|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43241 Posts
On July 28 2025 22:33 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2025 19:12 micronesia wrote:
If I'm reading that right, all Trump did was decide what tax rate to apply to U.S. citizens on imported goods (from EU), with no action needed from the EU. It's kind of funny Trump had to "negotiate" that. I mean, sure, we can all decide to look at it like that, but if we are being real these costs are going to be eaten not only by the customers, but also the importers and exporters, it's never going to be just on the US costumers. Let's say that half of the 15 % flat rate tariff 5 % gets eaten by the US customer and 5 % the importer, the other 5 % is still a competitive disadvantage for EU based companies because they will need to eat it, while the US companies don't have to deal with any of that. And for the privilege of not getting nuked by 30 % we also get Ursula to promise Trump things that are basically already happening so he looks better, or in the case of energy just make some wild numbers up for the same propose.
There are some real problems with the way you’re doing maths which imply some deeper issues with your understanding.
|
|
|
United States43241 Posts
In fairness Mar-a-Lago is also a place where children were trafficked for abuse and he loves that place too. If you were to eliminate the sex trafficking locations then that basically rules out most of where he spends time.
|
On July 28 2025 23:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2025 22:33 Jankisa wrote:On July 28 2025 19:12 micronesia wrote:
If I'm reading that right, all Trump did was decide what tax rate to apply to U.S. citizens on imported goods (from EU), with no action needed from the EU. It's kind of funny Trump had to "negotiate" that. I mean, sure, we can all decide to look at it like that, but if we are being real these costs are going to be eaten not only by the customers, but also the importers and exporters, it's never going to be just on the US costumers. Let's say that half of the 15 % flat rate tariff 5 % gets eaten by the US customer and 5 % the importer, the other 5 % is still a competitive disadvantage for EU based companies because they will need to eat it, while the US companies don't have to deal with any of that. And for the privilege of not getting nuked by 30 % we also get Ursula to promise Trump things that are basically already happening so he looks better, or in the case of energy just make some wild numbers up for the same propose. There are some real problems with the way you’re doing maths which imply some deeper issues with your understanding.
Did you just wake up today and decide to come to a few threads to shit on things I write without really offering anything else to the discussion?
Maybe this is a topic for the meta discussion thread about this but this seems like a pretty nonconstructive way to go about posting in general and modding in particular.
|
United States43241 Posts
You have three parties each taking half of a two party transaction.
|
Trump considers it a "privilege" to go to Epstein's island!? Yikes.
|
We are talking about 15 % figure being divided into 3 parts.
I think that math prefaced by "let's say" should be fairly obviously there as back of the napkin illustration to anyone who reads this with any semblance of good faith:
15 / 3 = 5
5 % = eaten by customers in the US.
5 % = eaten by the US importing companies.
10 % - 15 % = 5 % = competitive advantage for US exporting companies as compared to EU companies that try to do the same the other way around.
Obviously I'm not an economist and have never tried to present myself as one, and obviously this doesn't work 1:1 because it's 2 different markets and finding an exact match of import/export parity between these kind of companies would be very hard, but the post was there to just illustrate how this is not just "US customers eating the 15 % tariff" as micronesia wrote because EU still got shafted in the deal.
I don't know why I'm spending the time replying to bad faith one liners but I guess I can't change my nature.
|
With the focus largely being how terrible Trump/Republicans are for the last ~10 years, Democrats clearly need a better strategy for the midterms.
_____________Favorable_Unfavorable_Spread
President Trump____44.7____52.0______-7.3
Republican Party____42.4____54.3______-11.9
Democratic Party____36.7____58.9______-22.2
www.realclearpolling.com
Democrats could still turn it around before midterms, but things are not looking good.
|
United States43241 Posts
A transaction normally has a buyer and a seller. If I understand you correctly you’re saying the buyer might not pay for all of the cost increase if they choose to split it. Assuming the seller has sufficient existing margins then that could be true. But then you introduce a third party, a competitive advantage, who also chips in 5. I’m not sure who that third party is in the sale of a good.
|
On July 29 2025 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:With the focus largely being how terrible Trump/Republicans are for the last ~10 years, Democrats clearly need a better strategy for the midterms. Show nested quote +_____________Favorable_Unfavorable_Spread
President Trump____44.7____52.0______-7.3
Republican Party____42.4____54.3______-11.9
Democratic Party____36.7____58.9______-22.2
www.realclearpolling.comDemocrats could still turn it around before midterms, but things are not looking good.
