There are many moving parts to this question including Congress, retaliations, and consumer impacts. 
Doubling tariffs on China won’t double revenue from tariffs. Instead, some imports from China would shift elsewhere.
Also collection is never 100 percent. And since goods are a tax on consumers, consumers will buy less if prices go up.
Finally, there is a negative impact on GDP due to trade frictions and retaliations.
The Tax Foundation discusses the above in Revenue Estimates of Trump’s Universal Baseline Tariffs
President-elect Donald Trump has proposed to implement a universal baseline tariff on imports when he takes office. We estimate a 10 percent universal tariff would raise $2 trillion and a 20 percent universal tariff would raise $3.3 trillion from 2025 through 2034, before factoring in how the taxes would shrink the US economy. In 2025, a 10 percent universal tariff would increase taxes on US households by $1,253 on average and a 20 percent universal tariff would increase taxes on US households by $2,045 on average.
To estimate how much revenue a universal tariff raises, we start with a baseline projection of goods imports over the next decade. Imposing a tax on imports would reduce purchases of foreign-produced goods, resulting in fewer imports. We apply an import elasticity of -1 to project how imports would fall in response to a 10 percent tariff and a 20 percent tariff. How much imports shrink thus varies with the applied tariff rate, implying that doubling the rate does not double the revenue.
From there, we multiply the import tax base by the inclusive tariff rate (the rate divided by one plus the rate) to estimate initial customs duty revenue raised under perfect compliance before making an adjustment to reflect an 85 percent compliance rate, which represents the average tax gap. After compliance adjustments, but before accounting for income and payroll tax offsets, we estimate a 10 percent universal tariff would generate $2.7 trillion of customs duty revenues and a 20 percent universal tariff would generate $4.5 trillion of customs duty revenues.
The total revenue raised will be less than the customs duty revenue generated by the tariff because tariffs reduce incomes, and thus reduce income and payroll tax collections. Accounting for income and payroll tax offsets, our conventional revenue estimate finds that the 10 percent tariff would generate $2 trillion of increased revenue, while the 20 percent tariff would generate $3.3 trillion over a decade.
Because both taxes would shrink the size of the US economy, the dynamic scores are smaller: $1.7 trillion for the 10 percent tariff and $2.8 trillion for the 20 percent tariff. If foreign countries retaliate, even partially, to the US-imposed tariffs, revenue will fall further as the economy shrinks even more. For example, we estimate a 10 percent tariff on all US exports would shrink tax revenues on a dynamic basis by more than $190 billion over 10 years.
Tax Foundation Revenue Estimates of 20 Percent Tariffs
If this sounds complicated, it’s because it is complicated. Moreover, the Tax Foundation did not go into the political realities of tariffs.
Authority to Change Tariff Rates
Trump is bluffing on at least some of his ideas because he lacks authority to do what he says and it would backfire if he went ahead anyway.
Please consider How CBO Projects Tariff Revenues
In 2023, the United States received $3.8 trillion of goods and services. The average U.S. tariff rate on goods is 3.4 percent, but rates vary by product.
Many products can be imported duty-free, whereas others are subject to rates of more than 50 percent. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), maintained by the U.S. International Trade Commission, specifies tariff rates for every product.
Who Has the Authority to Change Tariff Rates?
The Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce by
levying tariffs through legislation. Lawmakers have delegated authority to the executive branch by authorizing the Administration to engage in trade negotiations and implement trade restrictions in specified circumstances.The United States joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 and has entered into several international trade agreements. Generally, WTO members agree to impose nondiscriminatory tariffs and follow the most-favored-nation (MFN) rule. Under that rule, the tariff rate that the United States offers to one member must apply to all members. After joining the WTO, the United States reduced certain tariff rates as a result.
The MFN rule has exceptions. Countries can set tariff rates that apply only to specific WTO members to implement free trade agreements, offer favorable treatment for developing countries, or respond to certain trade practices. Both the Congress and the Administration have recently changed tariff rates in accordance with those exceptions.
