the US widget makers make their widgets from ingredients and components that don't exist in the US, if you put a tarrif on everything, you can't make a $12 US widget any more because widget juice now costs twice as much

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 179 points 1 day ago

Excellent point and kudos to you for knowing that widgets are juiced based.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

you can’t male a $12 US widget any more because widget juice now costs twice as much

At my job, I turn $20 of raw material into 25 pieces I sell for $16 each. Double my material costs, and to break even, I have to make another $20 from the sale of those 25 pieces. I have to charge $16.80 instead of $16.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 day ago

it depends on what you make. Margins on food, farming, automobiles, oil and gas, medical devices tend to be pretty small, comparatively speaking. Which are all fairly critical industries.

[–] tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Also : what does the government plan to do with all this new tax money?

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 53 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Since they're about to let go all of these gov employees, they will need a lot of money to hire consulting companies for pretty much everything. That's what started happening in France and Canada already.

These private companies consultants are so much more efficient and cheaper than low paid gov employees who've been running the ship for decades. You totally believe it, right?

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 29 points 1 day ago

Oh and don't look behind the curtain, it's definitely not Musk or someone similar who owns the consultant companies they happen to use federal funds on, nor do they just so happened to be big donors to Our Lord and Savior Trump™

No no no, that would be corruption to the core and we all know the incoming administration is comprised of all the Paragons of Virtue™ our society has to offer.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Build another wall?

EDIT: Silly me. It's for tax cuts to the rich. Of course.

[–] radicalautonomy@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

They'll do fuck all with my money because I'll be spending as little as fucking possible for the foreseeable future. Learning to sew to fix holes in old clothes instead of buying new ones, taking public transit a lot more (deeply discounted on account of my autism!), getting back into cooking, donating time in my community for the feel good chemicals instead of buying whatzits, and still giving the middle finger to winter ~~peer~~ family pressure gift giving holidays.

[–] 200ok@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago

10/10 ELI5. Bravo.

[–] jerry@fedia.io 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A tariff can be helpful if, for example, the Chinese government decides it wants to dominate the world market in widget production and so subsidizes the production of widgets by Chinese counties. This has happened in the past with steel.

But the downside is so much worse. And we experienced it not that long ago. Good read is here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/march/retaliatory-tariffs-reduced-u-s-states-exports-of-agricultural-commodities/

Basically, the US applied tariffs on a bunch of stuff from a bunch of counties. The stuff we bought produced in those counties or made from things produced in those countries became more expensive. (I remember washing machines becoming substantially more expensive as a result of the tariff since I had to buy one at the time).

But that’s not the end. Those countries applied retaliatory tariffs to stuff the US exports - mainly agricultural goods. Those things are commodities produced by many countries, so a bunch of them simply stopped buying the tariffed US products, and instead started sourcing them from places like Brazil. I’ll leave it an exercise to the reader to figure out whether there’s a link between US tariffs the accelerated destruction of the Amazon rainforest to satisfy sudden new demand for produce.

And here we are years later and while many of those tariffs are gone, the US agricultural industry never recovered much of that lost business.

[–] Klanky@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 day ago

Anti-dumping orders can be very specifically targeted (down to a manufacturing company level) to combat the issue in your first paragraph. Sometimes the duties can be over 100% on items that get ADD.

There are still high tariffs on many raw steel products from many countries - it’s called Section 232 duties.

[–] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

First, this is a great explanation and example. That being said, tarrifs can be good for the country implementing them in a very narrow set of circumstances.

Let’s say you are in a not very industrialized nation, maybe one recovering from colonialism or war. In that case almost everything is cheaper to import, and so it’s really difficult to get any economy going past subsistence farming. Targeted tariffs can help in that case to encourage local investment in the basic commodities needed to get the economy started.

Similarly, if you have one specific part of your economy that you really care about but it needs some help getting going, tarrifs can help to grow that sector.

In both cases, the tarrifs need to be narrowly targeted and be regularly monitored for when they should be phased out.

But in all cases, a large economy raising broad tarrifs is stupid.

[–] poszod@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

As an anecdote about this, most countries in South America charge a 100% import tax on almost all electronic devices (laptops, phones, pc parts, cameras, etc). Not only the exchange rates already make these purchases almost impossible, they also have to pay double. The ripple effects on the future of a country where people don't have access to the tools they might need to develop themselves is tragic.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A caveat. In your scenario, there is apparently only one widget maker in each country and they have a monopoly?