Those polls need way more details. You could be unfavorable for diametrically opposed things. You may have some people saying they are unfavorable because democrats havent cooperated with trump, some people because they think they are cooperating too much. Others about gaza. Its meaningless when its that general. What does unfavorable even mean? That they wont vote for them? Vote for them under conditions? Etc
|
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer.
|
United States43241 Posts
On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer.
That doesn't really follow.
You've turned the American side of the transaction into two components and you're calling them separate but they're not.
Let's set the cost at $100 for simplicity's sake. $15 is owed to Trump by the American company that bought it. That's why people always say "Americans are paying the tariffs".
The suggestion is that the Americans paying the tariff could ask for a $5 rebate from the foreign exporter. Maybe they could. I don't see why they'd get one but whatever.
But for the purposes of our argument, whether or not Americans are paying the tariff, there isn't a third party. The importing company is paying the tariff, consumers aren't involved. There's a separate question of how the American importing company's margins might be impacted by the tariff and how they will attempt to protect their margins but that doesn't make the final consumers a party to the transaction. If we call the consumers a third party in that transaction then there is no business transaction to which they're not a third party.
And in any case they're both in the same category, Americans.
|
On July 29 2025 02:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer. That doesn't really follow. You've turned the American side of the transaction into two components and you're calling them separate but they're not. Let's set the cost at $100 for simplicity's sake. $15 is owed to Trump by the American company that bought it. That's why people always say "Americans are paying the tariffs". The suggestion is that the Americans paying the tariff could ask for a $5 rebate from the foreign exporter. Maybe they could. I don't see why they'd get one but whatever. But for the purposes of our argument, whether or not Americans are paying the tariff, there isn't a third party. The importing company is paying the tariff, consumers aren't involved. There's a separate question of how the American importing company's margins might be impacted by the tariff and how they will attempt to protect their margins but that doesn't make the final consumers a party to the transaction. If we call the consumers a third party in that transaction then there is no business transaction to which they're not a third party. And in any case they're both in the same category, Americans. They are claiming the company will pass $5 on to the consumer by increasing prices by $5, the company choses to earn $5 less per sale and they demand the supplier sells it to them at $95 instead of $100.
It sounds like a nice even split on paper, but is actually completely pulled out of someone ass with no evidence.
|
On July 29 2025 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:With the focus largely being how terrible Trump/Republicans are for the last ~10 years, Democrats clearly need a better strategy for the midterms. Show nested quote +_____________Favorable_Unfavorable_Spread
President Trump____44.7____52.0______-7.3
Republican Party____42.4____54.3______-11.9
Democratic Party____36.7____58.9______-22.2
www.realclearpolling.comDemocrats could still turn it around before midterms, but things are not looking good. I'm very unfavorable towards the Democratic Party over their utter refusal to put even a performative fight against the current WH.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote D if I was eligible to vote.
Welcome to a 2 party system.
You actually want to try and make a difference then vote in primaries for candidates who will actually put up a fight.
|
United States43241 Posts
On July 29 2025 02:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 02:15 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer. That doesn't really follow. You've turned the American side of the transaction into two components and you're calling them separate but they're not. Let's set the cost at $100 for simplicity's sake. $15 is owed to Trump by the American company that bought it. That's why people always say "Americans are paying the tariffs". The suggestion is that the Americans paying the tariff could ask for a $5 rebate from the foreign exporter. Maybe they could. I don't see why they'd get one but whatever. But for the purposes of our argument, whether or not Americans are paying the tariff, there isn't a third party. The importing company is paying the tariff, consumers aren't involved. There's a separate question of how the American importing company's margins might be impacted by the tariff and how they will attempt to protect their margins but that doesn't make the final consumers a party to the transaction. If we call the consumers a third party in that transaction then there is no business transaction to which they're not a third party. And in any case they're both in the same category, Americans. They are claiming the company will pass $5 on to the consumer by increasing prices by $5, the company choses to earn $5 less per sale and they demand the supplier sells it to them at $95 instead of $100. It sounds like a nice even split on paper, but is actually completely pulled out of someone ass with no evidence.
It's not that it's pulled out of thin air, it's the switcheroo between the two actual parties to the transaction during which the tariff is incurred, buyer and seller, to exporter, importer, and consumer.