Executive Actions and Tariff Rates
Assessing Trump’s Proposed 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada
Brookings does a great job Assessing Trump’s Proposed 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada
First, it is important to be clear about the costs of a 25% across-the-board tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada. Various studies have confirmed that the 25% tariff on imports from China initiated by the Trump administration and then expanded by the Biden administration created costs and reduced investment.
Second, the proposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada will be much more extensive than current tariffs on imports from China, and the impact will be more significant. Imports from Mexico and Canada are the United States’ first and third largest sources of imports respectively, worth over $900 billion in 2023, and over 17 million jobs rely on trade across North America, including over 4.5 million U.S. jobs. In addition, approximately 50% of U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico is driven by supply chains in sectors such as automobiles, medical equipment, energy, and agricultural products. This means that products cross borders multiple times as they are manufactured. The 25% tariff applied each time a product moves along supply chains will add up quickly and raise prices, rendering many of these supply chains economically unviable. This analysis does not take into account additional costs should Mexico or Canada retaliate.
The proposed tariffs are also likely inconsistent with the USMCA—the trade agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada that the Trump administration successfully negotiated. USMCA is up for review in 2026, and it is possible that these tariffs are part of a broader strategy to extract concessions from Mexico and Canada in the lead-up to the review. Yet, Trump’s willingness to ignore U.S. commitments under USMCA will hamper his administration’s ability to make progress on other key challenges. Threatening 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada has sent a signal globally that governments cannot rely on an agreement with Trump—even one that he negotiated.
In response, governments will focus on one-off deals to address specific U.S. concerns, while avoiding getting drawn into agreements that are based on longer-term cooperation. This will make it more difficult to address U.S. economic and security concerns with China, which will require building more political, challenging, complex, and longer-term cooperation with other countries in areas such as export controls, investment screening, and industrial subsidies.
Also consider the PIIE report No trade tax is free: Trump’s promised tariffs will hit large flows of electronics, machinery, autos, and chemicals
But president Trump has no legal authority to break the USMCA treaty with Canada and Mexico. That would take an act of Congress.
My baseline assumption is the Senate would not go along. Trump could conceivably act alone, but I highly doubt it. He is much more likely to wait until 2026.
For the above reasons, we need a more county-specific analysis.
US Goods Imports – Select Countries
US Imports – Goods Only – Excluding China, Mexico, Canada
US Goods Imports Breakdown
- Excluding China, Mexico, Canada: 1,879
- China: 430
- Mexico: 505
- Canada: 412
- Total: 3,226
I estimate of $3.226 trillion in imports for 2024 based off three quarters of data, then factored up. The prior-year numbers are as published. All are calendar-year totals.
For fiscal year 2025, the Tax Foundation estimates $3.279 trillion in imports. Thus, my numbers and those of the Tax Foundation closely match.
Political Realities
The political reality is Trump will not touch USMCA until 2026 or it will backfire spectacularly.
Looking further ahead, no one can say what the political realities might be in 2026.
Meanwhile, Trump has threatened 50 percent tariffs on China which is also unlikely but possible. However, if Trump did impose 50 percent tariffs on China, most imports from China would stop dead. So that portion of tariff revenue would likewise stop dead.
More realistically, Trump might go for 20 percent on China (up from the current 10) and 10 percent on the rest of the world excluding Mexico and Canada.
US Balance of Trade Select Countries Goods only 2024 Q4 Projection
The above chart shows balance of trade whereas the previous charts show only imports.
The US trade deficit with Vietnam is double that of Canada. The US trade deficit with Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are all greater than with Canada.
I did not chart Germany, but that trade deficit is about $64 billion, also larger than Canada.
Balance of Trade Leverage
Excluding Mexico and Canada, the above chart shows where Trump has the most leverage.
Those countries are China, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, and Germany.