If widgets could be made in the US for $7 and sustainably priced at $9 to be a viable business, then they wouldn't be selling them for $16.99, because ten other US businesses would start up selling widgets for less.

Tariffs don't work for everything, but how many jobs in the US are in making something? What would you have of them? Because in the US you need like $25 an hour to make a living and we have health and safety implementations and labor laws. China pays their employees $2 an hour. They can undercut anything we could make in the US.

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

A small widget manufacturer attempting that would get bought out by a larger widget manufacturer because anti-trust laws are unenforced. A mid-size or large widget manufacturer would make more money by not doing that and instead forming a widget cartel with the other larger manufacturers because anti-cartel laws are unenforced.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Tarrifs are paid by the importer and cost passed on to the consumer. The idea is to make it comparatively cheaper to buy local and reduce dependency on China. The problem with it is that other countries will impose tarrifs on US exports as well so a lot of people will lose their jobs and prices go up but it will increase local manufacturing jobs on the other hand.

Generally speaking people are better off when there are no tarrifs

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It will increase automated manufacturing. We manufacture about 3 times as much stuff today in the US as we did in 1970. The problem is that we are doing it with 1/1000 the workforce. It will add very few jobs, just a lot more robots.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Very few is key here. The robots have to come from somewhere so those people win. A lot of those types of robots are bespoke for the location and even if they also have tariffs on getting them it's an upfront cost and will be only paid once so there is a huge difference between a single purchase, and sourcing product or material for your own manufacturing or sale

Robots will need maintenence so theres some jobs production jobs converted to maintenence, and that will be better for those specific jobs, but not to everyone else

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Yes it will absolutely raise virtually all consumer prices, across the board. Some more than others.

[–] art@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The dumbest thing Democrats did was not referring to tariffs as an Import Tax. A tax you pay to import the goods.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 7 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Harris/Walz referred to tariffs as a tax over and over again. None of his supporters listened or cared.

Many of them could have been personally taken to dinner by a nobel winning economist and would have still have shouted "fake news!" when they were told how tariffs work.

[–] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 23 hours ago

I mean, I wouldn’t say it is the dumbest thing, but it sure is up there.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The tariffs will be paid by the importing companies, and then it will cause the prices of those goods to rise.

The hope is that this will incentivize and result in more development of the American manufacturing sector, resulting in medium and long term gains.

Short term there will definitely be a cost, paid by us.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Long term the cost will also be paid by us. Prices won't go down when we start producing locally.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We can do that without import taxes. I deride Biden's CHIPs act as a giveaway to billionaires but it is certainly going to cause chip manufacturers to move their operations to the US instead of China. While I'm not excited about more low wage jobs, I'm less excited about import taxes that codify domestic monopolies and often cost jobs.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

How do you figure it would cost jobs? Just less economic activity over all? Importing business just can’t do business any more and goes under? That will definitely happen in some places, if those companies are just barely hanging on.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

Monopolies don't need as much manpower as companies in competition. There's less marketing, less customer service, less quality control, and ultimately less production staff. They don't care if the item gets back ordered, if you wait on hold for hours, or you think there's a better product overseas. They don't have to care.

[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The hope is that this will incentivize and result in more development of the American manufacturing sector

Tariffs alone are not enough. Expanding production is a long term investment, but there's no guarantee a tariff will still exist in 4 years. Its risky to invest capital to meet tariff-induced demand when that demand might disappear before your new factory is even finished being built.

Uncle Sam can mitigate that risk by subsidizing the construction of new factories while the tariffs are in place.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 21 hours ago

According to this video, Biden maintained at least some of the targeted tariffs Trump put in place before. So there might be some bipartisan support for tariffs across multiple Presidencies.

Unfamiliar with this channel so I can’t vouch for accuracy.

https://youtu.be/lD3FX_wxqUI

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

Tariffs are not meant to be a stimulator of your own economy, they are a more so a test of it's endurance. Let me explain.

Globalism is a double edged sword. We collectively came to the agreement to put it on every country themselves to figure out what they're good at and how they can survive on the global market. It got us as far as we are today. A country can specialize creating a product from the most available resources within it's borders be it natural resources or skilled/unskilled labor. Having access to the global market means way higher profits than just selling to your own people.

The problem with globalism is that it is completely unregulated by an overseeing entity, and since recent times have shown that hostile territorial takeovers are generally frowned upon, every country is essentially stuck with the resources it already got. This means some countries have lucked out and have more resources available than others and are therefore a bigger economic power. Generally the more complex the product your country is exporting is, the higher the state of development your country has. A lot of countries struggle to build a complex industries to meet global demands (see Korea with stem cell reasearch in the 90s and 2000s).