For the purposes of the tariff transaction the American importer is the consumer. It doesn't matter what they do with it, they could resell it, burn it, eat it, whatever, doesn't matter.
|
On July 29 2025 02:15 KwarK wrote:
The suggestion is that the Americans paying the tariff could ask for a $5 rebate from the foreign exporter. Maybe they could. I don't see why they'd get one but whatever.
For the good of the supply chain and... because we're all in it together? A man's gotta eat you know.
But see Kwark, you didn't account for the fact that, in fact, the company's HQ is registered in a non-US country, so the actual tarrifs are paid by the corporate entity in whereverthefuck BECAUSE the US based operations are running entirely on lent money by the wealthy family holding it in their portfolio. Also shell companies, dark money and pools and foreign exchange swaps into reverse corporate bonds. When do I get my tinfoil hat in my Magic Box?
|
On July 29 2025 02:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 02:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2025 02:15 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer. That doesn't really follow. You've turned the American side of the transaction into two components and you're calling them separate but they're not. Let's set the cost at $100 for simplicity's sake. $15 is owed to Trump by the American company that bought it. That's why people always say "Americans are paying the tariffs". The suggestion is that the Americans paying the tariff could ask for a $5 rebate from the foreign exporter. Maybe they could. I don't see why they'd get one but whatever. But for the purposes of our argument, whether or not Americans are paying the tariff, there isn't a third party. The importing company is paying the tariff, consumers aren't involved. There's a separate question of how the American importing company's margins might be impacted by the tariff and how they will attempt to protect their margins but that doesn't make the final consumers a party to the transaction. If we call the consumers a third party in that transaction then there is no business transaction to which they're not a third party. And in any case they're both in the same category, Americans. They are claiming the company will pass $5 on to the consumer by increasing prices by $5, the company choses to earn $5 less per sale and they demand the supplier sells it to them at $95 instead of $100. It sounds like a nice even split on paper, but is actually completely pulled out of someone ass with no evidence. It's not that it's pulled out of thin air, it's the switcheroo between the two actual parties to the transaction during which the tariff is incurred, buyer and seller, to exporter, importer, and consumer. For the purposes of the tariff transaction the American importer is the consumer. It doesn't matter what they do with it, they could resell it, burn it, eat it, whatever, doesn't matter.
If you want to be pedantic shouldn’t the greater objection be to the phrasing that the tariff is a tax on the American consumer?
I think everyone can understand that the tariff is paid by the importer and it’s a transaction between two parties. The question is how the extra costs will be divided up between all parties in the supply chain.
|
On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer.
Thank you, I didn't think it was that hard to get because it's obviously a vast oversimplification but I don't think it's unfounded to say that in some of the cases with some of these goods this will happen, and the underlying conclusion that this is a much better deal for the US then EU seems pretty simple to me, but who knows, I do have issues understanding stuff apparently.
|
United States24741 Posts
On July 28 2025 21:37 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2025 19:12 micronesia wrote:
If I'm reading that right, all Trump did was decide what tax rate to apply to U.S. citizens on imported goods (from EU), with no action needed from the EU. It's kind of funny Trump had to "negotiate" that. No, he got the EU to not do the same thing.
For how long?
|
Kwark may be technically correct, but I do understand your point Jank.
It is technically true that the people who will be paying the tariffs are the importers. Period. The exporter doesn't have to change anything. The consumer does not pay the tariff directly either. The importer can set their prices however they want, including no raised prices.
However, reality is that the importer is going to raise prices on the consumer to make up some or all of the difference. If an importer prices their wares at a flat 20% markup on costs, rather than charging $120 for a $100 item, they may actually charge $138 on the new $115 cost. So they may pass on even more than 15% tariff on to the consumer.
Alternatively, the market may not bear that new price and maybe the importer can only get away with charging $125, reducing their profits from $20 per item down to $10, but keeping the consumer at only 4% inflation.
Finally, yes, the importer can put more pressure on the exporter to lower their price. So they get that item down to $95+ 15% = $109.25 total import cost (9.25% higher than initial, but less than the full amount of tariffs). The exporter takes a 5% hit and the consumer is still getting charged $125 and taking a 4% hit.
It all gets spread around and nobody gets killed. Still, 2% inflation is the target, so if we start seeing 4% inflation, the Fed will likely raise rates (while Trump is screaming at them to lower rates). If they raise rates, the stock market tanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