Five Tariff Things You Need to Know
Please consider Is Trump right when he tweets that tariffs bring in government revenue? Here are 5 things you need to know.
The article is five years old but it’s timeless. Here are a few points.
Much of international trade today consists of parts and components. Tariffs thus harm the competitive position of U.S. companies that provide employment in the United States and rely on those inputs to make other things.
Based on his tweets, Trump thinks foreigners are paying for his tariffs by reducing their prices to stay in the U.S. market.
Yet, the evidence suggests the opposite. Thus far, American companies and consumers are suffering the costs of Trump’s tariffs, in the form of higher prices and reduced purchases.
And who stands to gain? The beneficiaries are a handful of steel, aluminum or other input-making companies that face less competition and can raise their prices — ultimately at the expense of American consumers.
Broad Brush Problems
It would make more sense to go after items of strategic consequences instead of things like clothes where we should be happy to have cheap imports.
Trump is not listening to me, but he cannot ignore political and economic realities.
Existing Tax Foundation Math
- Based on a 10 percent across the board tariff rate, the Tax Foundation estimated the 10-year average tariff collection would be $322 billion per year with 100 percent compliance.
- In practice, at 85 percent compliance collection would be $274 billion per year on average.
- Factoring in offsets and dynamic revenue, the Tax Foundation estimates actual revenue would be $172 billion per year on average.
Revised math
We need to remove Mexico and Canada from the equation.
That’s $917 billion (about 28 percent) of the total $3.226 trillion that is likely going nowhere, at least for a year.
Nor will Trump collect 20 percent on imports from China. Much of that trade would end up in Vietnam at 10 percent, or Mexico or Canada at roughly 0 Percent. The more Trump pressures China, the more that portion of the deficit goes elsewhere at a lower tariff rate.
The previous chart shows the balance of trade with China went from a deficit of $419 billion to $290 billion when Trump added 10 percent tariffs (that Biden kept intact). But the process isn’t linear. An even greater portion of trade would move elsewhere on a 20 percent tariff on China.
Based on the above revised math analysis, Trump might be able to get $225 billion per year on average in raw numbers (at 85 percent compliance) by executive decree. But the true budget impact would be $150 billion at best.
I say at best because there is a potential chance of trade repercussions that could collapse global trade with devastating consequences.
Beyond that, Trump would need help from Congress and such help is unlikely.
How Much Is a Bluff?
Other than USMCA (25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada is an obvious Trumpian bluff), it’s difficult to know what’s a bluff and what isn’t. But we do know Trump believes in tariffs and he thinks the US is getting ripped off.
We also know that Trump has proven that trade wars are neither good nor easy to win, but he is doubling down anyway.
Fortunately, political realities will likely contain much of the damage as long as Trump stops short of doing something that causes a total global trade breakdown.
What Could Cause a Global Breakdown?
The more Trump pressures China, the more likely a devastating global breakdown.
Rare earth exports from China explain how and why.
On November 11, I noted China’s Puts Export Curbs on Minerals US Needs for Weapons and Technology
In a warning shot to the Trump administration, China tightens export controls on some dual-use minerals.
On December 3, I noted China Halts Rare Exports Used by US Technology Companies and the Military
This is China’s advance salvo at Trump tariffs. It comes one day after the Biden administration expanded curbs on the sale of advanced American technology to China.
The US gets around those curbs by buying minerals from other countries that China does sell to. However, if pressured enough, China can easily restrict access to these minerals to everyone.
At present China produces 60 percent of the world’s rare earths but processes nearly 90 percent, which means that it is importing rare earths from other countries and processing them. This has given China a near monopoly. Benchmark Minerals Intelligence has flagged that the United States is particularly exposed to processing restrictions for heavy rare earths, given China separates 99.9 percent of them.
For example, China has been supplying 54 percent of the germanium used by the United States, a material used in infrared technology and fiber optics.