So if territorial takeovers are a no no, then economical takeovers are the peaceful alternative. The problem is that China has the most amount of manpower in the world, it isn't exactly a small country either and therefore has a lot of natural resources. If China was a culturally open and peacefull democracy, this wouldn't be an issue, but as we all know - it isn't. If China decides to take over a market - they can. Additionally the have always been 'rules for thee, not for me', China buys up other countries property and land but doesn't allow others to do the same for it.

Yes, in the end, everybody profits from the efficiency of globalism and open trade but the scales are not evenly tipped for all. This leaves most countries vulnerable to economic attacks from bigger global players. Tariffs are in a way a bargaining chip in the global market. The idea behind it is to say 'I'll take my business else where' in the hope that being a big enough importer that jumps ship, would be enough to damage the tariffed countries economy. It's essentially an economic attack from the bottom up.

An additional reason for US tariffs being bad is that it will weaken their relationship with China, and will turn China even more towards Russia, which is presumably the whole purpose given Trumps ties to Putin. All in all the next 4 years are going to be difficult for everybody.

[–] MyPornViewingAccount@lemmy.world 51 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Youre got the right conclusion, wrong start.

Tariffs are taxes paid by the company doing the importing, not the country.

If my company buys shirts from Canada, its not the canadians that pay that tax, its my company. And you can bet your ass im raising my prices.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FredFromWyoming@lemmy.world 46 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Okay, that's not how tariffs work, a tariff is just a tax on a foreign good that american companies have to pay when they bring that good into the country.

Let's say that a vacuum cleaner costs 100 dollars, a 25% tariff is a 25% tax that the company that brings that vacuum cleaner into the country has to pay. That company still wants to make a profit, so they raise the price by 25 dollars.

It's american companies that pay tariffs, and that extra cost gets passed on to the consumer. The reasoning behind it is that as foreign goods become more expensive consumers will want to buy more american made products. (This is a huge oversimplification)

So yes it does hurt american consumers, and it will make stuff more expensive. Most actual experts say that these tariffs make no sense economically.

However, Trump wants the tariffs because they look good politically, and he's willing to make things more expensive if it means people will vote for him.

TLDR: Tariffs will make stuff more expensive, but they're popular.

[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 46 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That company still wants to make a profit, so they raise the price by 25 dollars.

Or they raise the price by $40, do stock buybacks, lay off 10% of their workforce, close underperforming stores, and book their CEO on CNBC to squeal about "organized retail theft," and pay record bonuses to the execs.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You also just explained the last few years of inflation.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] takeda@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

Seeing questions like this is so scary that so many people don't get that simple concept.

Seeing stuff like this is mind blowing: https://youtube.com/shorts/bf3sLnZ0S04

Tariffs is just a fancy name for tax that you pay if you buy something from another country. The producers in that country already got paid, you pay that tax when the product is crossing the border.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yes. Theoretically, affected companies could move manufacturing onshore, but that takes years of planning, so realistically, won't happen.

Why? When all you know is a hammer...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, not really.

That logic only holds if american consumers have infinite money, which they dont. You cant just raise the prices indefinitely, eventually people just cant afford to buy the product so they dont buy it at all.

So it hurts everyone, the actual outcome is the product straight up just vaporizes off the proverbial shelves, you're supply dries up.

For canada this heavily includes:

  • Automobiles, enjoy going back to having year long + waits for getting your car you wanna buy
  • oil, gas prices will skyrocket because the US has its own supply, so people will still buy it but yeah, prices will just go sky high
  • Machinery, including construction equipment, refinery equipment, turbines, etc etc. So this will result in massively hiked up city level taxes as your local power plants, processing plants, etc find their repairs skyrocket in costs. Also potentially a lot of refineries and plants will no longer be able to afford operating costs so they'll just shut down, so unemployment will skyrocket
  • Medication, Im sure you see where that one ends up going...
  • Aircraft and Spacecraft

I don't know how the US thinks this isn't just shuffling money around as the primary money for this is from federal spending, so they're literally just imposing tariffs on themselves, which is pretty stupid. Par for the course though.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Shuffling it because he can say, "I'm going to cut your taxes!" And then do so and people say yay, he did what he said he was going to do, then he throws on the Tariffs and it taxes everyone across the board. What that means is he was able to directly increase the taxes on the lower and middle class, and get them to vote for it. While his decreases on taxes and the tarrifs end in a net positive for the rich still.

Shift the weight onto the masses who are struggling.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›