Related Posts
February 1, 2024: Help for the Heartland? Trump Tariffs Failed the Mission
Analysis by the NBER, the official arbiter of US recessions, shows Trump’s tariffs achieved nothing, economically speaking. Retaliations cost US jobs. But politically, tariffs are popular.
June 21, 2024: Trump’s Plan to Replace the Income Tax with Tariffs is Economic Nonsense
September 25: Trump Threatens John Deere With 200 Percent Tariffs, Farmers Would Be Hurt
Trump has gone mad with threats. Tariffs on John Deere would cost farmers plenty.
That was another obvious bluff, best laughed at.
Nov 22, 2024: Should Anyone Care Whether Underwear Is Produced in the US or China?
This ridiculous-looking question gets to the heart of tariff discussions.
November 27, 2024: What Industries Will Suffer the Most Under Trump’s Plan to “Make Tariff’s Great Again”?
Trump is upping the rhetoric on Mexico, Canada, and China on top of previous tariff threats. Who will be hardest hit?
On March 2, 2018 I posted Trump Tweets “Trade Wars are Good and Easy to Win”
If trade wars are good and easy to win, Why didn’t Trump win them then?
A complete shutoff of rare earths would be far worse to supply chains than what we experienced with Covid.
A global trade breakdown over rare earth minerals is a serious, yet underrated threat. And the more tariff pressure Trump applies, the more likely it is.
I think Trump will raise tariffs where he can, and there will be more tariff revenue for the government which will be offset with lower tax receipts because Americans will cut back. It won’t bring jobs back to America but it will raise prices and probably start a trade war resulting in harm to farmers and other sectors of the economy. The last time Trump tried this, he spent tens of billions of taxpayer dollars compensating farmers for the lost business in China. Under Trump, America will lose ground as we did during his first 4 years. When Trump’s term was finished, we lost about a million jobs that we had in 2016. Trump doesn’t care about average Americans. He doesn’t care about the future. He gave us the worst deficits in American history, but Biden gave us large deficits as well. Between the 2 of them, we got another $15 trillion in federal debt. A lot of Americans have thrown in the towel because we’ve got terrible governance in Congress and the Supreme Court. Trump enriched himself using his position as President. Ask yourself this, “What would Putin pay Trump to stop weapons transfer to Ukraine?” or “What would Putin pay to weaken America? I think Putin would pay billions. Keep in mind, we built modern China with American dollars hoping to get cheap coolie labor, so Congress created not only a competitor, but an actual enemy in the far east where none existed before. This happened because American corporations wanted that cheap labor to improve their bottom line. Congress and Presidents went along with it and we lost a lot of jobs and tax revenue.
Mish,
According to you, Trump might as well just give up before he enters office as he won’t be able to do anything in the area of immigration and trade.
I’m eager to see the the big picture. Sure, a tariff is not a magic bean planted in the garden. Nor are a bunch of tariffs a pail of magic beans. The threat, followed by an example, will make Trump’s “tariff weave” bullet points into negotiation chips.
Obviously I have no idea what Trump’s grand plan is. But I am quite certain it doesn’t involve watching how tariffs play out in a vacuum.
In short much less than he thinks. Trump thinks that the revenue from tariffs goes right into his pockets, because that much of a kindergarten knowledge he has of anything.
Meanwhile, we all know, that tariffs work like a US national sales tax. And like with any sales tax in any state, the imposition of the tax merely lowers the overall sales, at least in the short run. In the long run, Trump will be gone, and other countries will
slowly try to undo the damage he has done
If I wanted to start negotiations I would impose an across the board 10% tariff. Then negotiate either one country at a time or in groups where it makes sense. The USA is a net import country so we hold the best cards. Starting at 10% across the board frames the starting point and makes it easier for us to negotiate. Also any agreements would only be good for a limited time,10-15 years, this way we can go back and renegotiate regularly. The goal isn’t necessarily to tariff everyone, but to make sure we’re not complacent with our trade deals.
This seems to be aligned with what Trump is doing and since I’m an armchair economist with no formal training I can see why no one is on board with Trump’s plan. Its probably a terrible idea but I’m not educated enough to see it, but I’m smart enough to let the experts do what’s right.
One thing is a dead Cert: tariffs will offset the revenue lost by removing the taxes on Social Security and Tips. According to the Tax Foundation, it is estimated that Trump’s tariffs increased duties by $89 Billion per year. Taxes on Soc Sec have been about $51 Billion/year and tip revenue is estimated at $6.5 Billion in 2025. This would stimulate the economy due to the fact that government spending has a multiplier effect of less than one – actually 0.61 – which is negative, while private sector spending will generally average +2 to +3. As for price increases, the government deficit combined with the shenanigans orchestrated by the Fed dwarf the cost increase on imports. Last, for all of the fuming and fussing about Trump’s tariff talk, his main purpose is to get the attention of the foreign exporters and the governments that subsidize them to the deteriment of U.S. consumers.
The tariffs will get Trump nowhere, since he thinks the US is losing when it imports cheap inputs and is losing money in the amount of the trade deficit, and that tariffs redress these losses by making foreigners pay. You may as well fill your gas tank with water to get ahead. Forcing people to make second-best choices with very uneven impacts is exactly what is wrong with centralized plan economies.
If Trump is after more revenue, he would be better off with a Value-added Tax. Elasticity of imports varies widely; most affected are commodities, especially when there are no good substitutes. But existing supply chains are also disproportionally affected. Both will hurt business and consumer alike and break the cogs along which intermediate manufactures proceed. A VAT will also hurt, but distributes the pain in a more logical and less economically destructive manner.
Sorry, but a value added tax is a sales tax (masquerading as something). Put another away, any king in the European middle ages, who demanded customs duties, enriched himself, while the goods became more expensive for anyone else. Anyone who does not see that, does not understand much.
In the short run, Piracy enriches pirates, and not anyone else. In the long run, both we and the pirates are dead.
Let me throw something out that I just learned. I knew that Chinese cars were getting better. What I did not know is that Chinese electric cars being built today are judged as the most flawless cars ever built.
On top of that, Chinese engineering costs to fix problems are at 2%, yes 2% of the cost, of engineers in America. This allows China to innovate at a fraction of the cost.
I thought American car company CEOs would be arrogant on this issue. I was told they are scared to death. For now, these advantages are limited to the electric car market.
Given Elon Musk is Trump’s new buddy, and Tesla is so vulnerable to Chinese competitors, revenue might be the side show with regards to tariffs. In reality, they may be necessary to save a huge part of American manufacturing.
With the car producing Rust Belt deciding presidential elections for the foreseeable future, if Democrats keep at it with their net zero emissions and carbon is evil points of view, they will continue to be crushed politically.
For all the payouts the Bidens received by China, if one wonders what they got with their money, this would be one huge part of it, complete domination of the American car market if other states followed California’s no emissions policies, and tariffs were lifted.
Most people don’t want an electric car. For good reason
Most Americans don’t want an electric car. Most Chinese do, for obvious reasons. And they far outnumber Americans.
Yes. So what. We are talking about tariffs. China can do what they want with EVs. They already stole all the technology from Tesla as you knew they would. Why any country would make any deals with China is beyond me.
I don’t but considering Chinese EV costs, and quality many Americans may be attracted to buying this. Of course they will probably never be allowed to be imported.
Currently true, yes. But new car sales in 2024 were 9% EV which does not include all the hybrids sold as well. Only a few years ago, it was 0%. Let’s see what that will be in a few more years.
most people will be living in caves and burning EV’s cause they burn so hot and the rain doesn’t put them out.
You only found this out today? Then you never asked yourself the question why Musk is richer than the whole of Alabama.
Idk, but I’m not getting a BYD.
BYD is recalling 96,714 Dolphin and Yuan Plus vehicles in China starting September 30, for fire risk due to manufacturing process.
saying a vehicle is the finest electrical vehicle in the world is essentially damning with faint praise. A turd, despite furious polishing remains a turd.
Electric vehicles require, electric chargers, and a very large electric grid capacity. Our grid is close to maxed out, witness the california brown outs, etc.
EV’s require a separate and parallel infrastructure and tax system,recycling, fire protection, and safety and rescue gear for dealing with accidents, etc to name a few of the problems.
They are not “green”, they are not renewable and they scavenge real tax revenue by giving purchasers rebates etc.
Has Trump ever heard of the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930? Germany already has enough economic problems related to the Russia-Ukraine war (e.g. lost access to cheap Russian gas). It does not need more problems. Germany’s AfD party might be one of the biggest winners if Trump goes ahead with his tariff plan.
The Smoot Hawley boogie monster is a funny one. Tariffs were successfully used for the first hundred plus year of America and instituted by Hamilton himself to help American industry and backed by Washington…..but suddenly they caused a depression in the 30’s…..There were a myriad of reasons for the Depression. The roaring 20’s was roaring for a reason and just as fake as the bubbles we currently live under.
yes the Federal Reserve was probably the biggest cause of the depression, likely deliberately.
It’s hard to imagine how we would not win any trade war
Hey, Stupid: you win by paying more. How is that a WIN?
Change behaviors. Punish…..The Fed did a study of the tariffs in 2018. One off inflation, no long term inflation from them. Their own words. This seems to be left out of this whole discussion here, I don’t know why.
Robby, is that you?
How about a link to this ‘Fed study’ that lays out the merits of tariffs? If you don’t include a link for alternate evidence, maybe that’s why there is no such discussion?
Look at recent history idiot and stop hypothesizing like these false or wannabe economists.
“If trade wars are good and easy to win, Why didn’t Trump win them then?”
He did and will again.
Yup. Biden kept his tariffs on. The left hates to remember this.
Not a matter of left and right. Just a matter of gaining by being a robber-baron or not. Every robber-baron knows that.
You have to be nuts to believe Trump won trade wars.
Seriously WTF
Mike, we do not have any math wizards here. They are under-edumacated!
It’s not about being a math wizard. It’s about being a spider who says:
Welcome to my web, said the spider to the fly. The spider does not care whether the fly dies, nor does it care whether other spiders die.
The last time the US has seen anything like it was during 1860 to 1865, and the people who witnessed it are no more. So, todays peeps don’t know what hunger and thirst can do to humanity. In a way, todays greed is but a fear of hunger and thirst, manifesting as the “greed is good” understanding. Look beyond what you think you know.
How’s the Chinese economy doing post tariffs? Why? Why did Biden keep the tariffs on? No question China did not hold up their end of the bargain with regards to purchases of agriculture. They used Covid as the cover to do so after unleashing Covid on the world with their lab leak. This will not be forgotten.
Seems you can’t teach common sense.
Mish, the USMCA treaty is definitely going to be changed before 2026. It’s not going to be thrown out entirely but the car part of it is going to be overhauled very quickly. The part that going to change is the penalties for not complying with ‘made in the USMCA rules’ which are something like 2.5% of the cost of the vehicle. It’s WAY cheaper to not comply with the treaty (ie pay the 2.5% penalty) and simply import Chinese vehicles at a cheaper price and sell them. Expect that number to jump quickly to 10 or even 20%.
Also I have a question about how much tariffs would shrink the economy. Many of these articles seem to think the tariffs will shrink the US economy. But will they? I mean Trump isn’t planning to use the money raised to pay down the debt, but instead he simply wants to spend it elsewhere. So won’t that mean that the end effect be a net zero or even possibly increased GDP if he is able to leverage that increased government revenue into increased borrowing (ie more Gov’t debt) that increases GDP even if it’s not wisely spent (the real problem).
Better be careful. The cult here may crucify you for arguing there may occasionally be a good reason for deficit government spending.
“A global trade breakdown over rare earth minerals is a serious, yet underrated threat.”
Exactly why we can’t have China be our only source of such minerals. Btw, the only people underrating this threat have been the free trade zealots… perhaps up until now?
I have been discussing this for years – are you living in a cave?
This is why I want that debt ceiling gone.
My tech-weighted stocks are up 4% this morning. Key words (Wall St Journal): report indicates Trump administration is considering a watered-down tariff policy
My Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM) is in the money for the first time since I bought it this fall — by 8%. So this messaging might get Trump’s attention. Maybe the markets will wag the dog here.
He’s since denied these reports. WaPo reports so really you can’t believe any of it.
Factory orders numbers dreadful yet again. Economy is in dire straits.
Will Justin Trudeau out change anything with Canada -U.S.
Can only be positive. Trudeau made Biden look like Lincoln.
Yes, his conservative replacement plans to work closely with Trump especially in area’s like energy, car manufacturing, green initiatives (ie fewer).
Trump try to bully countries by imposing tariff. Its difficult to calculate
how much bring in as described above.
What is more important is – will countries impose tariff back
or retaliate like Honduras?
If so, US will lose its influence around the world and suffer politically,
militarily, economically, etc.
Its like a movie. Drama event is coming after 20th Jan.
You are worried about Honduras retaliating?
Thanks, I needed a laugh this morning!
How the H-1B System Undercuts Ahttps://www.compactmag.com/article/no-there-arent-good-h-1b-visas/merican Workers
Rob, you need to right click your link and paste it after leaving a space to create a hyperlink. You do this everytime.
Trump will unilaterally impose tariffs, crash the economy, blame it on radical, leftist democrats, and his now unemployed followers will double-down on Trump. Because that’s where we are as a country.
“Trump is literally Mao”
Figuratively.
If he is literally Mao, then China has already completed U.S. subjugation 😀
Oh, Donald dearest, give me some of that yummy tariff money!
This is meant as a joke, because tariffs only come into fruition if people buy and actually PAY FOR the higher tariff-swollen price. So, how’s that gonna work?
Trump’s folks are already walking back the tariff plan. That’s what’s caused the market to jump and the dollar to drop this morning.
I see plenty of room for Trump through his executive branch to undo treaty “obliqations” here. He has shown his willingness to shoe-horn things into unusual definitions to do so, such as declaring the extremely slow-motion problem of the border (a natural job of Congress to solve, but Congress abdicated that for decades) into the definition of an “emergency” in the wall-building diversion of funds. Trump is transactional, and relationships are discardable. Unlike most of us in business, he has been able to shed them like old skin and still bounce back with new customers. But as with W’s War on Terror, our name is on whatever is done.
Yes, maybe he’s right. I’m just sayin’ ….
The essence of Trump’s policy boils down, not to its substance and workability, but to his sales pitch to the voters. It must be clear as can appear on a bumper sticker. To be popular, the pitch was radically simplistic, as modern sales pitches are, as certainly his always are. We must ignore vast swaths of history and practical reality to buy in, but that is what lazy minds happily do, as a rule, to stop fretting, and hand over the hard work of adult thinking to a Great Leader. Maybe he IS that visionary leader, as some claim him to be, and he can sell this pitch more widely (in the actual global economy), but there are plenty of elements of a gamble here. We are all at the table. It requires a lot of faith. (I’m not saying the other team wasn’t drifting toward lots of folly as well.) If this doesn’t work out (as happened with the “Global War on Terror” schtick from W’s big sales pitch comprehensively didn’t work out), I expect all these cheerleaders will not admit their error for a very long time, if ever. Some voices are already saying the tariffs will be narrower, which circles back to questioning how the tax cuts will be paid for. There are a lot of interconnected fantasies or hopes here. My practical response has been to stockpile stuff and be ready to spend as little as possible this coming year, to hoard cash for the inflated prices of essentials, that I expect.
Biden ( or rather his keepers) didn’t have authority to forgive student loans, and yet here we are. Here’s an idea: Liquidate asset gains, buy storage space, and cram it with stuff you’ll need for the future. It’s called long term savings.
EV owners should jump on this, and buy 1 or 2 batteries as back-up to the one it came with. My thinking is that they will be obsolete at some point perhaps, or cost 5x as much (once they are mandatory of course), and you’re screwed.
I have no idea, if they can last for years unused, but that’s a definite option if they do I would think. You know people are going to be abandoning there vehicles when this does occur and it will of course, because we rely on “Other Countries” (see UK or Germany) for the parts and products. Who can afford to keep a car that requires a battery that’s way, way overpriced OR simply no longer available? I certainly won’t!!
Old X-ers are grabbing Grandad’s Mercury Grand Marquis.
Don’t know how much revenue but I’m wondering how many H1B visas will Trump approve? 100k, 1 million, 10 million? Asking for a wage slave owner friend..
Did you take PPP loans also?
As the lone person here that rails against social security, medicare and other government socialism, you should already know the answer to that, try as hard as you can to stop being a troll.
You can’t be the lone person when I want it all cut…H1B another form of government socialism at the expense of the American worker. So there’s that
“H1B another form of government socialism at the expense of the American worker.”
Immigrants are what made this country from the very beginning, it’s designed that way and always will be. The old must be replaced by the young and since the people in this country made a choice to not reproduce fast enough, they get replaced. It’s that simple, no socialism involved.
As a praying man you should remember…..”be fruitful and multiply, you reap what you sow, and the meek shall inherit the earth.”
You cannot change things now, it’s biologically impossible. The choice for the pool of women for mass reproduction come from Africa, India or the Middle East. Choose wisely.
We have better demographics than other developed countries. I’m for reforming H1B, not getting rid of it. At least we know who is coming in with it, as opposed to illegals.
Set up a dating service between Japanese men and Ukrainian women?
Jack Spratt could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean.
The number of H1Bs is really a drop in the bucket of the overall labor force in America.
I doubt it’s suppressing wages much at all (there are always plenty of fresh graduate students who can be paid low wages until they get some experience and you can rinse/repeat that forever) and given the state of the education system in America it’s not surprising that so many technical people need to be imported.
Mish, do you have any comment on Steve Keen’s appeal to Elon Musk about the folly of eliminating the government deficit…?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSmDwbrL3zI
Is someone being obtuse on purpose? Threats of tariffs are just bargaining chips. No serious person wants tariffs..not Trump, Zi, Putin or lesser actors in the drama. Negotiations will be made and win win solutions will result. Only the previous
Democratic nitwits would actually enact tariffs and they have lost all credibility and power..
If that’s what other nations believe, there will be tariffs. Maybe less than the original threats, but if other countries believe as you do that they are just negotiating tools and nothing more, they’ll FAFO.
I shot the tariff, I didn’t shoot the dead duties!
As an economist, I welcome Trump’s willingness to use the U.S. consumer as a Guinea pig for testing the long-established incidence of universal tariffs. As a U.S. consumer, I think that Trump is a complete moron.
Tariffs of course keep some goods out that were never made or available in a country in the first place. I am sure you can find examples for that!
Let’s wait and see.
According to WaPo:
CCP China has leveraged artificial cost of capital for 30 years, US biz has leveraged the accompanying labor arbitrage over the same time period. Oligarchs have sprouted like mushrooms, US manufacturing has been sitting in time out. The so called economic arguments against tariffs are non contextual and hence verge on what Shakespeare called sound and fury, signifying nothing.
…and Trump’s tariffs are clearly stated as a bargaining tool. Free trade w/o tariffs from either side is what he seeks. The US has had a no-tariff policy for decades and suffered with huge tariffs in nearly every market it sends goods to.
Ok, then do you have example for those goods and tariffs? Just wondering. For example, how many Ford, GM, Chrysler cars are sold in Europe, Japan, Middle East, Australia, Russia, China. And is that because of relative price, quality or other factors?
Exactly!